Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

prejudged_Fire · Sep 11, 2007, 03:27 pm

...the chicken or the egg? I say the chicken, because the egg can't hatch if there is no one to sit on it and keep it warm.

treme · Sep 11, 2007, 04:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: prejudged_Fire

...the chicken or the egg? I say the chicken, because the egg can't hatch if there is no one to sit on it and keep it warm.

That's easy, the egg evolved before the chicken did :)

Next

prejudged_Fire · Sep 11, 2007, 04:43 pm

so you're saying the egg came first?

Milton Bradley · Sep 11, 2007, 04:59 pm

Chicken, and Egg Debate Unscambled

treme · Sep 11, 2007, 05:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: prejudged_Fire

so you're saying the egg came first?

Yes the egg.

prejudged_Fire · Sep 11, 2007, 05:05 pm

but how would the egg ever hatch if there was no chicken to sit on it?

The Bacon Guy · Sep 11, 2007, 06:00 pm

Something with DNA slightly different from that of a chicken would sit on it.

Milton Bradley · Sep 11, 2007, 07:21 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The Bacon Guy

Something with DNA slightly different from that of a chicken would sit on it.

Aw, sit on it Potsie! ( Ancient Happy Days reference )

rez · Sep 12, 2007, 12:18 am

I don't understand the question....

Kuldeep · Sep 12, 2007, 05:17 am

Question is simple but, answer is difficult. It is not question of hatching the first egg but laying of that first egg without a hen is not possible. Hatching could be even with external artificial heating, sun for example. Then, if we say hen came first, the question remains from which egg that first hen got hatched !!!!

prejudged_Fire · Sep 12, 2007, 07:18 am

Quote:

Hatching could be even with external artificial heating, sun for example.

I dont think so. If the sun could keep it warm enough without a hen, then why do hens sit on them?

Quote:

Then, if we say hen came first, the question remains from which egg that first hen got hatched !!!!

That's the same as asking where humans came from, which depends on your personal beliefs. Evolution, creation etc. The question is not how they came into the world, just simply which one came first? Or perhaps they "came" at the same time?

ZNFYRH · Sep 12, 2007, 08:13 am

Really the root of the question is where did the mutation occur?

Did a proto-chicken lay a mutant egg, what we know as eggs, which hatched the first chicken?

Or did a proto-chicken lay a proto-egg and it hatched a mutant chicken?

Praxius · Sep 12, 2007, 09:02 am

If you follow evolution, then the egg came first.

Most would agree that it's not very common for creatures on this planet to mutate or evolve half-way through their lives, as at birth, your DNA is written and structured at that point in time, which for a chicken, would be in the egg.

Therefore there could have been a previous branch-species of the chicken which could have had a mutated gene in their DNA, which would not have been activated until the next set of offspring.... in theory.

I mean, think about it..... it wasn't a duck for 3 years and then woke up the next day and turned into a Chicken and hence, Chickens began to exist from that day on.

ZNFYRH · Sep 12, 2007, 09:32 am

Interesting.

The actual answer, now that I think about it, is the chicken.

It has to be the chicken.

The egg isn't really anything other than a shell around the modern chicken.

It would be like saying, "What came first? The uterus or the human."

The answer is the chicken.

Praxius · Sep 12, 2007, 12:48 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ZNFYRH

Interesting.

The actual answer, now that I think about it, is the chicken.

It has to be the chicken.

The egg isn't really anything other than a shell around the modern chicken.

It would be like saying, "What came first? The uterus or the human."

The answer is the chicken.

But with that logic, the egg that contains the chicken began to exist prior to the chicken actually forming in the egg, therefore the egg would still have existed before the chicken.

And it would be like saying the Uterus came before the Human, lol.

ZNFYRH · Sep 12, 2007, 12:58 pm

Then the answer is still the chicken.

The chicken is the result of combined male and female genetic material.

The egg represents only the female material. That means the egg, no matter how different, could only be half of what we know as the chicken.

The combined DNA resulting in the chicken came before the egg that carried the DNA for the modern chicken.

Thus, still in first, the chicken.

rez · Sep 12, 2007, 01:24 pm

This question is baseless and misinformed.

nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons came before the chicken and the egg and probably a lot more lifeless shit too. Then came cells and the rest is history. Organisms slowly evolved and started to reproduce all sorts of different ways.

Praxius · Sep 12, 2007, 02:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ZNFYRH

Then the answer is still the chicken.

The chicken is the result of combined male and female genetic material.

The egg represents only the female material. That means the egg, no matter how different, could only be half of what we know as the chicken.

The combined DNA resulting in the chicken came before the egg that carried the DNA for the modern chicken.

Thus, still in first, the chicken.

AH, but once again, with that logic.... that half of the DNA is still not a chicken, but just 50% of the code in which makes up the Chicken, therefore not truly being a chicken, until both combinations of DNA form together to make a genetic identification.

Kinda like if you take a German Sheppard and a Huski. Mate a German Sheppard with other German Sheppards, and you get more German Sheppards and vice versa with the Huskis.... but if you mate one German Sheppard with one Huski, you no longer have a Huski or a Sheppard.

Therefore, there is a possibility that neither parent of the chicken in question was actually a chicken to begin with or even could be proven to be of the same species. and that the combination of two different yet similar species could have mutated the DNA to actually create the chicken within the egg.

So logically, there is the possibility that an evolutional mutation into a chicken may not have occured until the combination of the two strands of DNA during reproduction, and as we know about species who lay eggs, the egg comes first, then is fetilized by the male, which then finalizes the genetic code for creating what will be in the egg.

The egg still comes first

Praxius · Sep 12, 2007, 02:45 pm

Quote:

Quote by: rez

This question is baseless and misinformed.

nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons came before the chicken and the egg and probably a lot more lifeless shit too. Then came cells and the rest is history. Organisms slowly evolved and started to reproduce all sorts of different ways.

That's all fine and fancy.... but that's not the topic now is it?

Nobody is asking how organisms evolved or were created.... most of us already have our theories.

So how about we connect you to the debate? With your above understanding..... which came first? The Chicken.... or the Egg?

If you have no answer or just don't want to answer and think it's silly, then wtf are you doing in this thread to begin with?

ZNFYRH · Sep 12, 2007, 02:55 pm

Praxius

I see the difference, here.

You're saying that when the proto-chicken lays the egg, the egg already represented the modern chicken, so the egg is first.

I'm saying that the egg is only 1/2 the DNA. So the egg isn't the DNA of the chicken, but the proto-chicken, and the resulting fertilized egg is the chicken, which is first.

I guess it depends really on if you want to ask if you consider the egg as 1/2 the DNA or as the container for the whole thing.

I consider it 1/2, since a chicken can lay an unfertilized egg.

Sep 11, 2007, 03:27 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
prejudged_Fire Wake up, Mr. Freeman Location: Auburn, Maine Posts: 446	Which came first... ...the chicken or the egg? I say the chicken, because the egg can't hatch if there is no one to sit on it and keep it warm. "Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll -- Take out the drugs and you have more time for the other two." -- Steven Tyler

Sep 11, 2007, 04:43 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
prejudged_Fire Wake up, Mr. Freeman Location: Auburn, Maine Posts: 446	so you're saying the egg came first? "Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll -- Take out the drugs and you have more time for the other two." -- Steven Tyler

Sep 11, 2007, 05:05 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
prejudged_Fire Wake up, Mr. Freeman Location: Auburn, Maine Posts: 446	but how would the egg ever hatch if there was no chicken to sit on it? "Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll -- Take out the drugs and you have more time for the other two." -- Steven Tyler

Sep 11, 2007, 06:00 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
The Bacon Guy Ragnar Danneskjöld Location: Scotland, Central Lowlands Posts: 2,865	Something with DNA slightly different from that of a chicken would sit on it. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.

Sep 12, 2007, 12:18 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
rez technê Posts: 2,393	I don't understand the question.... I'm the thought that never crossed my mind.

Sep 11, 2007, 04:59 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	Chicken, and Egg Debate Unscambled

Sep 12, 2007, 05:17 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Kuldeep Kuldeep Location: Bhopa, M.P, India Posts: 1,641	Question is simple but, answer is difficult. It is not question of hatching the first egg but laying of that first egg without a hen is not possible. Hatching could be even with external artificial heating, sun for example. Then, if we say hen came first, the question remains from which egg that first hen got hatched !!!!

Sep 12, 2007, 08:13 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	Really the root of the question is where did the mutation occur? Did a proto-chicken lay a mutant egg, what we know as eggs, which hatched the first chicken? Or did a proto-chicken lay a proto-egg and it hatched a mutant chicken? IT'S A BOY!!

Sep 12, 2007, 09:02 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Praxius Mass'Debator Posts: 4,723	If you follow evolution, then the egg came first. Most would agree that it's not very common for creatures on this planet to mutate or evolve half-way through their lives, as at birth, your DNA is written and structured at that point in time, which for a chicken, would be in the egg. Therefore there could have been a previous branch-species of the chicken which could have had a mutated gene in their DNA, which would not have been activated until the next set of offspring.... in theory. I mean, think about it..... it wasn't a duck for 3 years and then woke up the next day and turned into a Chicken and hence, Chickens began to exist from that day on.

Sep 12, 2007, 09:32 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	Interesting. The actual answer, now that I think about it, is the chicken. It has to be the chicken. The egg isn't really anything other than a shell around the modern chicken. It would be like saying, "What came first? The uterus or the human." The answer is the chicken. IT'S A BOY!!

Sep 12, 2007, 12:58 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	Then the answer is still the chicken. The chicken is the result of combined male and female genetic material. The egg represents only the female material. That means the egg, no matter how different, could only be half of what we know as the chicken. The combined DNA resulting in the chicken came before the egg that carried the DNA for the modern chicken. Thus, still in first, the chicken. IT'S A BOY!!

Sep 12, 2007, 01:24 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
rez technê Posts: 2,393	This question is baseless and misinformed. nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons came before the chicken and the egg and probably a lot more lifeless shit too. Then came cells and the rest is history. Organisms slowly evolved and started to reproduce all sorts of different ways. I'm the thought that never crossed my mind.

Sep 12, 2007, 02:55 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
ZNFYRH Volcanic Erupter Posts: 4,375	Praxius I see the difference, here. You're saying that when the proto-chicken lays the egg, the egg already represented the modern chicken, so the egg is first. I'm saying that the egg is only 1/2 the DNA. So the egg isn't the DNA of the chicken, but the proto-chicken, and the resulting fertilized egg is the chicken, which is first. I guess it depends really on if you want to ask if you consider the egg as 1/2 the DNA or as the container for the whole thing. I consider it 1/2, since a chicken can lay an unfertilized egg. IT'S A BOY!!