Chicken or the Egg?
 

I know this isn't exactly serious or important but I was just wondering what you lovely people think.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

I was just being all reminiscent t'other day, remembering our lovely discussions in maths lessons.... Anyway I, personally, think it was the egg. My reasoning behind it would be that, yes they could both have easily appeared from nowhere, but surely an organism needs to grow and mature into something rather than just...being. What I mean is, the egg would have to hatch and gradually develop into the chicken, whereas the chicken would just appear fully grown...?

In discussions I've had before, we've argued that an egg must have come from somewhere, therefore meaning the chicken came first. However, the chicken surely must have been hatched from an egg?

OK I'll stop before my brain implodes. Over to you.

Most religions say animals were created, by a Creator (ie: god) and thus the chicken came first.

Evolution, and thus science, says that an almost-chicken animal would have had a mutated 'child' - laid that egg, and the mutated-almost-chicken (thus now a chicken) hatches from the egg. Horrificly simplified but that'd be the jist of it. So the egg came first.

So it's a question of religion or science? :thumbup:

so a question of the truth or ignorance

Any mutation would have happened as it was forming so yes it has to have been the egg. Though chickens as they are now are sort of man made to a certain extent anyway. So i spose it should be what came first the jungle fowl or the egg.

I think that if there are Gods or a God, they created evolution...so, no matter what, the egg.

I've discussed this in chat once but it went slightly off subject and lets not go there.

But me thinks there were eggs that became whatever and these whatevers had to evolve and adapt, just like monkey things to humans, then these whatevers laid eggs and they hatched and were the adapted whatevers and they had to evolve and such and eventually we got what today we call the chicken.

i make perfect sense...

You actually do, Daisy. I never really wanted to incorporate science/religion into it before, just went with my random nonsense. But I do see how evolution could suggest the egg came first...

Fish came first!

which ever one is smoking! There are some comedy cards about this....can't remember which one it is though!"

Lol, no it's not. You make it sound like science and religion are mutually exclusive, which they're not.

&. that card amuses me :)

The bacteria :) Okay, so it wasn't really a bacterium, but "the primitive cells that modern-day organisms evolved from" doesn't have quite the same effect.

I wouldn't say that there was ever a "first chicken", as evolution is a gradual process, and there's really no clear line when one species becomes a different species. So I really don't think there was ever a time when an organism that was not a chicken laid a chicken egg. The concept of a species is relevant in considering evolutionary linage if you're looking at discrete time points that are reasonably far apart on an evolutionary time scale, but not really for looking at consecutive generations. If there were a "first chicken," then that chicken would have to mate with a pre-chicken, so their offspring would be a mix of chicken and pre-chicken, which if those are two different species would have to be yet another species, and therefore not a chicken, so the next generation wouldn't have any chickens at all, and any future chickens would have to be the offspring of pre-chickens. Since chickens and pre-chickens would at that point comprise a single population of interbreeding organisms, calling them separate species wouldn't be appropriate. It's like saying black house-cats and orange house-cats are two different species, or that people with different blood types are different species. When two populations of similar organisms become separated, each gradually accumulate traits that are different from the other population, and eventually they might be different enough that there's no doubt they're separate species, but if they're in similar environments, it hasn't been that long, or there's some migration between the two populations, it's not always clear whether they should be considered separate species or not.

Although, an egg is just a female gamete, it doesn't have to be from a chicken, so wherever chickens started to be chickens, eggs definitely predate that by a lot.

Well, it is obvious to be the egg because of what everyone said, it doesn't have to be a chicken that lays the first egg...but then I thought, what if the first chicken wasn't from an egg and came about via live birth?

Then I remembered it would have had to have come from a bird so it almost certainly would have been hatched from an egg, because that's birds thing.

Interesting point though me thinks!
Dicky!

...Or that.

Dicky!

Of course they are you can't really call yourself a scientist if you believe in religion. Religion in a way is a scientific theory though one which is untestable and therefore not a real science. Personally I think if you have a certain level of scientific understanding religion loses it's purpose.

It couldn't have been a live birth anyway, as egg-laying evolved before live births. Actually, the early stages of embryonic development in mammals are somewhat convoluted, similar to early development in reptiles, which develop around a large yolk, even though mammals don't have the yolk in the way.

To be honest, I think you have a very limited understanding of religion if you think that. I'm not asking you to immediately drop all your beliefs and become religious, just to accept that you don't have to be raving "the world was made in six days six thousand years ago" fundamentalist evangelical to be religious. And as for not calling yourself a scientist if you're religious - of course you can. There are plenty of scientists who do, most of whom know an awful lot more about science than you or I. Just do a quick google search, you'll see ;)
I could quite happily discuss this with you at length, but as this isn't what the thread is about I shall shut up. If you want to continue though, feel free to PM.

Sir Isaac Newton considered himself among a select group of individuals chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture, and wrote a papers on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Gregor Mendel was a priest, and preformed his studies of pea plant variation, which later became the foundation for modern genetics, in the monastery garden.

Religion isn't inherently incompatible with science, and many highly accomplished scientists are also religious, some quite devoutly so. Furthermore, the vast majority of religious individuals do accept scientific theories, and are able to integrate their religious beliefs into a scientific understanding of the world without inappropriately rejecting scientific evidence. Religion is only contradictory with science when it's taken as absolute and literal fact to the exclusion of scientific evidence to the contrary, and it's only a small number of fundamentalists who take religion to this extreme.

Religion is not a scientific theory. Religious beliefs could be called theories under the common use of the word, but not the scientific use. In science, the word "theory" has a very specific meaning, and only applies to explanations that are supported by scientific data and are testable by scientific methods.

The "purpose" of religion is far more complex than simply explaining how things are. Religion can provide a sense of purpose, and a sense of hope through difficult times. It can be a source of moral and ethical guidance, and help to bring communities together. Religious institutions can also provide a number of services to the community, and to individuals in need.

Also, religion can be viewed from a scientific perspective as a cultural construct, and as a psychological element, and I think it could be see as very significant at both societal and individual levels. Religion can sometimes be a source of conflict, but through history it has also been a source of cultural unity, morality, and considerable progress. At the individual level, it can sometimes be a source of deliberate ignorance, but it can also be a positive psychological factor and even help with overcoming mental illness.

I was saying where your line of thought is tends to basically [NOTE: words in bold indicate I am about to make generalisations... if this confuses people and makes them feel the need to point out details thus abusing the law of generalisations... please look away now!] boils down to whether it's based on religion/certainty or science/evolution. I never said IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS you MUST think this, you CAN'T think that. Infact I never mentioned if an individual was "religious or scientific" at all, just if the individual was basing their current opinion on this specific topic on "religious or scientific" basis. IF you base your opinion on this subject on evolution, but you also happen to believe in a Christian God who had a part in evolution... it's really irrelevant. It's STILL being based on scientific theory's. No?

ANYWAY yeah I'm gonna go back to sleep.
I only got up for a wee. and I ended up on RYL at 08:23am.
Maybe I'll go eat instead? :(

No you didn't, you said that it's a question of "religion or science", which it isn't. It's simply a question of science. Most religions don't teach anything about God dropping some chicken down on earth and having it lay eggs and such. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says that we should appreciate scientific discoveries about the world because it helps us appreciate the wondrous nature of our Creator (or words to that effect). Genesis is, in general, seen as being true, but not literally true. All I'm trying to do is point out that it really isn't a question of religion or science, there's no need to be defensive :)

Indeed. And, more importantly, it aims to provide the truth :)

lol'd

The egg. Because dinosaurs laid eggs, and they were around long before chickens were ;)