What came first - the chicken or the egg

[knockknock]

Seriously, I've always been curious to know what scientists think about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is there an evolutionary process that describes this? BTW, I'm not trying to disprove evolution, I am genuinly interested.

 

[monta]

I guess the theory of evolution would suggest the egg came first. What we would call a chickens' egg being laid by whatever the chicken evolved from, but this creates the assumption of a sudden mutation with definitive radical differences between the parent and offspring and that a chickens evolutionary process is finite and complete.

I thought I knew this when I started typing and I have talked myself out of it.

 

[3.14]

depends, if chicken dna is --\-\-\\\- then the egg came first with a mutation that changed --\-\-\\/- to --\-\-\\\-

 

[JMorris]

as i understand it, birds evolved from dinosaurs, who already layed eggs.
tho i am no expert on evolution, if you want to ask someone with a good amount of knowledge on the subject, ask it here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html

 

[knockknock]

depends, if chicken dna is --\-\-\\\- then the egg came first with a mutation that changed --\-\-\\/- to --\-\-\\\-

Hi, can you explain that in laymans terms please, Ta

 

[knockknock]

as i understand it, birds evolved from dinosaurs, who already layed eggs.
tho i am no expert on evolution, if you want to ask someone with a good amount of knowledge on the subject, ask it here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html

Thanks for that, however I don't really want the question to get lost in multi subject post, but if no one comes forward I may well use that thread.

Also, Saying birds evolved from dinosaurs is mearly shifting the connundrum to 'what came first, the dinosaur or the egg'

 

[JMorris]

Thanks for that, however I don't really want the question to get lost in multi subject post, but if no one comes forward I may well use that thread.

Also, Saying birds evolved from dinosaurs is mearly shifting the connundrum to 'what came first, the dinosaur or the egg'

as i understand it (again i am in no way an expert) you'd have to take that question pretty far back, as im not sure any species ever gave birth to live young until mammals. you could go back to what the dinosaurs evolved from, go back as far as when all animal life was in the oceans, they all laid eggs too........

so in short, the egg came first

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Also, Saying birds evolved from dinosaurs is mearly shifting the connundrum to 'what came first, the dinosaur or the egg' "

To ask this question reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of life. All life A-L-L-L life is interconnected. The question assumes a chicken (or dinosaur) is some single discrete organism with no past ancestor but another chicken. If that WERE true then indeed there would be problem.

But it isn't true. The answer is neither creature nor egg came "first." Different ways of reproduction evolve along different lines. The use of eggs evolved gradually just as every other aspect of life. Just as there is no point at which a child is not the same species as the parent there is no point where a child came from egg but the parent by some other process.

ALL life is one very large continuum with a very long and complex history. Poorly informed questions like this one show a failure to grasp that fact.

And a corresponding failure to truly appreciate what a wonder the process is.

 

[logician]

Seriously, I've always been curious to know what scientists think about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is there an evolutionary process that describes this? BTW, I'm not trying to disprove evolution, I am genuinly interested.

I'm not quite sure what is the purpose of this rather nonsensicle question. Life probably started in the oceans close to hydrothermal vents a billion or so years ago. Eggs are just one form of reproduction that came long much later in evolution. The question of whether a chicken or an egg came first really doesn't make much sense.

 

[knockknock]

I'm not quite sure what is the purpose of this rather nonsensicle question. Life probably started in the oceans close to hydrothermal vents a billion or so years ago. Eggs are just one form of reproduction that came long much later in evolution. The question of whether a chicken or an egg came first really doesn't make much sense.

Still, even though I'm obviously nonsensicle, not to mention poorly informed, I would like to know if there are any scientific findings about how the bird(or dinosaur)/egg evolved?

 

[knockknock]

Philosophy: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? - by David Mckellar - Helium

 

[3.14]

Hi, can you explain that in laymans terms please, Ta

well there are alot of chickens, its dna is not defined as a "number", but lets say you define chicken as 1542. now every previus version of egglaying species is a diffrent number, but because of dna mutations they don't stay the same species forever, an eventualy it mutated to 1542

 

[knockknock]

Cool! :woohoo:

 

[painted wolf]

the egg... which was laid by the last common ancestor of the chicken.
Which was almost a chicken but not quite....

wa:do

 

[JMorris]

it went "pawk" instead of "bawk"

 

[Willamena]

Seriously, I've always been curious to know what scientists think about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is there an evolutionary process that describes this? BTW, I'm not trying to disprove evolution, I am genuinly interested.

Evolution describes populations. I doubt it would help with this question; but then, this is a philosophical question.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Painted Wolf has already given the scientifically correct answer. The philosophical question exists beyond the scope of science. The aim of science isn't truth; it is knowledge.

MTF

 

[JMorris]

Painted Wolf has already given the scientifically correct answer. The philosophical question exists beyond the scope of science. The aim of science isn't truth; it is knowledge.

MTF

yippee, i get to throw out a relevant quote.

While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.

• Religion and Science (1935), ch. IX: Science of Ethics ~Bertrand Russell

 

[ManTimeForgot]

yippee, i get to throw out a relevant quote.

While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.

• Religion and Science (1935), ch. IX: Science of Ethics ~Bertrand Russell

I have actually started reading a book that relates to this very topic and I have serious reservations about that statement and those who would cling to its spirit.

Science tries to be valueless, but that is an impossible goal. Objectivity (standing outside the system you are observing) is a value. And no matter how much we try to remove ourselves from the universe we will always remain a part of that system. More learned minds than my own (like Heisenberg) already talked much about this; the short of it is that so long as we are part of what we study "true objectivity" is a myth. Consider the paradox of objectivity as it relates to observer status in quantum physics. I am not suggesting that objectivity is a useless ideal, but rather that objectivity is simultaneous science's greatest strength and greatest weakness.


There are plenty of things which are facts which science did not discover. I have yet to see anyone present scientific evidence verifying tautologies. If someone can evidence to me that they are in fact equal to their own self I would be very interested in hearing it. The fact of the matter is that that particular statement is Self-Evident and as such cannot be shown or known through science; this is what is part of the purview of philosophy. Science alone cannot give us all the answers. There will either come a point beyond which we cannot "break down any further period" or "...any further without meaning." And philosophy has its gaps too. Metaphysics is a dying branch of philosophy. Seeking wisdom or proper action has been slowly dying since Kant. Mysticism/Spirituality has answers to be found if we were willing/able to let it be a source of information.

Perspective and sensation are two separate limitations on the acquisition of knowledge. If we are to be able to gain greater knowledge we must enhance our sensation (like telescope) gain new sensation (like x-ray telescopes, but I think more importantly gaining cosmic senses), but also reconcile and change our perspectives. This is why I firmly believe that in order to accomplish anything of great significance in the future Science, Philosophy, and Mysticism/Spirituality will have to be reconciled.

MTF

 

[knockknock]

I have actually started reading a book that relates to this very topic and I have serious reservations about that statement and those who would cling to its spirit.

Science tries to be valueless, but that is an impossible goal. Objectivity (standing outside the system you are observing) is a value. And no matter how much we try to remove ourselves from the universe we will always remain a part of that system. More learned minds than my own (like Heisenberg) already talked much about this; the short of it is that so long as we are part of what we study "true objectivity" is a myth. Consider the paradox of objectivity as it relates to observer status in quantum physics. I am not suggesting that objectivity is a useless ideal, but rather that objectivity is simultaneous science's greatest strength and greatest weakness.


There are plenty of things which are facts which science did not discover. I have yet to see anyone present scientific evidence verifying tautologies. If someone can evidence to me that they are in fact equal to their own self I would be very interested in hearing it. The fact of the matter is that that particular statement is Self-Evident and as such cannot be shown or known through science; this is what is part of the purview of philosophy. Science alone cannot give us all the answers. There will either come a point beyond which we cannot "break down any further period" or "...any further without meaning." And philosophy has its gaps too. Metaphysics is a dying branch of philosophy. Seeking wisdom or proper action has been slowly dying since Kant. Mysticism/Spirituality has answers to be found if we were willing/able to let it be a source of information.

Perspective and sensation are two separate limitations on the acquisition of knowledge. If we are to be able to gain greater knowledge we must enhance our sensation (like telescope) gain new sensation (like x-ray telescopes, but I think more importantly gaining cosmic senses), but also reconcile and change our perspectives. This is why I firmly believe that in order to accomplish anything of great significance in the future Science, Philosophy, and Mysticism/Spirituality will have to be reconciled.

MTF

I think there is a lot of truth in this.

*