WHICH came first the chicken or the egg,
now lets hear your debate on this one explain why ?
now lets hear your debate on this one explain why ?
An other silly thread
- Thread starter Napster
- Start date
Baaheeduk
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction score
- 151
biology is in fact in a position to answer the question. We are all different from our parents. If you trace the ancestry of a humble chicken back through history and pre-history, tracing family trees, tracking down that elusive great-grandparent, you will eventually reach a point where the bird concerned can not be called a chicken. If you go back far enough, it is not even a bird. (Remember, the ancestors of birds were a type of reptile). So there must be a point where the chicken baby had two non-chicken parents. Let's call them protochickens. The protochicken mother laid an egg out of which hatched a chicken. The first chicken came from an egg, but that egg did not come from a chicken; it came from a protochicken.
The answer to the question is therefore:
The egg came first.
Last edited:
Penners
Inactive User
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 1,088
- Reaction score
- 158
biology is in fact in a position to answer the question. We are all different from our parents. If you trace the ancestry of a humble chicken back through history and pre-history, tracing family trees, tracking down that elusive great-grandparent, you will eventually reach a point where the bird concerned can not be called a chicken. If you go back far enough, it is not even a bird. (Remember, the ancestors of birds were a type of reptile). So there must be a point where the chicken baby had two non-chicken parents. Let's call them protochickens. The protochicken mother laid an egg out of which hatched a chicken. The first chicken came from an egg, but that egg did not come from a chicken; it came from a protochicken.
The answer to the question is therefore:
The egg came first.
Nice post mate so who dabbled with the first chicken to create the second egg ?? it can't have been the hen because we've only got 2 protochickens and a chicken ??
:roflmao:
Explosivo
Inactive User
Surely it has to be the chicken, eggs dont just appear out of nowhere.
But if your talking about a race i would bet on the chicken coming first.
But if your talking about a race i would bet on the chicken coming first.
Penners
Inactive User
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 1,088
- Reaction score
- 158
Depends if its a downhill race, I think the egg would roll all the way to the finishing line. Chickens don't like running downhill
(made the last bit up ;-)
english
Inactive User
the egg it's obvious.
Explosivo
Inactive User
fishcake beast
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
life began in the water,fish lay eggs therefore the egg.
The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into
Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg, So I would conclude that the egg came first
The same conclusion was reached by fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.
Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.
He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.
"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.
"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.
He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."
So that settles it Eggs were first
Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg, So I would conclude that the egg came first
The same conclusion was reached by fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.
Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.
He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.
"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.
"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."
Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.
He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."
So that settles it Eggs were first
Last edited:
