Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

chicken egg situation


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 01:28 AM

yeah, we've all been asked this
what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Some people think chicken... and others think... well... egg.
I wanted to start a discussion to see what other people think and their reasoning behind it.

I thouroughly believe that it was the egg.
Merely because no animal can skip it's stages of life.
butterflies don't give birth to butterflies,
and no one was ever born as an adult.

I think this egg came about as a result of evolution,
probably adaptation to surroundings or something...
I can't give a solid answer for how they came about...

But what about anyone else? What do you think?
  • 0

#2 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 08:33 AM

Well, it depends entirely upon how you define the egg. If you define it as a chicken egg, you must conclude that the chicken came first. If you define it as an egg generally, then it depends on your veiw of how things came about.

Chicken egg:

Evolutionist - The egg from which the chicken came was not a chicken egg. It was the egg of what came before. Only after the mutations necessary to form a chicken happened, and then that chicken laid egg, did a chicken egg exist.

Creationist - God said let there be KFC. (I in no way intend that to belittle the creationist point of veiw, of which I usually am a believer.)

General egg:

Evolutionist - the egg from something else spawned a chicken.

Creationist - Same as above.

Some other points of view:

The Nihilist - Who cares? It doesn't matter anyway.
The Dadaist - The banana
The Sophist - The correct answer is blatantly obivious that there must be either a chicken or an egg at some juncture. The question of whether the chicken or the egg is interesting, but if one considers the processes of procreation and the miricle of fertilization, the answer becomes clear that the rooster must exist concurrently with either the chicken or the egg.
The Feminist - The chicken. Who needs a rooster? He would only see the egg on his own terms anyway.
The Allegorist - Living all his life inside his room, Howard the Coward summoned enough courage to crack those pallid walls and escape into a whole new life - a new existence, as it were. No longer would he remain walled up, feeding off his narrow minded center of self. Now he would see the world, and pluck his sustenance from the salt of the earth.
The Fascist- Both the chicken and the egg are tools of the state and it's not your place to ponder why, but to do as you are told for the good of the state.
The Abstractionist -chicken egg.jpg[/attachment:d80c5]

Attached Images

  • chicken egg.jpg

  • 0

#3 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 04:36 PM

hmm.
This is the first thing anyone's ever told me that made me consider that it was th chicken.
But do you consider an egg to be what the mother's species is, or what the species of the living thing inside?
  • 0

#4 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 12:46 AM

This is actually easily answered IMO

Assuming you know evolution (which is just that fittest are the ones that survive over time) to be a generally correct theory, then it's easy. (It's easy for other things too like creatonist, as writersblock showed, lol)

It's easy because a chicken can't be defined. Let's call the major evolutionary step behind chicken the chickenosaurus... i have no idea what it was so let's just call it that lol. It was probably some runty prehistoric bird or something. Or a bird from the ice age. or whatever.

Anyway, over time the chickenosaurus slowly BECOMES the chicken thru natural selection (evolution) and it is vague when the chicken can actually be called a chicken.

But say we have a clear line of what makes a chickenosaurus and what makes a chicken... in that case, the evolved chickenosaurus egg that contains the chicken gives birth to the chicken. Now it all depends on one thing and the way you see it:

If a chickenosaurus gave birth to the egg that made a chicken, is the egg a chicken egg or a chickenosaurus egg?

If you said "chicken egg because it gives birth to a chicken" then the egg came first.

If you said "chickenosaurus egg because was laid by a chickenosaurus" then the chicken came first.
  • 0

#5 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 01:44 AM

yep
So there really is no definitive answer.
it all depends on Point of View
  • 0

#6 Linzd21

Linzd21

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 07:10 PM

a "chickenosaurus" is still a chicken it is just pre-chicken. the question isn't what came before the chicken.

the question is of the two of these...a chicken and an an egg...which came first. and my thought is that neither came without the other..if you say the chicken came first you are wrong because where there is a chicken there is also an egg. if you say the egg came first you are wrong because where there is egg there is also chicken. they are simultaniously forming inside of each other.

the real question is WHY are we still eating stuff that comes out of animal butt.
  • 0

#7 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 26 November 2007 - 09:46 PM

cuz when you clean it out and crack open the shell it is
YUMMY!
  • 0

#8 niserino

niserino

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:49 PM

It was neither. I like your original assumption that the egg comes first, but what organism first began to lay eggs? My answer: It was the fish. Or was it the fish egg?
  • 0

#9 carlosn27

carlosn27

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 10 December 2007 - 05:55 PM

the real question is WHY are we still eating stuff that comes out of animal butt.


I dont eat anything that comes out of an animal's butt.
but I eat lots of things that come out of an animal's ******, as do most meat eaters I know.
just because it's "liquid" chicken and not a full grown chicken, it doesnt make much difference, it's still protein.

and I agree with Writersblock's comment above, if animals were created by our maker, then it was the chicken. if it evolved (and most animals have microevolved to some extent), then it was the egg laid by something similar to the chicken we have today.
  • 0

#10 Maximus

Maximus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:56 PM

I think although this is just me being bored and exploring different ideas.

All evolution (non-religous) is thought to be from mutations and natural selection, so I believe that chickens at some point gave live births, but a chicken had a mutated gene so started giving birth to eggs, and this gave them a natural advantage as maybe the young chickens that were live births maybe ran away from their mothers and got eaten, so the ones that were in eggs, i assume, couldnt run away (beacuse they were in eggs) althought they could roll, if the nests were on the side of hills??? But back to the main idea, so the eggs were more likely to survive and the genes were passed on and the genes that were live births died out due to the chickens running away from the nests :S so all chickens then laid eggs rather then live births.

So out of all that ramble i conclude CHICKENS CAME FIRST!!!!!!!

well that took a long time for a little conclusion

Thanks for reading (if you didnt get bored and give up ;) )
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users