ChatterBank3 mins ago
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chamois. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ok, let us put evolutionary theory aside for one moment, as there are many who would dismiss it through 'lack of evidence'. and would much rather believe in the 'facts' presented in The Big Book of Fairytales.
However, one thing we can't deny is man's domestication of animals through selective breeding. Hence our insipid pink pigs from wild boar stock; our high yielding milkers -the Holstein-Fresians - from ancient bovines; and our broiler and laying flocks from wild guinea fowl or somesuch.
In the same way that the selectively bred offspring of a wild boar could no longer be called a 'wild boar', but instead a hog or a pig - then the offspring of a descendant of a wild fowl at some point was called a 'chicken'.
Its parent was not a chicken, yet it laid the egg from which the thing we first called a chicken hatched.
Therefore - the egg came first.
It's all about drawing the line between something that is not-quite-a-chicken laying the egg that something that is-called-a-chicken hatched from.
It can also, in evolutionary terms, be applied to the whole taxonomical Class of Aves (Birds).
Taken to its logical conclusion - at some point, something that wasn't quite a bird (as we define it) laid an egg that hatched into something that , although very similar to its parent, was a bird. Therefore, (again), the egg came before the bird.
However, one thing we can't deny is man's domestication of animals through selective breeding. Hence our insipid pink pigs from wild boar stock; our high yielding milkers -the Holstein-Fresians - from ancient bovines; and our broiler and laying flocks from wild guinea fowl or somesuch.
In the same way that the selectively bred offspring of a wild boar could no longer be called a 'wild boar', but instead a hog or a pig - then the offspring of a descendant of a wild fowl at some point was called a 'chicken'.
Its parent was not a chicken, yet it laid the egg from which the thing we first called a chicken hatched.
Therefore - the egg came first.
It's all about drawing the line between something that is not-quite-a-chicken laying the egg that something that is-called-a-chicken hatched from.
It can also, in evolutionary terms, be applied to the whole taxonomical Class of Aves (Birds).
Taken to its logical conclusion - at some point, something that wasn't quite a bird (as we define it) laid an egg that hatched into something that , although very similar to its parent, was a bird. Therefore, (again), the egg came before the bird.
Ahem.... I beg to differ with the revered lampshell and deduced that the chicken was first by the following reasoning.
The humble chicken is a descendant from the jungle fowl Gallus gallus which roamed in the wild for well over 10 million years before pre-man began to walk upright.
It was not until European traders visited the Asian regions around 2 millennian ago that the birds were discovered by western society.
If I may now re-iterate brachiopods reasoning - Its parent was not a chicken, yet it laid the egg from which the thing we first called a chicken hatched. This in itself clearly shows that it was not a chicken that layed the egg that produced a bird that was subsequently called a chicken - thus the bird became a chicken after it was hatched so the egg in the question was not a chicken egg and my head hurts now so I am going to make a cup of coffee.
The humble chicken is a descendant from the jungle fowl Gallus gallus which roamed in the wild for well over 10 million years before pre-man began to walk upright.
It was not until European traders visited the Asian regions around 2 millennian ago that the birds were discovered by western society.
If I may now re-iterate brachiopods reasoning - Its parent was not a chicken, yet it laid the egg from which the thing we first called a chicken hatched. This in itself clearly shows that it was not a chicken that layed the egg that produced a bird that was subsequently called a chicken - thus the bird became a chicken after it was hatched so the egg in the question was not a chicken egg and my head hurts now so I am going to make a cup of coffee.
It depends on how you phrase the question.
If the question is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg from which the first chicken emerged?" then the egg came first as reasoned above.
But if the question is "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg?" then the chicken came first because the egg from which it hatched was not a chicken's egg but a pre-chicken's egg.
If the question is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg from which the first chicken emerged?" then the egg came first as reasoned above.
But if the question is "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg?" then the chicken came first because the egg from which it hatched was not a chicken's egg but a pre-chicken's egg.
Hiya Mibs, you alright? All well with you? I know, I know... I got carried away actually answering something in Science as opposed to just asking random questions and forgot my / !!
Ahem... If the rooster was any kind of gentleman then I agree, the hen would have come first.
(Yet another example of why I don't answer in Science).
Ahem... If the rooster was any kind of gentleman then I agree, the hen would have come first.
(Yet another example of why I don't answer in Science).
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Business & Finance8 mins ago
Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News17 mins ago