What came first - the chicken or the egg

[knockknock]

Would it be fair to say that science has not deducted how the egg laying creature first came into existence other than to say it was a natural process, i.e. in the beginning there must have been something that laid the first egg! Please don’t accuse me of not understanding the general theme of evolution; I do understand the basics but no way claim scientific knowledge.

I assume it’s a philosophical question because it has not or cannot be reduced to show the process? Philosophically, would it also be fair to say that there are possibly higher levels of laws that are working beyond the presently understood natural laws?

Ok, my point being that some people like to assert that there is no supernatural, that everything has been explained by science, particularly evolution (note: this is usually claimed by the layman rather than the actual scientist). Some people like to claim this whilst deriding, abusing and belittling the religious amongst us and perhaps – just perhaps - they are not on as solid a ground as they think?

I do understand that some of this derision has been caused by the religious fundamentalist who, in turn, likes to judge and condemn their fellow man for not believing what they believe but I do think science is used as a weapon by atheists in general and this, I feel, is as unsubstantial as the fire power of certain religious doctrine.

Or am I still being nonsensical? I’m sure you won’t be too shy to come forward and tell me :yes:

 

[Ghostaka]

Would it be fair to say that science has not deducted how the egg laying creature first came into existence other than to say it was a natural process

***
​

Or am I still being nonsensical? I’m sure you won’t be too shy to come forward and tell me :yes:

It's easy ya'll... God made the chicken AND the dinosaur; then their ability to lay eggs! That's all that needs to be said.

Peace be upon you.

***get ready for the outcries of "Blasphemy!" -in any way shape or form ***

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Isn't there something about opening one's mouth and removing all doubt?

 

[fantome profane]

Would it be fair to say that science has not deducted how the egg laying creature first came into existence

No, that would not be fair. It might be fair to say that no one on this message board has good answer to this question, but this is after all a message board dedicated to religious discussion and debate. The fact that no one here has been able to give you an answer to this question does not mean that science does not have the answer. True there are people here who have a great deal of scientific knowledge and they may be able to give you good answers on a wide variety of topics, but this board does not represent the total sum of scientific knowledge.

I Googled this but I didn’t really find a good answer. Here is an article anyway. Eggs and Their Evolution

I think the egg may have evolved in aquatic reptiles, perhaps starting with live birth, live birth covered with an embryonic sac, premature birth with an embryonic sac, the embryonic sac becoming more substantial and solid and evolving into what we would recognize as an egg. This is off the cuff speculation on my part, I don’t deny that, I am not an expert. But it makes sense to me. No supernatural intervention is required for the evolution of the egg.

There are actually message boards out there like this one that are dedicated to science questions, even dedicated to biology. Try posting this question on one of those. Visit a library or natural history museum, or even a university. Send an e-mail to a biology professor or researcher who specializes in this area, they might send you an e-mail back. To be fair maybe you don’t want to do all this, and that is fine. It is after all just a casual question. But you would have to do a great deal more work before you draw the conclusion that science does not have an answer to this question.

 

[painted wolf]

I think the egg may have evolved in aquatic reptiles, perhaps starting with live birth, live birth covered with an embryonic sac, premature birth with an embryonic sac, the embryonic sac becoming more substantial and solid and evolving into what we would recognize as an egg. This is off the cuff speculation on my part, I don’t deny that, I am not an expert. But it makes sense to me. No supernatural intervention is required for the evolution of the egg.

This doesn't make any sense to me.... amphibians lay their eggs in water... aquatic reptiles would have no reason to upgrade such an egg.
Amniotic eggs are designed to protect the embryo within from dessication.... not a problem for aquatic eggs or live birth. The first eggs were likely progressively more dessication proof as the reptiles became more and more terrestrial and less and less able to find viable nesting sites for non-amniotic eggs.

wa:do

 

[knockknock]

No, that would not be fair. It might be fair to say that no one on this message board has good answer to this question, but this is after all a message board dedicated to religious discussion and debate. The fact that no one here has been able to give you an answer to this question does not mean that science does not have the answer. True there are people here who have a great deal of scientific knowledge and they may be able to give you good answers on a wide variety of topics, but this board does not represent the total sum of scientific knowledge.

I Googled this but I didn’t really find a good answer. Here is an article anyway. Eggs and Their Evolution

I think the egg may have evolved in aquatic reptiles, perhaps starting with live birth, live birth covered with an embryonic sac, premature birth with an embryonic sac, the embryonic sac becoming more substantial and solid and evolving into what we would recognize as an egg. This is off the cuff speculation on my part, I don’t deny that, I am not an expert. But it makes sense to me. No supernatural intervention is required for the evolution of the egg.

There are actually message boards out there like this one that are dedicated to science questions, even dedicated to biology. Try posting this question on one of those. Visit a library or natural history museum, or even a university. Send an e-mail to a biology professor or researcher who specializes in this area, they might send you an e-mail back. To be fair maybe you don’t want to do all this, and that is fine. It is after all just a casual question. But you would have to do a great deal more work before you draw the conclusion that science does not have an answer to this question.

I did say science would explain this was done by natural means. My point wasn't about trashing evolution it was about atheists using science to refute all supernatural which they simply cannot do. I was told several times that the question was philosophical, so I asked if , philosophically speaking, could there be higher laws than the ones we have already discovered? I'm sure you'll agree that scientist are on a journey of discovery and have by no means reached a destination.

 

[fantome profane]

This doesn't make any sense to me.... amphibians lay their eggs in water... aquatic reptiles would have no reason to upgrade such an egg.
Amniotic eggs are designed to protect the embryo within from dessication.... not a problem for aquatic eggs or live birth. The first eggs were likely progressively more dessication proof as the reptiles became more and more terrestrial and less and less able to find viable nesting sites for non-amniotic eggs.

wa:do

I am sure you are right. But when we talk about reptiles becoming more and more terrestrial, we are talking about a gradual process. I meant to imply starting with aquatic reptiles, not necessarily staying with them. What I am suggesting is if we start with aquatic reptiles that lay eggs in water or wet land we already have egg laying creatures. When they gradually move into dryer land they adapt to that environment, and that adaptation includes the more substantial egg. This part I understand.

The part I am less sure of is how we get the egg laying creature in the first place. I think I am right in saying that it started in or near the water. I can see that the reptilian and bird eggs evolved from something like amphibian eggs (or fish eggs). But how did amphibian or fish eggs evolve? Did live birth come first?

I did say science would explain this was done by natural means. My point wasn't about trashing evolution it was about atheists using science to refute all supernatural which they simply cannot do. I was told several times that the question was philosophical, so I asked if , philosophically speaking, could there be higher laws than the ones we have already discovered? I'm sure you'll agree that scientist are on a journey of discovery and have by no means reached a destination.

But there is a scientific question here that perhaps can be answered. And if you want to know the answer to the scientific question you have to investigate scientific sources. To me the philosophical question is little more than a word game, not very interesting. You are right that science cannot refute the supernatural, all it can say is that a supernatural explanation is not necessary.

 

[knockknock]

But there is a scientific question here that perhaps can be answered. And if you want to know the answer to the scientific question you have to investigate scientific sources.

This I have done but short of subscribing to a scientific institution to read research papers I can find no evidence of a solid answer

You are right that science cannot refute the supernatural, all it can say is that a supernatural explanation is not necessary.

Because science has discovered everything?

 

[fantome profane]

Because science has discovered everything?

No, I am not saying that. What I meant is that science can say that in a supernatural explanation is not necessary to explain specific things. For example a supernatural explanation is not necessary to explain the evolution of the egg.

Science does not deal with the supernatural one way or the other. But I think you are making a very big mistake if you assume* that just because there is no scientific explanation then the answer must be supernatural (and you are making an even bigger mistake if you assume that just because you don’t understand something the answer must be supernatural). Supernatural “explanations” rarely if ever actually explain anything.

(*not that I am assuming that you are assuming)

 

[painted wolf]

I am sure you are right. But when we talk about reptiles becoming more and more terrestrial, we are talking about a gradual process. I meant to imply starting with aquatic reptiles, not necessarily staying with them. What I am suggesting is if we start with aquatic reptiles that lay eggs in water or wet land we already have egg laying creatures.

There would be no selective pressure for an aquatic reptile to develop an amniotic egg.
Fully terrestrial animals would need this, and the fossil evidence indicates that fully terrestrial, nearly reptilian amphibians would likely be the ones to start developing this sort of egg.

When they gradually move into dryer land they adapt to that environment, and that adaptation includes the more substantial egg. This part I understand.

Having an amniotic egg makes one a reptile... you can't have a reptile without it. The precursors for those reptiles were highly terrestrial amphibians like Diadectes.

The part I am less sure of is how we get the egg laying creature in the first place. I think I am right in saying that it started in or near the water. I can see that the reptilian and bird eggs evolved from something like amphibian eggs (or fish eggs). But how did amphibian or fish eggs evolve? Did live birth come first?

Eggs have been around since the sponges evolved. Quite likely before then too. If you are talking about eggs as reproductive cells... if you mean as a little package that holds a baby... then eggs are at least as old as worms.

Live birth is highly advanced and comes well after the development of eggs... indeed live birth is simply keeping the egg inside the mother.

wa:do

 

[Willamena]

Would it be fair to say that science has not deducted how the egg laying creature first came into existence other than to say it was a natural process, i.e. in the beginning there must have been something that laid the first egg! Please don’t accuse me of not understanding the general theme of evolution; I do understand the basics but no way claim scientific knowledge.

I assume it’s a philosophical question because it has not or cannot be reduced to show the process? Philosophically, would it also be fair to say that there are possibly higher levels of laws that are working beyond the presently understood natural laws?

Ok, my point being that some people like to assert that there is no supernatural, that everything has been explained by science, particularly evolution (note: this is usually claimed by the layman rather than the actual scientist). Some people like to claim this whilst deriding, abusing and belittling the religious amongst us and perhaps – just perhaps - they are not on as solid a ground as they think?

I do understand that some of this derision has been caused by the religious fundamentalist who, in turn, likes to judge and condemn their fellow man for not believing what they believe but I do think science is used as a weapon by atheists in general and this, I feel, is as unsubstantial as the fire power of certain religious doctrine.

Or am I still being nonsensical? I’m sure you won’t be too shy to come forward and tell me :yes:

To be fair, logician had said that the question was nonsensical, not you.

That it's a philosophical question simply suggests that the point is not in a "process" answer, but to get one to think about the problem inherent in the cycle.

 

[knockknock]

To be fair, logician had said that the question was nonsensical, not you.

I know this but I really like the word so have adopted it

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

The egg is irrelevant. It is the chicken inside the egg that counts.

 

[3.14]

btw there is no such thing as a chicken so the egg wins by default

young chicken=chick
male chicken=rooster
female chicken=hen

 

[monta]

I was assuming by chicken we meant gallus gallus by default

 

[knockknock]

btw there is no such thing as a chicken so the egg wins by default

young chicken=chick
male chicken=rooster
female chicken=hen

What in G**'s name have they been feeding me at dinner time then

 

[3.14]

dead animal body parts?

 

[fantome profane]

Eggs have been around since the sponges evolved. Quite likely before then too. If you are talking about eggs as reproductive cells... if you mean as a little package that holds a baby... then eggs are at least as old as worms.

Live birth is highly advanced and comes well after the development of eggs... indeed live birth is simply keeping the egg inside the mother.

wa:do

[/font][/color]

Thank you, I think that is where my brain malfunction was. I have been thinking of eggs as like those things in my fridge that I sometimes have for breakfast when I should be thinking more generally as just the female gamete. Keeping that in mind my question about live birth seems so stupid now. But I am not embarrassed.

 

[fantome profane]

The egg is irrelevant. It is the chicken inside the egg that counts.

Maybe the chicken inside the egg can count, but can it play tic tac toe?

 

[painted wolf]

Not a problem... and I wouldn't be embarrassed, it can be hard to remember the simple things. Especially the overlooked single celled ones.

wa:do