Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Chicken or the egg, which came first?

0 helpful
58 replies

by oz_media 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

While some people consider such a question an impossible excercise in futility, as nobody can actually go back in time and prove which came first. I have seen some interesting supporting arguments for both theories.

Obvisouly, know matter which side you choose, the reply can only be simplistic and not factual.

Some feel it is impossible to have a chicken before the egg has gestated and created a chicken. Others feel an egg couldn't possibly be laid without the chicken to begin with.

What's interesting is that I see both views coming from religious people, not all heavy bible thumpers but just people who believe in God and God's creations.

Example, one peer here will state the egg came first for simple, quite logical reasons, that person may also believe in God or similar religious beliefs.

Another peer who has shown to be quit agnostic or border line athiest, seems to feel it would be impossible to have an egg without the chicken first, obviously acceting the theory of creation and not evolution.

I am not referring to anyone specifically that has participated in the recent Chicken vs Egg segue, but it has come up more than once here.

This question (chicken or egg, which came first) has been asked several times on TR, usually as a jest or example to support another point but often segues.

So if it's true the egg came first, then did God simply create an egg and not the chicken itself?
If so, was man/woman created from two adult human beings or a fetus?

In religion, it seems adults came before babies (correct me if I am wrong, I don't really follow any chosen religion deeply enough to know if there is some exception or explanation otherwise).

If the Chicken came first, is it undeniable proof that we are a result of creation and not evolution?

58 replies

by jdmercha

Creation: God created the animals. Not the eggs, not the embryos, but the animals. Thus the chicken came first.

Evolution: If the very first chicken evolved from another species, and we assume that the other species laid eggs. Then the first chicken was hatched from an egg that was not a chicken egg. Thus the chicken came first.

by daveo2000

I'm not sure about your evolution answer. Is the type of egg named after what laid it or what it contains? If a not-quite-chicken laid the egg which resulted in a mutant that was a chicken would you call it a not-quite-chicken egg because of what laid it or is it a chicken egg because it contains a chicken?

Personally I would call it based on what is in it so for me the egg containing the chicken is a chicken egg so I have to symantically disagree with your answer for evolution and say that the egg (containing the chicken) came first.

This all, of course, assumes that the person who asked the question in the first place really meant "Which came into existance first, the chicken or an egg containing a chicken?"

What if they were really asking about a foot race? The egg clearly wouldn't stand a chance.

by jedtimmer

I'm going to save all these comments for a good read and laugh later. Don't have much time to think on this at moment so my answer is going to be conjecture (otherwise, it'd be correct! ahem).

The answer is conditional. But as always, for the clearest and best answer, go to Microsoft Support.
They have all the smartest people and programmers and I wouldn't doubt it if they created the egg before anything or anyone else! It used to be the Russians in this enviable position but not any longer.

But, to get serious...

If you believe in a creator, the question is either academic or just doesn't arise.

If you don't, it's obviously the chicken - because that's its job description - unless some of you folks out there can lay eggs.

Remember, you've got to be able to walk b4 u can run - and you've got to (most people anyway) click the remote before u can turn on the TV.

J. :)

by w2ktechman

Could have been laid by a creature somewhat resembling a chicken, but note really a chicken. The egg could have had some issue and then the content was deformed/mutated, the result being the chicken.
The original parent species, over time may have died off, or mutated into something a lot different. The hatchling egg could have been a successful life form, and was able to breed better, creating more chickens.

So, the Egg came first in this theory. BUT, the animal that laid the egg actually was the first.

Take into account that according to many, all life came from a single celled organism which mutated to form larger structures. Over many millions of years, a larger being was able to create eggs, instead of just mutating cells. Now, we have eggs. So, the animal had to come before the egg, but alternately, the chicken was created from a mutation inside an egg.

Something to ponder a bit

by Member 25348569

Sorry to hijack your thread, Oz but I find that one much more interesting. There are actually Christian sects with differing ideas on the subject. Also, does God have a navel?

The chicken/egg one is easy depending on whether you are a creationist - chickens made fully formed by God - or Evolutionist - egg from which first real chicken hatched laid by very, very nearly but just not quite chicken.

Logic on a Friday? What are you doing?

:D

by protiusx

What a not quite chicken tasted like? I like legs and thighs. MMmmmmm - Chicken.

by Member 25348569

because He is omnipotents.

Hmmmm. Then that means that there's NOTHING that He can't eat.

But if He can't microwave a burrito too hot for even Him to eat then He is not omnipotent else He would be able to eat it.

Nooooo! My faith destroyed by Mexican food...

:_| :_| :_|

by w2ktechman

are you talking about a chicken burrito or an egg burrito???

An egg Burrito, yes
a chicken burrito, no

by oz_media

While on the subject of God's belly button. God created man and woman without actually birthing them or having normal sexual relations in order to create them himself.

Based on your navel concept, did he have a blokes bits and bobs?

If obviously not, then th argument of whether God was a man or a woman is also answered. He would be neither, I don't even know if that would qualify as hermaphrodite or asexuality. "Creationist" all of a sudden creates a new gender.

Have a good weekend, :p

by tig2

The only way I can answer is through the bias of my faith. I can say with certainty that my answer is biased and therefore should only be considered such.

Creation tells us that God created all things- birds of the air, beasts of the land, fish of the water. And finally man. Later, He decided to create woman. So far, so good. And the answer is evident. God created all [b]living[/b] things. An egg may become a living thing... or breakfast. Therefore, God created a chicken. It is just doubtful to me that God- following the same story line- created Adam and told him to name all of the creatures, then took Adam to a series of nests and said, "Okay, name these creatures too". Let's face it- the namer of the duck-billed platypus had to have been LOOKING at the creature at the time. No where in faith does it suggest that Adam was psychic.

I believe in social evolution- it is truly the only way to explain how we got the the mores of today from the mores of yesterday.

by faradhi

which ever answer you like best.

Personally I think the answer is 3 but what do I know. :D

by protiusx

Everyone knows that neither came first. They both descended from Monkeys. Or was it from amebas?

by Member 25348569

how you doing, Big P?

I'm having a rest from angst-ridden posts for the weekend and sticking to trivia, like religion. :p

Come Monday, the Israelis will still be...

Hezbollah will still be...

Neil :D

by protiusx

I am doing well and how about you? Did you have a restful weekend? Your absolutely correct - no matter the shouted warnings of we madmen the world continues to careen into madness.

by dmambo

A friend of mine uses my favorite cliche blend when he is asked a question with an obvious answer.

He'll say "Does the Pope sh!t in the woods?"

Gets me every time!! :D

by tig2

Your new avatar is a photo of your TR coffee cup.

I am sure that I am echoing the setiments of many TR members when I say...

YOU SUCK!!!!!!

Nothing personal... GG- Don't start the glow- he has already been properly chastised....

by dmambo

But when I tried to post a shot of ALL THREE OF MY TR MUGS stacked in a pyramid, the avatar resolution just wasn't good enough to bring out all the glorious detail.

Hmmmmm........Taht's goooooood coffee!!!!! :D

by mjwx

This question (being biased on the side of science) has made me think of how unimportant this question is in the scale of the universe. If the chicken egg evolved from a similar "not quiet chicken" chicken like creature, then that creature had to evolve from a not quiet not quiet chicken like chicken like creature and so on and so forth until we get to the original conception of life itself which for us Darwinians we assume to be an amoeba.

But once again it doesn?t start here, Darwin explains that life will evolve where ever its requirements are met (water, heat, food source) so it begins at the tera-formation and further back to the actual formation of a planet. But wait there?s more, the planet which would eventually support the chicken and is similar ascendants (!= decedents?) was created in our ever expanding galaxy.

In our ever expanding galaxy according to the M-theory that there exists 10 space-time dimensions including X,Y,Z and time which is expanding on 10 levels and not just the four we can perceive. Also there is the Alternate Dimension theory which says our infinite and ever expanding universe exists in a meta-universe of other infinite and ever expanding universes which are constantly being created with each choice that is made (I.E. in an alternate universe I would have used "decision" rather than "choice"). All these alternate dimensions expanding on all 10 dimensions within each alternate dimension.

If you have followed me to this point there is no reason to believe that it ends at the meta-universe level and that there is not an infinite and ever expanding uber-meta-universe containing all the meta-universes with meta-universe - uber-meta-universe thing continuing on to infinity.

This of course inexplicably leads us back to Adams. "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.". Add to this the infinite alternate dimensions and infinite number of meta-universes and that trip to the chemist just got a whole lot shorter, perhaps even infinitely shorter.

Just to surmise

You < Space-time/dimensions < universe < Metaverse < Uber-Metaverse*infinity.

So in theory, I have started a tangent of infinite size, with infinite possibilities in infinite dimensions.

Still thinking about the chicken? Well, I have two solutions.
One the chicken and egg are both identical and symbiotic sub species of an extinct parent species I call the Chegg (one day paleontologists will find my Chegg and I will be vindicated).
Two, the chicken exists on a separate dimension to us and was able by accident or design to send or lose several eggs through some kind of dimensional fatigue. If this is so we may well be eating a superior life form (so long and thanks for all the fish (think tuna AKA can-o-dolphin)) but for some people I know this can be said for everything they eat.

by Member 25348569

because that's what I do. :D

OK, I now have a choice: metaphysics or fishing?

The sun is shining, 23C going to 27C, light breeze, 9:30 Saturday morning, tide turns at 2pm, ummm, ummm

by mjwx

There is a dimention where you went fishing and one where you pondered metaphysics. There would also did both and a dimention where you exist as a chicken and or egg.

Coicidentally that?s pretty much the same weather were having in Perth more wind chill though bringnig the day to about a pleasant 22C, its cooler now at 5PM but not yet nesesatating a jacket.

Anyway I'm off to the shop which doesnt seem so far away anymore.

by stress junkie

First, M Theory has 11 dimensions. It was invented by Edward Witten so look him up on a search engine. The 10 dimensions that you are thinking of were attributed to all of the 5 String Theories that Ed Witten combined into M Theory by adding the 11th dimension.

IMO, the idea that particles take on all possible states of existence, one state per universe, does not apply to large things. So, while there may be different universes for each particle state for each particle in the Universe that does not mean that there is a universe for each decision made by each person, animal, or whatever. So you do not spawn another universe every time you make a decision.

There is no reason to believe that all 11 dimensions of reality are expanding. We only know that the 3 spacial dimensions that we experience are expanding. Brian Green suggests that all of Time exists concurrently. Past, present, and future all exist. That, of course, suggests that time travel, other than our standard rate and direction, is possible.

Finally, your Chegg is spelled "REPTILE". Reptiles preceded birds and reptiles lay eggs. I'm surprised that Oz didn't know that. It settles the question.

Otherwise your resolution to the "chicken or egg" question is brilliant. :-)

But in the spirit of Douglas Adams my advise to you is don't panic. Quantum physics isn't for everyone. :-(

by protiusx

I wonder what that would have tasted like?

Mmmmmm, "not quiet chicken" chicken like creature.

by unellen

The egg came first. Chickens were bred by man, not God, from that chicken like creature running around out in the woods where somebody came across their eggs and instead of eating them, chose to take them home and keep them warm.
It doesn't take God (or even the faith to believe in The Great Being--god was without form like the void, and doesn't need to eat burritos) to worry about chickens and eggs. Chickens were bred, therefore made, by eggs.
And if you believe in evolution, everybody knows that eggs were around a looong time before chickens.

by zookeeperz9

A convention of scholars from Wurst,
Was wondering which came first;
The chicken or the egg,
But to differ I beg,
I believe the rooster came first.

by Member 25348569

But what if God [b]wanted[/b] a Burrito?

Apparently - according to the religious sorts - I am made in God's image and I am neither "without form like the void" [b]and[/b] I like Mexican food. Therefore, extrapolating backward with God being a bit like me, God likes Mexican food.

To truly address God's omnipotence in [b]my[/b] image, though, we would have to ask if God could make a chicken phal that was too hot for Him to eat as I do prefer curry. I He could then I'd really like some of the chillis that He used!

The problem with God is that He (or he) rarely stands up to logic.

I make you right about the chicken/egg thing though, even taking into account that the "egg" is implicitly a chicken egg.

Theological discussion on a Sunday? Whatever next? I'm going fishing.

:D

by unellen

The trouble with perfection is that you can have whatever you want, whenever you want. There being no limits to perfection, there are no limits period. If God wants the burrito, it would never be to hot for God because (s)he could make it anyway s(he) wants it. And because we are God's creatures(sic), then even if it's too hot for us, it is apparently not too hot for God --yes, yes, I doubt there's even a little devil in it, because the burrito is sooo good even when it's too hot for us.

by fishychan

"where somebody came across their eggs and instead of eating them, chose to take them home and keep them warm"

Technically, it's not quite possible to get a chicken out of an unfertilised egg, isn't it? You can try keeping an unfertilised egg warm, but I seriously doubt that anything would hatch from it.

Let's say it is fertilised... Then something must have laid it, right? Wouldn't that lead us back to the chicken?

by fishychan

"where somebody came across their eggs and instead of eating them, chose to take them home and keep them warm"

Technically, it's not quite possible to get a chicken out of an unfertilised egg, isn't it? You can try keeping an unfertilised egg warm, but I seriously doubt that anything would hatch from it.

Let's say it is fertilised... Then something must have laid it, right? Wouldn't that lead us back to the chicken?

by unellen

so what difference would it matter what laid it?
That would make it the end of the line, neither egg nor chicken.

by oz_media

If he can eat anything, he wouldn't gain weight. Those pictures of a chubby God (very Santa Claus like) are all a sham. ANOTHER question answered! What a fantastic discussion, all these answers to life's mysteries.

by maxwell edison

.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=198308&messageID=2066108

Edited to add the following:

And I'm in good company as well.

[i]"I think the egg came first. A chicken is not defined by the type of egg it lays. (A horse is a horse even if it gives birth to a mule.) But an egg is defined by the kind of creature it contains. (An egg that contains a robin is a 'robin' egg, no matter what laid it.) Therefore, if you believe in evolution, at some point a creature which was almost a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken, and as an egg is defined by the kind of creature it contains, the egg came first."

-- Marilyn vos Savant in her book, Ask Marilyn[/i]

I love it when smart people agree with me. (And I also love it when stupid people disagree!)

by Member 25348569

Given that in the lives of nearly everyone, the creature that hatched from the egg and the creature that laid it are [b]always[/b] the same, it really is a purely philosophical point for all but the very few.

Still, let's go for it. I'll take on Maxwell [b]and[/b] someone with a 200+ IQ!

Every time that I have ever examined an egg, I have always defined it by the type of creature that laid it. Why? Chickens' eggs, especially so as the majority of these will not develop into a chicken, merely an omelette. An unfertilised chicken's egg is still an egg and still laid by a chicken despite the fact that it will not and can not give rise to another chicken

The posession of a high IQ and a rather pretentious name doesn't make her right all the time you know.

I love it even more when smart people are wrong.

by maxwell edison

....a rather pretentious attitude.

And who ever said that she's right all the time? I certainly didn't, nor would I think she would say such a thing?

I just pointed out that a rather smart person agreed with me. Moreover, in my world, I said it first, and I even used the same example of a mule. I stumbled upon her "agreement" only after I formed my own conclusion. (I should have copyrighted the answer!)

by feather_duster_

there were other creatures before the chicken that layed eggs and came from eggs so yeah.. the egg came first

by luv2flutterby78

It's a two-sided answer I have to give here. In all reality, the egg is defined initially by where it came from, it's producer.
If a chicken produced the egg, by all means, it is a chicken egg until whatever is inside it, comes out. The "intial" egg that produced our so-called chicken could have been "something not quite chicken" egg initially but what was inside it became the chicken we know today.
Does that answer the question? No! I just don't think the egg is defineable as the definer of what comes out. The egg changed ownership and it's definition between being laid by something and what it contained.
Hahaha... Ok... who would have thought after reading TechRepublic for so long, this, THIS is what I would choose to reply to.
One small point I have to note for all of your amusement...
A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette, with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and says, "Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question."
Nyahahaha gotta love that.
And hey, does a chicken even KNOW it's a chicken...
Pointless, fruitless discussions that I love so much! Thank you TechRepublic!

by protiusx

I had to think about that one for a minute. Now I am going to send it as spam to everyone who hates getting mail from me!

by Member 25348569

It's eggscruciating having to apologise but I have just spotted that I have promoted an eggsactly contradictory argument further up the thread and, on mature refleggsion, although maybe I need my head eggsamined, I have to agree with you and Miss Egghead's eggscellent argument. It's left me shell-shocked!

Max, I know it's eggstreme, possibly fowl play, but you can tell me to p:ss oeuf if you want.

by maxwell edison

....our brains get scrambled. But I certainly wouldn't call you a bad-egg or think you've cracked, or anything like that.

But this is good! With you out of your shell, I might have a L'egg up on the whole argument!

(At least I didn't say, ha ha, the yoke's on you!)

However, now that we have that settled, it makes us apoach the next obvious question.

If one should not keep all of one's eggs in one basket, what does one do if one has only one egg? Or, what if one has more than one egg but only one basket? Both present quite the predicament.

(Personally speaking, on the initial question, I think a duck and a quail had too much eggnog one night and........ well, you know.)

by goodpurb

"If one should not keep all of one's eggs in one basket, what does one do if one has only one egg?"

Very important suggestion: put the egg in a basket and put that basket inside another basket...

by tonythetiger

Several years ago, I thought I was mistaken about something, but later it turned out that I wasn't.

:)

by gadgetgirl

Now look.

They can't send me a coffee mug, cos they break in the post. That, I can understand.

So Jay, blesshislittlecottonsox, promises me a TR t-shirt.

So I email him the size, and the address, and all the other contact details he needs.

And do I get my t-shirt.

Nope.

I'm getting angry. X-(

and he won't like me when I'm angry

And you, the Pure One, have the audacity to replace a reasonable avatar with one that rubs my nose in the fact that I'm unappreciated..... ignored...... unwanted .........unloved......... bereft.......

Going off into a corner to cry now.....

:_| :_| :_| :_|

GG

by dmambo

Maybe by the TR PTB, but surely by nobody else!

Would a nice Vermont t-shirt make you feel any better? Let me know. You definitely deserve one!

by gadgetgirl

I deserve one?

[b] and a t-shirt, too??? [/b]

Irresistabubble.

Just need to get a life, that's all.

GG

by lederhoden

The farm-yard answer is that the cockerel came first.

However, a recent scientific study concluded that the egg must have been the precursor. It is only in the development stage that evolution can take place - once the chicken is born, it can no longer evolve. So the chicken came from the mutation of another bird - in the egg.

by mbohlmann

Since the chicken is genetically identical with the egg from which it hatched, its egg came first. Since the chicken lays eggs which are not genetically identical to it, the first chicken egg was laid by something not quite a chicken.

by tioedong9

Since chickens probably were bred from wild birds by the Chinese 5000 years ago, the egg came first.
And, of course, the evolutionary ancestors of birds were lizards and dinosaurs, who had eggs.
The snide remark about religion is out of place: It ignores that the largest US church is the Catholic church, and we have been allowed to believe in evolution since the time of St. Augustine. Of course, we think God "tweaks" the evolutionary program now and then, so our beliefs are not the same as Darwin....

This discussion is closed to new replies.