I'm sorry, could you run that by me again? 

What came first, the egg or the chicken?

Well, I'm no expert, of course, but I believe it would be the chicken.
The chicken evolved from some ancient animal, and then the chicken
started laying eggs.

Wrong, Rockmanx3300, Go to the Bottom of the Class.

Chickens are far too young to lay any eggs.

I've always reckoned that the chicken emerged from an African Jungle Fowl's egg

Respectfully, if Bryan can answer, so can I. Chickens [ young fowls]
may not be able to lay eggs , but they are a flying creature. Genesis
1;20...and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of
the expanse  of the heavens... No mention here of eggs...Pug. [ can`t
help myself]

I've always subscribed to the egg theory.  A birth of a new species is
the result of a genetic change...that change must occur before birth
(in, or before, the egg).  It is impossible to have an animal that
wasn?t first conceived...it IS possible to have creatures that do not
resemble their parents.  A mule, for example is neither a donkey nor a
horse.  The egg (so to speak) came before the mule.

I would like to see if tutuzdad agrees with me or not...I?ve had many
a heated discussion on this topic and I had to throw in my two cents.

-Fractl

Wrong, Fracti, go and join Rockmanx3300 at the Bottom of the Class.

QUOTE:

It is impossible to have an animal that wasn?t first conceived...

UNQUOTE

Aren't you forgetting someone who was born to a virgin some 2,000 years or so ago?

Hi timespacette,

Great question!!

IMHO, I believe it is the egg that came first.

In either case, I like eating both .....lol

Steph53

No word from Tutuzdad ... 

Now I'm getting worried ...

I bet he is lurking somewhere, watching everything that is going on. 

Right, Tutuzdad?

Then he will strike ........ BAM!!!

And provide the correct answer that has hitherto eluded us all.

Probonopublico,

I'll leave the religious arguments for another day...'God made the
chicken before the egg' is a legitimate point of view as well, as pug
mentioned.
While I'm not all too familiar with the Christian teachings i believe
they did make a point of separating humans from other creatures...in
that light the phrase "It is impossible to have an animal that wasn?t
first conceived" successfully avoids your counterexample, although I'm
sure another one exists.


For the record I was also wrong about the mule...apparently one did
give birth in morocco (weather the offspring is, by definition, a mule
is debatable)...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

I should refrain from using the word 'impossible'...it's impossible
for something to be impossible. (oops)

-Fractl

Hello, 

I asked this question too and I'm still getting some comments. I just
wanted to say to pugwashjw that you can't use religion to prove
something scientific. It's like using ice to boil some water.

Oh my!!

Where's tutuzdad when we need him?

:o

http://hometown.aol.com/rjsavannah/images/chicken-or-egg.jpg

OMG Pinkfreud.... Thats hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Steph53

Yes, I'm watching in the wings (Ooooh, did I say that?)

Dad :)

that's priceless, Pink, you've outdone yourself!

Glad y'all liked my link. I was afraid it would lay an egg.

well, dad?  

You should know something about this, shouldn't you?

Ok, all joking aside, I'm going to make a futile attempt to offer a serious answer:

The dilemma surrounding this question is an infamously and hopelessly
deadlocked situation, but depending on YOUR point of view, there
actually is an answer. The answer is actually simple but it requires
you to accept some reasonable biological facts related to genetics and
to put all theological theories aside (notions such as "God created
the first chicken"). Here's the deal...

If you are willing to accept as fact that the first animal with the
full GENETIC makeup of a chicken laid the first egg from which the
first PHYSICALLY "AND" GENETICALLY complete chicken would emerge, then
you must accept as fact that the first true chicken emerged from this
egg. Since the animal that hatched from this egg would be the first
chicken (or rooster) for all intents and purposes, even though its
mother was the first chicken from a purely genetic point of view, then
the CHICKEN EGG would have come first (even though the creature who
laid the egg didn't realize it's offspring would emerge A CREATURE
DIFFERENT FROM HER, and be both a physically AND genetically complete
chicken).

So there.

tutuzdad-ga

I HAVE THE ANSWER!!!!

Well. actually Cecil does:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_218.html
..."The egg came first. We know that chickens evolved from some
earlier, non-chickenoid form of life, e.g., the half-bird,
half-reptile Archaeopteryx. These non-chickens, however, arrived in
eggs. Ergo, eggs were on the scene before chickens..."

DON'T click on the link to read the second, funny answer.  DON'T DO IT!!

~~Cynthia