Charles Robert Darwin - Natural Selection

[TomCat39]

No debate over which came first? The chicken or the egg?

It only goes to reason the egg came first being chickens are born from eggs. A mutated fertilization of some fowl creature spawned the first "chicken egg". The egg was then laid and incubated to birth the first chicken. It only makes sense how evelotution is supposed to work. Just like the regular cat that gave birth to the 4 eared cat. It's all by mutation. So since chickens birth via laid eggs, and birds in general lay eggs... The non chicken layed the mutated "chicken" egg prior to there ever being a chicken.

How is that argument dismissed?

I do not know how one can reason the chicken came before the egg being that all fowl lay eggs and come from eggs.

Assuming of course that chickens don't reproduce asexually, this is certainly true

Ahhh yes, this could indeed essentially negate that argument. However, as far as I know, only microorganisms asexually reproduce. So I think it would be very difficult to reason a much more complex being on our planet reproducing asexually thus creating the possibility of the chicken before the egg.

Thank you, I would never have thought of this angle. Very kewl.

[Rkiver]

The egg came before the chicken.

Just look at dinosaurs. Around long before chickens evolved (from dinosaurs I might add). They laid eggs.

Hence the egg came first.

[TomCat39]

Yeah, I think we are all in agreement there. I had asked how one could argue otherwise though. And that was what shinygerbil was answering respectably.

And I too agree with an earlier poster about it being a semantic exercise possibly to obfuscate the theory of evolution.

Still thought it be interesting to see how one would possibly argue the point though being it seems quite unreasonable to me.

[Rkiver]

Yeah, I think we are all in agreement there. I had asked how one could argue otherwise though. And that was what shinygerbil was answering respectably.

And I too agree with an earlier poster about it being a semantic exercise possibly to obfuscate the theory of evolution.

Still thought it be interesting to see how one would possibly argue the point though being it seems quite unreasonable to me.

How one could argue it? Well some could, just not very well and without being unreasonable. Creationists for example.....

[Phelanpt]

It's easy to see that eggs came before chickens.

Dinossaurs and other reptiles were laying eggs way before the chicken had evolved.

So the egg came before the chicken.

What? Someone had posted that before? Oh, sorry.

[xander]

What? Someone had posted that before? Oh, sorry.

Twice, even.

xander

[NeatNit]

Quit being smartasses.

Obviously the question is referring to a chicken egg, not just any egg.


So the real question is: at what point in the chicken evolution did they finally reach a point where you could just say "look, a chicken", and what first did that - a grown chicken, or an egg of one?

[Xocrates]

So the real question is: at what point in the chicken evolution did they finally reach a point where you could just say "look, a chicken", and what first did that - a grown chicken, or an egg of one?

Never minding that that point is disingenuous, as it implies specification (?) happens instantaneously between generations and that there is a solid definition of chicken. Therefore it's entirely how you understand it: The chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg or the proto-chicken laid a chicken egg.

[Phelanpt]

What? Someone had posted that before? Oh, sorry.

Twice, even.

xander

I should have posted a smiley, I see.

[ynbniar]

Was the road there before either the chicken or the egg, or did the road come after?

[Imperius Rex]

Quit being smartasses.

Obviously the question is referring to a chicken egg, not just any egg.


So the real question is: at what point in the chicken evolution did they finally reach a point where you could just say "look, a chicken", and what first did that - a grown chicken, or an egg of one?

Well the way i see it is this: A chicken would have evolved from something... most logically another species that laid eggs. So logically at one point in time that species laid an egg that was hatched and ended up being an evolved form of that species and effectively the chicken. So in essence the egg came first. whether it was a chicken egg or not

[xander]

What? Someone had posted that before? Oh, sorry.

Twice, even.

xander

I should have posted a smiley, I see. :P

No, I understood the implied smiley. Perhaps it is I that should have included a colon followed by a capital pee.

xander

[TomCat39]

What? Someone had posted that before? Oh, sorry.

Twice, even.

xander

I should have posted a smiley, I see.

No, I understood the implied smiley. Perhaps it is I that should have included a colon followed by a capital pee.

xander

That be one serious Pee if it's a CAPITAL pee. Hope it doesn't hurt when you go. ;-p

Quit being smartasses.

Obviously the question is referring to a chicken egg, not just any egg.


So the real question is: at what point in the chicken evolution did they finally reach a point where you could just say "look, a chicken", and what first did that - a grown chicken, or an egg of one?

Actually I've never once heard the question phrased as "chicken egg" only "egg". So no it's not obviously referring to a "chicken egg".

But as also was mentioned, that point is moot being the evolved egg would be a "chicken egg" being it birthed a chicken.

However this still doesn't change the fact that you tried to take an age old semantic question and twist it to fit your needs. Which is a rather unkosher thing to do in a scientific debate in my opinion. Reminds me of what unrational creationists tend to do with factual reasoning.

[KingAl]

Actually I've never once heard the question phrased as "chicken egg" only "egg". So no it's not obviously referring to a "chicken egg".

Yes, it is. The adage is meant to highlight the ambigious nature of mutually causal relationships. That is lost if you're talking about any old egg. As a question, it's essentially completely meaningless, depending entirely on semantic interpretation. That people attempt to answer it reminds me of when I looked at the (at the time, hilariously abominable) glass half empty Wikipedia article's discussion page to discover hordes of people saying "oh crap i know the answer".
If one were to 'answer' it, it would hinge on a) whether an egg giving birth to a chicken is a "chicken egg" or whether it must be laid by a chicken, and more importantly b) what you would define as a chicken or the first chicken, given that being the 'same species as something' isn't really a transitive relation pretty much regardless of your definition, and a species is really just an awkward abstraction for a continuum of individuals. The arbitrariness of the definitions integral to the question pretty clearly highlight what a meaningless literal question it makes.
So, there's not really a 'scientific debate', here.

[shinygerbil]

What? Someone had posted that before? Oh, sorry.

Twice, even.

xander

I should have posted a smiley, I see.

No, I understood the implied smiley. Perhaps it is I that should have included a colon followed by a capital pee.

xander

You should really keep hold of your colon. It's quite useful.

edit: I probably coud have thrown a pee-related pun in there too..