28 replies to this topic

[dasmeaty]

This has probably been posted before, but here goes the age old question... What came first the chicken or the egg or did they both arrive at the same time?

Please give a reason for what you think.

I think the chicken, and that it just developed over time to give birth in an egg. I just find it hard to believe that an egg could of came into existence from nowhere.

[truefusion]

I don't really see why anyone would have trouble with this question, as if a chicken or an egg popping into existence is impossible. The question should be tackled by considering which one would actually survive if either-or were to pop into existence on the earth. In that case, the chicken would have come first.

dasmeaty, on Mar 30 2010, 12:14 PM, said:

I think the chicken, [...] I just find it hard to believe that an egg could of came into existence from nowhere.

What would make the chicken any different?

[anwiii]

wouldn't it be just as hard to imagine a chicken that came in to existance from nowhere? i am not really following your logic. and if the chicken came first, was it actually a "chicken" when they laid their first egg?

yes, this has already been discussed here. and when i am drunk enough, sometimes i will comment on the 3rd grade questions.....

your answer is simple though. if talking about 1 chicken or 1 egg, then the chicken came first because an egg would actually have to be fertilized which if the egg WAS fertilized, then it infers there was more than just an egg that "came out of nowhere" where if it does hatch, there may be more eggs, but no more chickens.

dasmeaty, on Mar 30 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

I just find it hard to believe that an egg could of came into existence from nowhere.

[dasmeaty]

truefusion, on Mar 30 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

I don't really see why anyone would have trouble with this question, as if a chicken or an egg popping into existence is impossible. The question should be tackled by considering which one would actually survive if either-or were to pop into existence on the earth. In that case, the chicken would have come first.


What would make the chicken any different?

I do not think the chicken popped into existence, I believe it is an adaption and that part of it's adaption was to lay eggs. There is still good chance for an egg to survive depending on its location.

[dasmeaty]

Hey... this is the high grade! My point was that I don't believe chickens popped into existence from nowhere they would have evolved from bacteria and as a result of natural selection the egg laying chickens would have dominated.

However how does something evolve into an egg? It can't according to the current laws of natural selection, so for the egg to come first it must have just entered into existence.

My reason is short as I have all these thoughts but they aren't so easy to articulate.

[truefusion]

dasmeaty, on Mar 30 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

My point was that I don't believe chickens popped into existence from nowhere they would have evolved from bacteria and as a result of natural selection the egg laying chickens would have dominated.

If you can't see a chicken just popping into existence, then neither can you see this universe just popping into existence, in which case you would have no where to start concerning life in general.

[dasmeaty]

Quote

If you can't see a chicken just popping into existence, then neither can you see this universe just popping into existence, in which case you would have no where to start concerning life in general.

That is just not true, the means of which we think the universe came into existence do not apply to the chicken. There is reason behind the creation of the universe, and we are pretty sure that chickens were not around from the start of the universe. The chances of the universe being created were very small, the chances that chickens were later created from nothing on our planet makes it infinitely times more small. You cannot explain the random appearance of a chicken with the big bang theory, you can explain the random creation of a universe.

[truefusion]

dasmeaty, on Mar 31 2010, 02:40 AM, said:

That is just not true, the means of which we think the universe came into existence do not apply to the chicken. There is reason behind the creation of the universe, and we are pretty sure that chickens were not around from the start of the universe. The chances of the universe being created were very small, the chances that chickens were later created from nothing on our planet makes it infinitely times more small. You cannot explain the random appearance of a chicken with the big bang theory, you can explain the random creation of a universe.

What is the reason behind this universe? Figuring out how it came to be does not imply why it came to be; while how may imply that there is a why, that why is still uncertain from the how. What then makes the chances of a chicken popping into existence (from nothing) any less than a universe popping into existence (from nothing)? They would be equal in weight, which just leaves you with no basis for asking the question which you have started with, for the chances are as infinitely small as you say they are.

[dasmeaty]

The question is not why, it is how. You misunderstood me, I was referring to the chances of the universe being created and then an egg just popping into existence after not as two seperate entities. The major difference is despite the universes creation being wholely unlikely we can explain to an extent how it happened, the same can not be said for the random creation of an egg.

My point being that it is far far far more likely that a chicken is an adaption and so is its egg laying as part of natural selection, than it is for it or an egg to have randomly popped into existence.

Which question do you refer to as to having no basis? Curiosity is a basis for any question.

[truefusion]

dasmeaty, on Mar 31 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

The question is not why, it is how. You misunderstood me, I was referring to the chances of the universe being created and then an egg just popping into existence after not as two seperate entities. The major difference is despite the universes creation being wholely unlikely we can explain to an extent how it happened, the same can not be said for the random creation of an egg.

The reason for anything deals with why. I was not referring to the question you bring up for how; i was referring to your statement that mentions about the reason for the universe. And i did retrieve and have understood what was mentioned by you. But the process undergone to bring an egg into this world is seen with any egg-laying creature of this world, so how it was given birth is explainable—the possibility of it coming into existence is therefore just as equal to the possibility of a chicken.

dasmeaty, on Mar 31 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

My point being that it is far far far more likely that a chicken is an adaption and so is its egg laying as part of natural selection, than it is for it or an egg to have randomly popped into existence.

Chickens have always been known to lay eggs. If it is the case that they mutated into egg-laying creatures, then you will have to question what kind of chicken you are talking about. In which case you will therefore come to realize that your position really does not conclude the chicken coming first but the egg. So in order to even be able to conclude that the chicken came first, you would have to drop adaption (through natural selection).

dasmeaty, on Mar 31 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Which question do you refer to as to having no basis? Curiosity is a basis for any question.

For this case, i was referring to the one concerning the one in the topic title. And curiosity is not justified in its own right but requires external justification, which is what the question would be justified with in asking.