Thread Closed

What came first: the chicken or the egg?

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Mar26-04, 04:21 PM   #1
 

What came first: the chicken or the egg?


.
There is no point of reference for us to find the answer to this problem. Without any point of reference, everything is "so" and also "as well as". This means that the chicken and the egg must have been created at the same time (there is a chicken in the egg), because the missing point of reference demands duality.

The duality of the chicken and the egg:
inside - outside (the chicken is on the inside, the egg is on the outside)
visible - invisible (the egg is visible, the chicken is invisible)
hard - soft (the soft chicken is inside the hard eggshell)
large - small (inside a large egg is a small chicken)
life - death (the chicken will live when the egg dies)

Who created these answers?
The missing point of reference (the Creator)

The pattern of infinity (The omnipresent structure)
.
 
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
science news on PhysOrg.com

>> 'Whodunnit' of Irish potato famine solved
>> The mammoth's lament: Study shows how cosmic impact sparked devastating climate change
>> Curiosity Mars rover drills second rock target
Mar26-04, 05:37 PM   #2
 
who cares??? we have chickens and eggs.

enjoy them!

peace,
 
Mar27-04, 01:29 AM   #3
 
visible - invisible (the egg is visible, the chicken is invisible)
VISIBLE to the HUMAN eye. I'm sure its possible to detect the presence of a chicken inside the egg without physically going inside.

Rather, the egg should have come first for obvious reasons. For one thing, the egg existed before the chicken became alive (that is, conscious in some level). The egg is the first stage in the growth from a zygote to a chicken. So the egg came first, not the chicken. You may argue that the zygote had to result from another pair of chickens. True, but that over looks the scientific theory of how life began in the first place. Chemicals mixing -> DNA etc. Therefore, in the case of a chicken, the first chicken to come into existence would have had to come from an egg.
 
Mar27-04, 03:23 AM   #4
 

What came first: the chicken or the egg?


Maybe there is no chicken or egg, it only appears that there is. When they are broken down to fundamental parts, there is no parts.
 
Mar27-04, 09:51 AM   #5
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Every chicken has an egg in its background. But not every egg has a chicken in its background. Even dinosaurs laid eggs, long before chickens evolved!
 
Mar27-04, 12:32 PM   #6
 
The first bonafide chicken came from an egg laid by some not-quite-chicken fowl.
 
Mar27-04, 12:51 PM   #7
 
Yes, the key here is evolution. Something obviously laid an egg and out of it came a chicken ... or something which bridges the gap between a modern day chicken and whatever it was the chicken evolved from.
 
Mar27-04, 10:35 PM   #8
 
This is the least I could find concerning what the chicken evolved from.

The different viewpoints make for a different answer to the chicken-or-egg question. However, in each of the viewpoints, it seems most probably that there were earlier fish eggs before there were chickens. Evolution theory assumes that some types of fish were on the earth, many years before there were any type of birds. The Bible also describes the creation of the sea animals one sentence before the creation of the birds, so following the Bible, we can assume that there were fish eggs before there were chickens. So, here we have our first answer: the egg was first, if we allow it to be a fish egg.
Oh, and by the way, can anyone do the honors of explaining this in ENGLISH??
good luck:

Gene organisation determines evolution of function in the chicken MHC.

Kaufman J, Jacob J, Shaw I, Walker B, Milne S, Beck S, Salomonsen J.

Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Berkshire, UK. jim.kaufman@bbsrc.ac.uk

Some years ago, we used our data for class I genes, proteins and peptide-binding specificities to develop the hypothesis that the chicken B-F/B-L region represents a "minimal essential MHC". In this view, the B locus contains the classical (highly expressed and polymorphic) class I alpha and class II beta multigene families, which are reduced to one or two members, with many other genes moved away or deleted from the chicken genome altogether. We found that a single dominantly expressed class I gene determines the immune response to certain infectious pathogens, due to peptide-binding specificity and cell-surface expression level. This stands in stark contrast to well-studied mammals like humans and mice, in which every haplotype is more-or-less responsive to every pathogen and vaccine, presumably due to the multigene family of MHC molecules present. In order to approach the basis for a single dominantly expressed class I molecule, we have sequenced a portion of the B complex and examined the location and polymorphism of the class I (B-F) alpha, TAP and class II (B-L) beta genes. The region is remarkably compact and simple, with many of the genes expected from the MHC of mammals absent, including LMP, class II alpha and DO genes as well as most class III region genes. However, unexpected genes were present, including tapasin and putative natural killer receptor genes. The region is also organised differently from mammals, with the TAPs in between the class I genes, the tapasin gene in between the class II (B-L) beta genes, and the C4 gene outside of the class I alpha and class II beta genes. The close proximity of TAP and class I alpha genes leads to the possibility of co-evolution, which can drive the use of a single dominantly expressed class I molecule with peptide-binding specificity like the TAP molecule. There is also a single dominantly expressed class II beta gene, but the reason for this is not yet clear. Finally, the presence of the C4 gene outside of the classical class I alpha and class II beta genes suggests the possibility that this organisation was ancestral, although a number of models of organisation and evolution are still possible, given the presence of the Rfp-Y region with non-classical class I alpha and class II beta genes as well as the presence of multigene families of B-G and rRNA genes.
Hope you understood that genetic specification, Glynos. (Makes me dizzy)
 
Apr3-04, 08:33 PM   #9
 
Quote by quartodeciman
The first bonafide chicken came from an egg laid by some not-quite-chicken fowl.
I've always assumed the question was about chicken eggs, not any old egg. Thanks, quartodeciman, for the best answer I've ever heard!
 
Apr7-04, 05:09 AM   #10
 
we have chicken first, so then we could have chiken eggs

if we have chicken eggs first they must be a chicken laid it.
 
Apr8-04, 09:40 PM   #11
 
This old drunk told me we shouldn't care about these things.

Anyway: Wouldn't it be impossible for there to be an egg first, because the shell comes from the chicken? I'll just say what I always say when I don't know: "It all started with a cell, then the whole spaghetti just sorta evolved from there."
 
Apr10-04, 01:54 AM   #12
 
Or maybe God was tired when he made the chicken.
 
Apr22-04, 07:34 PM   #13
 
I agree they evolved together, but in a way one could say that much much further back it started with a very simple chicken that came first or basically something like an amino acid chain spontaneously forming due to infinite time and motion, and by accident it learned how to replicate itself and become a virus and so started laying eggs, but then what came before that? God is a chicken!
 
Apr23-04, 04:28 AM   #14
 
Sorites paradox.
 
Apr23-04, 09:42 AM   #15
 
Quote by badhofer
.
The duality of the chicken and the egg:
inside - outside (the chicken is on the inside, the egg is on the outside)
visible - invisible (the egg is visible, the chicken is invisible)
hard - soft (the soft chicken is inside the hard eggshell)
large - small (inside a large egg is a small chicken)
life - death (the chicken will live when the egg dies)

Who created these answers?
The missing point of reference (the Creator)

The pattern of infinity (The omnipresent structure)
.
Hi,

I don't know if you are the author of the ideas on the website, or if you just borrowed the guy's name, but in any case it was one of the best things I ever read on the internet. Absolutely fantastic!

I liked this thing about the chicken and egg problem:

The hen and egg problem exhibits the same problem as the question: what came first, left or right? The answer: Both, as one brings about the other.

I had long suspected the answer was "both", but I couldn't understand why. It's become very clear now. Thanks a lot!

But I found this bit even more interesting, as it answered a question I thought I would never be able to answer, about the origin of time:

Infinity is dual and has a beginning and an end. There is no question regarding what was before the beginning and what comes after the end, because first comes the end and then the beginning.

The end of unconscious infinity (infinity has always existed, but it did not know about it, because there was no point of reference) is at the same time the beginning of conscious infinity.


Not only I understand it now, I can also see what was so difficult to understand before. I thought time had to begun at some point, which obviously doesn't make any sense, but I also couldn't make sense of the idea of time stretching forever into the past. It never occurred to me to apply the concept of duality to time itself, which is kind of a major oversight since everything real is dual. That particular comment was an eye-opener!
 
Apr25-04, 04:16 AM   #16
 
Quote by photon
Or maybe God was tired when he made the chicken.

umm interesting Or maybe egg it is easier to made

so first to come?
 
Apr26-04, 02:53 PM   #17
 
the egg came first.

now let me hand-wave together an argument using some fuzzy logic and pseudo-evolutionary theory.

assumption 1: chickens evolved from some other creature.

let's call that other creature pre-chickens.

assumption 2: the evolution from pre-chickens to chickens was gradual to some degree.

here's where the fuzzy logic comes in though i don't really need to mention it explicitly. let x(n) be the n-th generation of pre-chickens. x(n) is a function from the natural numbers to the interval [0,1]. when x(n)=0 that is to be interpreted as the pre-chicken has no chicken traits and x(n)=1 means the "pre-chickens" are now all totally chicken. x(n) is the degree to which the pre-chicken population is chicken. assumption 2 translates into "x(n)=1 implies n>1."

assumption 3: for some c, if x(n) >= c, then a human would call a pre-chicken in question a chicken.

c may be 0.99999999999999999999999 or some such.

assumption 4: x(n) increases which in lay terms means that the pre-chickens are evolving but mathematically can translate into the following: for all n in N, x(n+1)>x(n).

assumption 5: [main assumption] pre-chickens lay eggs as well.

maybe someone more knowledgeable in biology can back this up or tell me i'm full of it.

conclusion: for some n, x(n)<c and x(n+1)>=c. the egg laid by the nth generation of pre-chickens gave birth to what would be considered a chicken. the egg came first.
 
Thread Closed
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: What came first: the chicken or the egg?
Thread Forum Replies
I got Chicken Pox ... General Discussion 7
forget the chicken and it's egg... General Discussion 11
Buffalo Chicken General Discussion 16
As Regards the Chicken General Discussion 13
Chicken Curry General Discussion 3