Which came first?


I vote "the egg". I think the ancestors of the modern chicken were laying eggs before we got ourselves to today's "chicken."



Copernicus, BigD, Tim, I expect to hear from all of you on this highly intellectual, relevant topic.


Farnan, this topic isn't about poker so you can post on this thread too.

Is there anyway it could be other than the egg? At some point cumulative mutations of a non-chicken genome resulted in the chicken genome, but those mutations assert themselves during embryonic development which occurs in the egg.

Ie an already hatched non-chicken doesnt mutate into a chicken and then lay eggs.

*******.




I usually shy away from posting about poker--though i do like to read about it. If i posted about poker--all i'd get is "TP/MM" or some other smartass remark--this way it is I who can be the smartass.




Answer is simple---I don't know, which means God did it.

To get to the other side!


Oh wait, wrong thing.

Wow we agree this easily...

i agree not we do

Chicken. Egg needs to be sat on and basically babied, at a certain temperature for it to even consider hatching.

This is what makes evolutionist so sad- the easy answers completely escape them.

YAY GOD

obviously if you define "chicken" by drawing an arbitrary line in the genetic lineage of modern domestic chickens, the first chicken was incubated by a genetically slightly different proto-chicken. the egg came first.


mmmmm, proto-chicken...




your south park episode sucked

Was this a joke post? Or do you really think that the chicken/egg question has an easy answer, and also proves that evolution never happened?

Since chicken eggs can hatch in incubators or with any substitute source of warmth, your statement is irrelevant.

The chicken definately came first... God made it and then it laid eggs.




Were there incubators on the Galapagos Islands?

makes sense because god made christianity and it laid an egg too




exactly as many as there were chickens

from a Christian point of view i say chicken because God created the animals

Very nice.

And to answer the question, I gotta go with my pro-evolution (saying the phrase pro-evolution seems a lot like saying the phrase pro-"round earth" or pro-"belief that one plus one equals two" but thats neither here nor there, I just like stirring up trouble) cronies and go with the egg, for reasons stated above.

The pennant winner for sure!

It's obviously a silly question. It is exactly equivalent to asking, "do you believe in evolution or not." We're going to get all the usual responses from all the usual suspects.

That's actually really funny you mention that.

A friend of mine is currently at the Galapagos Islands for 6 months. He wrote an email a few weeks ago telling us that he saw the funniest thing...two male tortoises (sp?) were having gay buttsex.

I'm not sure what this proves...but I bet Custom would have something to say about it.

And people in Massachusetts thought allowing gay marriage didn't **** everything up.

This is one of the most simplest questions of all time

Answer: The Egg

Prove: Reptiles laid eggs, well before the chicken ever existed.

Obviously, a "chicken" egg was inferred.

Big suprise that Mr. Tah missed the chicken part.

How could you do that? Actually, I don't care, Popeyes chicken was enabled because of this magnificent dirty bird, and a feast fit for a king it is I tell you.

Ask for extra cajun gravy, fat boy loves it.





It was flippant on my part, but the answer is that easy. The egg needs to be incubated, at a certain warmth for a certain amount of time every day, and the actual rooster just happens to do that perfectly- it's a neccesary part of the egg coming to fruition, to life. Without it, it never happens.

How can this even be argued? No intelligent person can argue against evolution.

No, you assumed it is a chicken egg. The question was which came first chicken or egg, I say egg. If its which came first "chicken egg or chicken" thats a different question.

There is nothing in the question to make me assume its a chicken egg we are talking about.

The "chicken egg" had to come before the chicken too. Chickens evolved from creatures that layed egg. Therefore, the first chicken that evolved must have come from and egg, and since that egg had a chicken in it, it was a chicken egg. It does not matter if the parents were not what we consider chickens. But they would have been pretty damn close to them.

Look who the OP was, and then you can feel like a shythead for trying to tell me what my own statement inferred.

PWNED

the aliens brought the chicken... who then proceeded to have eggs duh!

Looking back, your right, I'm wrong.

Um. rooster is the daddy, not the mommy. He does not sit on the egg.

But it doesnt have to be a chicken that sits on the egg. It isnt that hard.

Non-Chicken ovum fertilized by Non-Rooster sperm ----> gene mutation ------> chicken egg deveops and is incubated by non-Chicken----->chicken hatches.

IT CANNOT BE:

non-chicken hatches -----> hatched non-chicken mutates into chicken -------> chicken ovum fertilized by non-rooster ----> egg.

They are reffered to as hens, or roosting hens, if you want to get technical. Does not take away from the fact that the egg cannot hatch without em.




Yeah, because the answer that make sense is random animal, instead of eating the egg or destroying decides to sit on it for awhile, at the right temp, for the right amount of time.

Are you really that intelligent that the blatantly simple completely escapes you?

talking to yourself again?

What are you talking about? It is the animal's own egg.

Wow. No hard feelings.

i think it implies that its a chicken egg..... and i dont think it has to be a chicken. the chicken is a methephore for all animals that laid eggs? or maybe im just tired

Ok, just for the record, saying "Which came first, chicken or the egg" does not imply anything. That why the smart answer is typically the egg for the reasons I stated. Thing is I made the comment without even looking at the original post.

You know sometimes I like being a smartass thats all.

Not only are you obtuse, but your basic premise is wrong. A chicken (or proto-chicken) egg can hatch without a hen sitting on it. The temperature range isnt that critical and any animal or other heat source will do.

Thats just wrong- too hot it doesnt work, to cold it doesnt work, animal to heavy it breaks, and why would said animal even do it? It would have no reason too, absolutly none, unless it had something invested in the outcome of the egg or was just really bored. Chicken is the logical choice, and since the egg is created inside the mechanisms of a chicken, then logically it would have to have been here first.

hard to explain it to you if you lack any comprehension of how evolution works.

A gay one does.

Lol, and you do, with absolute proof? You would be the first.


That was my point earlier- you cannot tell me the egg came first for a fact. You can't- well, you could, but you would have to admit that you could be wrong. My simple explanation makes sense and is unacceptable solely because it points in the direction of a creator, God or not. This is why this stuff never gets anywhere, because anytime it hints in that direction, time for a bunch of theoretical reasons why it could not possibly be so, just alot of speculation that would lead you to question God. If I cared enough I would feel sorry for you, but I don't- everyman must make his own path. Some lead to God, some don't.

my point was that whether you think it's true or not, you don't understand even the simplest basics of the mechanics behind evolutionary theory, so your simplistic attempts at logical responses to people citing "egg-first" evolution are pointless.

Youll have to link me to a "simple explanation that makes sense". IVe sure never seen one from you.

It wouldn't make sense to you because as a evolutionary theory apologist your one job is to poke theoretical wholes in any sort of creation scenario. You think differently, in that you ask questions that begat questions full knowing that said questions will probably never be answered- we just think differently.


Basically, what it comes down to is you fear God even more than I do in that you are terrified at even allowing the idea of him. Fear is a start, it's just focused in the wrong direction.

Absolute truth. No. The fossil record, carbon dating, and other wizardry of science is only 99% accurate and makes perfect logical sense. A book a few thousand years old that claims to be the word of god on the other hand...



What do you think about muslims who don't believe in a christian god? Are they just to afraid to accept "the truth"

Christian fundamentalists are amoung the most narrow minded people on earth.

In other words, you dont have any simple explanations that make sense.

Terrified? not in the least. I wouldnt mind at all if there were a creator and something after this life. I sure as hell know that if there is one it wont be the Christian notion of god, because a god with those attributes couldnt possibly screw things up as badly as a Christian god would have to for this to be his creation.

Hmmm




Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. They just have different beliefs on what happened after Abraham had two children (Ishmael and Isaac?). Christians follow one, Muslims follow the other.

Really? The whole allah thing threw me off. Anyway, my point is still the same. Just substitute muslim for hindu.

technically lots of different fundamentalists believe in the "same" god, but the specifics of their beliefs are incompatable. that's more the issue.

Allah means God in arabic. Same guy.

Hindu is a much better choice.