What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

[BADecker]

The chicken came first.

How come do you know that chicken was first to born though ? without the egg the chicken would not be born , this been debate all over the years , it causing a confusion on some people , but nevertheless in my perspective and what i believe is the egg came first.

When anyone tracks the formation and development of the chicken or the egg, he can see that the process is involved and complex. The formation of the chicken inside the egg, shows that the chicken is around even at the same time the egg exists. But when the egg has outgrown its usefulness, it is discarded, and returns into the dust of the earth. However, this ultimately happens to the chicken as well.

The point is, you always have the chicken, even if it is in development inside the egg. But the chicken goes on without the egg, often for more than a decade... sometimes more than two decades.

Since eggs are formed inside of chickens, but there is a new chicken forming inside the egg inside the chicken, chickens form inside chickens. Eggs are simply part of the process of the development of a chicken.

Understanding all this shows that the whole question is moot, and is a distraction from the real question >>> Where do chickens come from in the first place?

[1715059778]

1715059778

[BADecker]

The first was an egg, from which, under the influence of a temperature change or a gene mutation, a chicken appeared in the aftermath of the chicken.

What laid the egg that hatched out as a chicken? Let's, just for argument's sake, say it was a quail that laid the egg. If it was a quail that laid the egg that hatched out into a chicken, there would have to millions upon millions of mutations to convert a quail inside quail egg into a chicken. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that.

Okay, what about a "bird" that was a near chicken, that laid the egg that hatched the chicken out. Well, that "bird" would have to be so extremely near to being a chicken that nobody could tell the difference, anyway.

For example. If a wood sculptor wanted to sculpt a chair out of a log, he starts with the log, and chips a piece of wood out of the log. Then he chips another, and another and another, etc., until the log is a chair. What about the last chip of wood? Was it a chair before he chipped out the last piece of wood? Or was it still a log? How about the previous chip of wood. Actually, where is the point in which the log actually becomes a chair. Right from the start, because you can sit on a log just like you can sit on a chair?

Jokers like Dawkins might suggest that this animal evolved into that. But the mutation "chip" that changes the final animal from the previous animal, is so tiny that you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals. Like begets like, and that is all that we see. We have no example or experience of an animal that has converted from a different animal by mutation "chip." Like begets like. That's all we have experience and example of.

[agus_sna]

This age-old question really has a simple answer. Attempts to answer it, however, and attempts to get around implications of the simple answer are often quite convoluted.

What do you think about it?

I really agree with the eggs, because what?
Because I think the eggs existed at the time of the dinosaurs and hatch in the years after the dinosaurs, so the newly hatched chicks will adjust to the environment and over time the types of chickens appear to arrive at this time.

[BADecker]

Evolution is a story that we have not seen even one, factual example of. There are lots of stories about how it might be true. But there isn't one example of it. All the so-called evidence fits adaptation better then evolution.

God created the chicken before the chicken egg. Since that time, animals - and even plants - have offspring like their parents, not like some other creature.

There are countless billions (trillions?) of examples of like begets like, but not even one of evolution where an animal (be it egg or not) turned into a different animal.

[BADecker]

Nobody has ever found anything other than a chicken in a chicken egg. Since it is a chicken - even though it might be in developmental stages - the whole thing is a chicken, even the egg. This makes the chicken and the egg to have come about at the same time, since the egg is also the chicken in a non-adult chicken form.

The question is an entirely incorrect question.

[Vod]

Definitely the CHICKEN came first than egg.. 

Without chicken,  there will be no egg.  Even in the bible stated,  God created pairs of ANIMALS, it never stated there that God created a pairs of egg...  😅

So where did the chicken come from?

Your fairy tales aside, all chickens MUST come from eggs.  There is no evidence of chickens just spontaneously appearing.

[BADecker]

Definitely the CHICKEN came first than egg..  

Without chicken,  there will be no egg.  Even in the bible stated,  God created pairs of ANIMALS, it never stated there that God created a pairs of egg...  😅

So where did the chicken come from?

Your fairy tales aside, all chickens MUST come from eggs.  There is no evidence of chickens just spontaneously appearing.

Since the egg is only part of the chicken, how can you apply evolution?

In evolution, some other creature must have laid the egg which hatched out a chicken. This is against evolution theory because of the gigantically large number of mutations it would have taken to convert something else into a chicken inside the same egg.

In addition, there would have had to have been two of these conversions at nearly the same time... one a hen, and the other a rooster. This is the only way that future chickens could have come about. We're back to the same old question of evolution or no evolution.

Since we don't have any real evidence for evolution, and since all the evidence that is called evidence for evolution is only a bunch of people (some scientists) talking through their hats, the chicken came first. Why? Because no evidence for evolution means no evolution. Things were created by God, just like the Bible says. Chicken came first.

[Literally_farming_merits]

First came pussy before baby. facking lol.

[BADecker]

First came pussy before baby. facking lol.

But that doesn't answer the question, because the cat would eat the chicken.

 

[BADecker]

What is in an egg? A chicken, of course; a chicken with a shell. So, the question is really, "What came first, the chicken or the chicken?"

This thread is even more idiotic than the flat earth thread.

[Xester]

This is a very popular question; even as a kid this was always being asked by my friends and even older people. But up to now nobody won the argument  this may sound funny but this is very philosophical question in a very funny way.

For me both the egg and the chicken came at the same time.

In the bible you will read in Genesis that God created all living being including animals that flies and walks and that includes the chicken. There was no mention of eggs.

Evolutionist would argue that all living being came from a one celled organism and evolved. In the earlier stage there was no giving birth but it was eggs that were brought by the water creatures before it evolved and steps on land. When those organisms set forth on land and began to evolve that is the era where chickens are found. In this story eggs came first.

But both of the story were no clear evidence and thus there is no saying which came first so to make it fair let us just accept that probably they exist at the same time.

[Unlitinated]

The chicken and it was testy enough in McChicken menu Seriously - the chicken made by God, then another spouse chicken and finally the egg. Or there is another version - the egg was delivered by aliens then the first chicken made selfpregnancy to proceed the chicken being. Sounds realistic?)

[criza]

A question of "what came first, the chicken or egg?" is an issue of discourse since I was a child. And I must admit that until now, I still don't know what the exact answer is and what is the concrete explanation for that. But based on my hypothetical guess, I think that chicken came first. It is for the reason that the egg cannot evolutionize to chicken from different organism or animals. Unlike chicken, it can possibly came from or evolutionized from the other species. And when exposed to a harmful or strange environment, chicken is more likely to survive than the egg. Hence, there can be no chicken to reproduce egg if in the first place, it came from an egg that is so weak to survive.

[Inasal03]

No one can answer this but many peoples have a explanation just like me egg is first how the egg came if theirs no chicken but how is the chicken if their is no egg so i dont know if eeg or chicken.

[adamantasaurus]

chuck norris came first kicked the chicken and got so scared it shot out an egg... OBVI jeeeze

[queenstella]

The chicken was created first.

[BADecker]

Forget it. A chicken egg is simply a chicken with a shell around it. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken?

[Vod]

Referring to biblical reference, chicken came first because why would God create an egg if he can already make an evolved one.

Let's take away fairy tales for a moment, and concentrate on reality.

The egg came first, because all chickens must come from eggs.

Without invoking make believe, how did a chicken appear without being grown in an egg?

[_jshsnts]

Base from the Genesis or the creation of God, animals are one of his creations including the chicken (I guess) and I read some articles that the shell of the egg is made of proteins that the chicken produces. So I think chicken came first .

[BADecker]

Referring to biblical reference, chicken came first because why would God create an egg if he can already make an evolved one.

Let's take away fairy tales for a moment, and concentrate on reality.

The egg came first, because all chickens must come from eggs.

Without invoking make believe, how did a chicken appear without being grown in an egg?

Wrong. All chickens come from chicken eggs, which were laid by the chicken, first.