Printable View
After recently seeing the "chicken run" film in the cinemas, the end posed a very good question.
Which DID come first, the chicken or the egg. Can I have some views on this one please? (or at least some good puns on the subject to keep me entertained for a while)...
It's not too difficult to answer this if you were to hold
true that the rooster was the first creation in that line
of species. In that case, 'he' could not beget an egg. Therefore, the word creation used up here would definitely
hold as well. Since, from most of our experiences we understand that every creation assumes a creator, the next
question would be who created the cock?...
So, the cock was first.!?
Now, one would be quick to add: "What if it was the actual
chicken who was first? (and not the cock!)... Then, that
that would assume there is an external procedure (other than
what we know which produces an egg and requires the
existence of both the male and the female) which is at play here. We note also that there exist species which are both male and female and their reproductive process is therefore
assured...
Once could go on...
I bet you didn't think any one would answer to this!??
Well... To every question, there may be a response
Make it a good day!!
Eggselent Question, Dare I answer it or am I chicken? It would certainly be a feather in my cap if I could answer this. (Sorry that was the best I could do)
If you really want the answer It was the egg.
Why? Because before there were any chickins there were Dinosours. And Dinosours laid eggs.
If you modify your question and Ask "Which came first the chickin or the chickin egg?" I would have to ask you to define chickin egg, If you define it as an egg laid by a chickin then the chicken came first, If you define it as an egg that hatches a chickin then the egg came first.
well done sam, the is as good an explanation as you are going to get anywhere.
Didn't actually expect any replies to that one, no. Also I didn't give thought to the cock either. Another good point!
Nice puns Sam, & I would define it as an egg that hatches a chickin then the egg came first. You could argue that the egg would have to be laid, whichever way it was defined though...
I was kind of assuming that somewhere along the line something that wasn't a chicken evolved into a chicken, so if we consider the first animal that was chickeny enough to be called a chicken, it's mum who wasn't a chicken laid an egg that hatched a chicken, so the egg comes first in that case. of course if you believe in creationalism then the chicken came first.
Since dinosaurs were the first creatures on the Earth, do you think chickens were evolved from a type of dino then? interesting theory...
Some scientist believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, Personally I don't think I know enough about it to comment, but I'm quite content to believe that chickens evolved from something.
No serious scientist today clings to the theory of
evolution as it was stated by Darwin... In fact, the
book 'Black Box of Darwin' (can't quite remember the
title today or something like that) totally debilitates
the theory in light of new findings in molecular biology
So evolution... ?(Sorry Darwin) Darwin appealed once to
our minds... It was new!! It was food for thought....
We once paid attention to almost anything that opposed
the idea of creation because that made us feel inteligent
since the so-called 'great thinkers' claimed (at least
in public) they do not believe
Evolution of dinosaur...into chicken!??!?
What we know as rather 'transformation' would be
the passage of a caterpillar to a butterfly is
similar to a child going into adolescence... and is
part of the fundamental programmation of that species
One could go on....
Vale! (means Take Care)
There is a lot of evidence that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. For example, a lot of bird’s bones are very similar to that of the flying dinosaurs (can remember the names). I do believe that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.
Velociraptors are very similar to birds, especially with, as mentioned, the bone structure.
A Caterpillar becoming a Butterfly??
I think that´s like a Mack Truck becoming a Hummingbird!
:p :p :p
If I understand a little bit...
The fact that certain animals have similar bone
structures implies that one evolves from the other??!!
Oh!! Yes, I have read about the so-called evidence
and there are so many holes!!! even a P-ON like me
could only help but smiling sometimes... Has any one
however read about the counter evidence? They flourish
in the scientific literature...
It is normal for human beings to group things based
on similarities and/or dissimilarities. It helps us
manage our understanding of this magnificent universe
we seem to inherit (out of nowhere?, some might say)
But grouping by whatever criteria we may choose is
an after-the-fact thing. How much research has been
conducted? .. published in scientific journals... to
only see them retracted only the following year...
It is unfortunate that - once an idea and related research
have been thrown into this world (however inconclusive it
may be) - the damage done takes years to repair... The
best contemporary defensor of evolution theory now claims
that there were some glimpses of truth in it!! Now think
of this statement!!
But does the general public know of this? (Most likely
not)... And this same public, unaware, is still fighting
for this idea...
** Carlos:::
Yes, I think the caterpillar is the larva of a
butterfly.. (I may be mistaken...Would you please
double-check for me?)
I agree some people believe that birds evolve from
dinosaurs indeed... They've never seen it though and
these same people are sometimes too ready to consider
as naive those who believe in other things without
seeing them...
One could go on...