CreateDebate


Debate Info

90
66
chicken egg
Debate Score:156
Arguments:67
Total Votes:167
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 chicken (39)
 
 egg (27)

Debate Creator

burcorzin(166) pic



Which came first? Chicken or Egg?

which came first chicken or egg

chicken

Side Score: 90
VS.

egg

Side Score: 66
5 points

If we are talking about specifically chicken eggs, then the chicken would be first. The very first chicken that is genetically identical to chickens of today would have hatched from an egg laid by a creature minutely different from it, so that egg could not be qualified as a chicken egg.

But if we are talking about eggs in general then ricedaragh has it.

Side: Chicken
ryuukyuzo(604) Disputed
3 points

Hold on.

is a chicken egg an egg laid by a chicken or an egg with a (baby) chicken in it?

Side: egg
3 points

Both are chicken eggs in essence. One just happens to come before the other.

Side: egg
zombee(1024) Disputed
3 points

I guess I would define an egg by the species that produced it? Otherwise how would you classify unfertilized eggs? Until the egg hatches, you don't know exactly what's inside (possibly some kind of severe mutation or throwback) so I think it is safer to classify it by what you already know; who laid the egg.

Side: Chicken
riahlize(1575) Disputed
2 points

But that very first chicken would have hatched out of an egg, that egg which contains a chicken and not another species. So wouldn't that mean the egg came first?

PS: Did I really just reply to a post that is 1,254 days old?

Damn you whoever decided to revive the topic. :P lol

Side: egg
4 points

Chicken cause the egg had to be laid,so if the egg came 1st there would be no chicken so that makes the chicken came 1st.

truly,

lily

Side: Chicken
4 points

chicken. because c is in front of e in the dictionary. when u flip the dictionary pages, u see chicken before u see egg.

Side: Chicken
3 points

I believe what the Bible says. You can disagree, but its my belief. It says that God placed two animals from every species on the earth in order to reproduce.

Side: Chicken
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
5 points

Here's a request. Please stop believing this. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. And we can explain why. There's is literally no reason or excuse to believe this even if it's Biblical. There isn't even anything in the Bible that says you have to believe this story. Don't use "it's my belief" as a crutch for ignorance.

Side: egg
infection0(38) Disputed
3 points

So if you believe in the bible you do believe that God killed over 284.638.000 human beings aproximatedly dont you?

So you acknowlage that your imaginary friend (sorry but to my understanding he passes not but that) is just a genocide?

Side: egg
Anonymous0(1) Clarified
2 points

Dear Infection0,

I by no means intend to argue with you as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, by my beliefs, God did not intend for the world to be this way. He created the earth as perfect and holy, but he gave humans the choice of whether they wanted to pursue Him or the sinful nature of mankind, because He loves us and wants us to decide for ourselves if we love him back. The beauty of His love was the ability of choice that he gave us, but unfortunately humans choose to lie and murder and turn away from what he intended. So despite the murder and hurt that the human race inflicts upon itself, God is still there and saving those who choose Him, and he gives the choice to everyone. My point being, if anything favors a genocide, it is mankind who has taken God's perfect world that He gave us and has chosen to destroy it with hatred. I hope this clarifies things, and again, I have no intention of upsetting you with my view.

Side: chicken
Consigliere(183) Disputed
2 points

And where did those animals you speak of come from young padawan?

Side: egg

For a detailed discussion explaining the answer, go here:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_came_first__the_Chicken_or_the_egg

Side: Chicken

Problem:The solution to the age-old question, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" depends on whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist. The answer, however, is still the same if you assume that the egg in question is a chicken egg. "The chicken came first." If the egg in question is NOT a chicken egg, then the egg came first because there were dinosaur eggs before there were chickens.

The crux of the problem hinges on the definition of a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg that comes from a chicken or an egg that contains a chicken? Many people think of a chicken egg as a chicken eggshell that contains a chicken fetus. In other words, the chicken and the egg problem exist because people typically think of a chicken egg as a single entity (chicken eggshell and chicken fetus together). I will attempt to show that this configuration (chicken eggshell and chicken fetus together) is not necessary in order to create a chicken and that an egg should thus be classified by the species that laid it rather than by what species it contains.

I think that it is safe to say that the chicken fetus is the most obvious part of a chicken egg. The eggshell, however, is trickier because if the eggshell contains any genetic material, then one could argue that the eggshell is part of the fetus and thus the chicken egg could be classified as a single entity. Since the eggshell is made of calcium, we can safely say that the chicken egg consists of two distinct parts (the chicken eggshell and chicken fetus).

A problem still exists, however. Who generates the eggshell? If the fetus generates the eggshell then one could argue that the eggshell is part of the fetus and thus a fertilized chicken egg could be classified as a single entity. But there exists unfertilized eggs. This means that a fetus is not necessary in order to generate the eggshell. Maybe all that is necessary to generate the eggshell is the unfertilized genetic material provided by the hen. Since the complexity of generating an eggshell is beyond the capability of unfertilized genetic material, and since the unfertilized genetic material belongs to (and is generated by) the hen, it is safe to say that the hen generates the eggshell.

This reduces the eggshell to the status of a container. If the eggshell is nothing more than a container, then almost any container with egg like properties should be sufficient to incubate a chicken fetus. If an eggshell/container is capable of carrying almost any fetus of a different species to term, then we cannot classify the eggshell/container by its content. Rather, we should classify the eggshell/container by the species that created the eggshell/container. For example, if scientists were successful in hatching a chicken from a plastic container, would you then call the plastic container and the chicken fetus (together) a chicken egg? Or would you say that the plastic container held a chicken fetus? As another example, if scientists were able to extract the fertilized genetic material from a chicken egg and insert it into a duck egg, would the duck egg be reclassified as a chicken egg? Or would you maintain the "duck egg" classification and state that the duck egg in question contains a chicken fetus? My belief is that (in both examples) most people would choose the later (maintain the "plastic container/duck egg" classification and add the "chicken fetus" qualifier). In other words, an egg should be classified by the species that laid it rather than by what species it contains.

Once we agree on the definition of a chicken egg (an eggshell generated by a hen regardless of content), the solution is trivial.

Solution:

Creationist: God said, "Let there be a hen." Otherwise, who would sit on the egg? Alternatively, God could have said, "Let there be a rooster." and then decided that the rooster needed companionship and so He created the hen and they then begot the egg. NOTE: Since God is perfect, it is unlikely that he said, "Let there be a chicken egg. Oh, and I almost forgot, let there be a hen to sit on that chicken egg. Ooh, wait, and a rooster!"

Evolutionist: Some animal (not a chicken) laid an egg (not a chicken egg). The fetus inside the egg underwent some minor evolutionary change that resulted into a hen. This hen then laid the first chicken egg. Alternatively, the result was a rooster. The rooster then mated with some animal (not a chicken) that laid an egg (not a chicken egg, since the rooster's DNA could not have affected the egg). The result was (eventually) a hen who then laid the first chicken egg.

Chicken and the Egg, Alternate Solution

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking a bit ticked off, grabs the sheet, rolls over and says ... Well, I guess we finally answered "THAT question!"

Side: Chicken
3 points

This is the most in-depth and sensible argument I have ever seen you post and it's kind of ironic it was posted on such a trite question. You sure are full of surprises.

Side: Chicken

Well....., I'm not an idiot you know.... I just play one on CD ;)

Side: Chicken
3 points

It's a copy paste. And the second time he's copied/ pasted it. Still though, it is his only worthwhile contribution so upvote.

Side: Chicken
3 points

the chicken came first, but from the egg of another creature, which is not the 'egg' in this context which refers to that of a chicken. Evolution, through its infinitesimal stages of change, brought single-celled organisms, which were formed from proteins in the the prehistoric seas (not birthed from an egg), to the reptiles, mammals and crustaceans of today. Birds evolved from reptiles (dinosaurs). small changes took place gradually with every generation born. so from a dinosaur egg would come a dinosaur with a certain chicken 'feature'. and then THIS dinosaur-chicken would lay a dinosaur-chicken egg, from which would be born a dinosaur-chicken which is more chicken than dinosaur. finally after millions of years of these changes, a chicken, as we know it, would finally be born from a dinosaur-chicken egg, which was ALMOST a chicken egg.

IF you do not believe Darwin, then it would probably be worth mentioning that the bible says that God created living organisms, which would include the chicken. it would be unlikely that God would have created an egg first without a chicken to incubate it.

Hence, in conclusion, the chicken came first!

Side: Chicken
3 points

To save everyone from reading a long, possibly confusing explanation why a "chicken" would have come first, I will simply claim an egg IS a chicken, that is to say, and egg contains a chicken.

Side: Chicken
3 points

The chicken cane first because in the bible it says God created the birds and the animals that walk the ground. And if the egg came first then who made the egg and who hatched the egg?

Side: Chicken
3 points

In the beginning God created all animals including chickens. Besides who would have hatched the egg? And how would it learn to protect its self. Think about it, 2 weird animals would have to give birth to something that looked like a chicken, they would have to be of opposite sexes, they would have to live near each other, they would have to get along at some point, and they would have to kill off or get away from the other weird animals species that gave birth to the thing that looks like a chicken in order to keep it from breeding with that animal and setting everything back.

Side: Chicken
3 points

chicken came first if u study biology u'll find it out the egg had 2 b led by a chicken if there was no chicken then did the egg fall off the sky?????

Side: Chicken

Researchers in U.K. say Proof is in the Protein Found in Chicken's Ovaries, Used to Form Eggshell.

THEREFORE, THE CHICKEN

Supporting Evidence: Chicken (www.cbsnews.com)
Side: Chicken
3 points

From purely as a logical conclusion if you bar any evolution the chicken must come first since any egg would need to be incubated in order to hatch. However this is not considering evolution or even climate change in the past.

Side: Chicken
3 points

Barring any evolution and based purely from logical point of view the chicken must come first in order to incubate the egg.

Side: Chicken
3 points

Firstly we have to know for about physics natural of Chicken and Egg.

>Chicken: Let say Chicken is first existence. Chicken can be produce egg by naturally (without mate with male chicken). By the way, now we're buying and eating that type of chicken eggs. Right?)

And Chicken need to made worm for Egg (to become chicken).

>Egg: Let say Egg is first existence. Egg need to get worm (to become chicken). Egg can't worm itself. By the way, we're never heard Egg became Chicken without Chicken made worm.

# Scientist can made Egg. but they can not made living things (Life).

* So we can thing about the first existence is Chicken or Egg.

Side: Chicken
2 points

Well a chicken had 2 take care of the egg by keeping it warm and protected. therefore I personally believe the chicken came first

Side: chicken
2 points

God made the chicken first so that ends the argument..................................

Side: Chicken
garry77777(1797) Disputed
2 points

No thats incorrect im afraid, the egg came first, there is no way that the chicken could have come first, just think about. The fact is that the species of chicken currently living on this planet evolved from a some chicken ancestor which would have reprosuced by laying eggs as the chicken does.

I dont see how you can beleive that God made the chicken, i mean you have to think how the chicken got here, it didnt just suddenly appear our of think air. The ancestor would have to have laid an egg as the random mutation that created the modern day chicken are not significant enough to alter the way a species reproduces.

Side: egg
2 points

C'mon! The chicken came first. Didn't God just make it first before the egg?

Side: Chicken
2 points

It was definately the chicken, 'cause god would look pretty silly sitting on an egg. Am I right?

Side: Chicken
2 points

Well without the chicken, we won't have the egg so I believe the chicken came first

Side: chicken
1 point

the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first

‘The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process

The protein – called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell.

Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to ‘zoom in’ on the formation of an egg.

It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation – the early stages of forming a shell.

The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grammes of shell every 24 hours

Not to put God in the field of science but God make the chicken who then layed the eggs!

Side: chicken
6 points

The egg as before there was a chicken there was another ancestral species of the Chicken that through random variation became a chicken and anyway pre-historic animals were laying eggs long before birds existed.

Side: egg
2 points

True, true.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: egg
4 points

It really depends on what you consider a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg containing a chicken (or rooster), or an egg laid by a chicken? I personally think it is the former, because I like to make things simple. Chicken eggs beget chickens. Eggs of animal X beget more animal X.

Therefore, we've established that any egg containing an animal that will grow up to be capable of reproducing with a modern chicken and producing fertile offspring is indeed a chicken egg. Just so you know, any animal that can reproduce with a chicken to produce fertile offspring is indeed a chicken, as per the biological definition of a species.

So having established the definition, we have to really ask ourselves, how did chickens arise where there were no chickens before?

The fact is, some ancestral species of bird underwent some mutations in their gametes. These gametes fused to form a fetus. Once this fetus is conceived, if its genome is compatible with that of a modern chicken, it is a chicken, regardless of its parent's species. So, we've now established some ancestral chicken species gave rise to a chicken fetus. Seeing as most, if not all, bird fetuses are encased in an egg, before there were any chickens, there was a chicken egg.

Therefore, the chicken egg most definitely, and without a doubt, came first.

Side: egg
4 points

It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Side: egg
3 points

It's like a circle- it has no beginning or end. Birds come from eggs and birds lay eggs.

Side: egg
3 points

it has to be an egg because of evolution. creatures and beings change over time, just as we humans have. the modern chicken became what it is today and looks nothing like its ancestors thousands of years ago.

Side: egg
Dena(13) Disputed
2 points

"it has to be an egg because of evolution" Why? In the chicken side there are pleanty of reasons why the chicken is first according to evolution. This is such an ignorant remark because you are not 100% sure evolution is true beacuse t may have been God that made the chicken first

Side: Chicken
3 points

The chicken isn't the only animal to lay eggs nor is it the first. So I would say the egg was first.

Side: egg
2 points

Quite obviously the egg. What we consider a modern chicken was birthed from a chicken with like a .00000000000000000000000000000001% DNA difference hundreds of years ago.

Side: egg
2 points

what we call a chicken will only come from an egg that hatched and produced a chicken. if you consider evolution an animal similar to a chicken would have laid the first chicken egg.

Side: egg
2 points

if you say chicking how was the first chicking made with out its egg? it goes egg to chicking so i belive egg

Side: egg
2 points

Egg (of the chicken inside in) , From the evolution one creature that have a wings that can fly(but we didn't called it chicken) had lay egg. From the evolution or some how maybe she and her mom haven't fly for a long time .It made the baby in that eggs can't fly , and we called it chicken

Side: egg
1 point

I know the egg came first think. Did they say what kind of egg? NO! You must be thinking so what? Well dinosaurs laid eggs long before there were chickens! So therefore the egg came first.

Side: egg

GUYS THE EGG CAME FIRST! REPTILES EXISTED CENTURIES BEFORE CHICKENS AND REPTILES LAY EGGS. EGGS EXISTED BEFORE CHICKENS!

Side: egg
1 point

Mutations happen during reproduction/in an offspring. It does not happen during a creature's lifespan but through the act of reproduction which brings about a mutation in the offspring. And if the first chicken still hatched from an egg, this would mean that the egg came first. For the egg is the chicken in an embryo state. But that does not change the fact that the mutation had already occurred.

Side: egg