CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
It is a difficult one to call as the bunch of genes we know as a Chicken genome is very different from the ones that were around even five hundred years ago let alone ten thousand years ago when the agricultural revolution was underway. Through artificial selection man has sculpted the nature of domesticated animals, and I am sure natural selection would have had something to say.
It is the unfortunate rules of nomenclature that we still today call that species Chicken.
I suppose I would define a Chicken egg as an egg with a chicken in it as well as one layed by a Chicken the distinction being that the species is known to us and it is the same genetic material that made the egg, made the chicken.
Yes, I guess genetically identical was the wrong phrase to use. Genetically recognizable as a chicken perhaps? Even that would be hard to pinpoint but at it's safe to say that at some point, ancestors of today's chicken would no longer be able to fit the gallus domesticus label. So right around then.
I suppose I would define a Chicken egg as an egg with a chicken in it as well as one layed by a Chicken
What about eggs with no embryos in them? Or, less realistically, Joe's example of science putting a duck embryo in a chicken egg. If your definition requires both, then neither of those are chicken eggs.
Whether or not there is an embryo in it does not stop it being a Chicken egg as it would have been made inside a Chicken using the same RNA sequence that would have been a Chicken had it been fertilized. If it was from the ancestral species then that is different but it did have the potential to be a chicken egg but wasn't until one that was a chicken was laid.
If scientists placed a duck embryo inside a chicken egg and it survived then it would be a duck gestated in a chicken egg nothing more as it is not natural.
I was under the impression you were classifying a chicken egg as an egg both produced by a chicken and containing a chicken embryo?
Disregarding hypotheticals like ducks in chicken eggs, that classification still necessitates that the chicken come before the egg (assuming this debate is referring to a chicken vs a chicken egg and not eggs in general). At some point on the timeline, although that particular point may be subjective, chickens were preceded by a protochicken, an animal that would not be classified as a chicken. Sometime between now and then, a 'true' chicken hatched from the egg that was not produced by a 'true' chicken. Any eggs produced by that animal would then fall under the classification of chicken eggs by your definition if I'm not mistaken.
I have to admit that I see your point on this, even when the egg is fertilized it is still a product of the ancestral species and not of the chickens own specific genetic code. So therefore I concede to you and admit I was wrong. Well played.
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
The nutrients in chicken thighs, such as choline and vitamin B12, are important for brain health and cognitive function. Regular consumption of chicken thighs can support memory, concentration https://nandos-menu.co.uk/product-category/sharing-sides/, and overall brain health.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is correct but doesn't that still count as a chicken? After all, the embryo existed for a short time in gestation before the eggshell was formed and the egg was laid.
I got your point right there. Technically you may be right but we are talking about a chicken not a chick nor a embryo. Of course if you want to go on tecnichal meanings yeah you´re right.
I see your point. This could still go back to the question of how one defines an egg: by the animal that produced it, or the animal inside it? If the question refers to a chicken's egg, and the egg the very first chicken hatched from was not produced by a 'true' chicken, is it really a chicken egg?
An animal is always defined by the content of egg right? Imagine in the mammals case, you can mate a tiger with a lion and the produced mammal is not either one of them. It´s the same thing with birds. Do you agree with me?
An unfertilized egg is just an egg. If an egg has a genetically mutated fetus then is just a abnormal fetus. Even though is the same animal is a mutation. In the case of the first chicken it might be a hybrid or something. Tell me what do you think about this :D
At this point, I am not sure there is a scientific protocol on how to classify an egg, so we have perhaps reached an impasse based on subjectivity. But if you asked me what kind of eggs I had in my fridge, I would say chicken eggs although they are unfertilized.
What if we removed the oviparous species from the equation and replaced it with a mammal? A chicken sitting on egg is essentially just tending to a pregnancy taking place outside its body, so if we moved the pregnancy inside the body, the question might look like this: what comes first, a domestic house cat, or a domestic house cat's amniotic sac? Doesn't it seem logical to first need a creature genetically verifiable as a domestic house cat, before that cat can become pregnant and form an amniotic sac?
Forgive me if that doesn't make sense. It is a new angle and I may not have thought it through well.
No, no you made your point clear and logic. I am the one who need to apologize, I know my english isn´t the better but i try my best.
It makes sense but if we think about the chicken (sorry I returned to this subject again) maybe neither of the chicken nor the egg came first. Probably some genetic variations or some half-breeding with two animals made another animal somewhat close to the actual chicken. There may be so many little changes from generation to generation that maybe the chicken as we know cannot be determined in a space line. So nor the egg nor the chicken can truly came first right?
This is another aproach on the subject so of course it might be full of flows in logic.
As to the cat, yes it seems logic but for us to have a gennetically verified house cat is going on a loop again. And that gennetically verified house cat came before or after the amniotic sac? I know I´m sounding a little bit confusing and I am sorry for that.
This is a repetitive loop so I guess you´re right in a point. Maybe there is not a chance to determine who came first. Maybe its just continuous mutations and evolution wich lead to this.
Am I making any sense to you?
(Again I beg your forgiveness but I´m really bad at English)
A good point was made in the threads on the opposite side that chickens today are not genetically identical to chickens 500 or even 100 years ago. However, if a person were to compare the DNA of chickens today, and chickens of previous generations, at some point they would be forced to declare a point where modern chicken's ancestors were no longer 'true' chickens, but a predecessor species. As DNA is a slowly evolving thing, this point would be subjective depending on the observer. But no matter when it falls on the timeline, there was, at a point, a chickenlike creature who was not a 'true' chicken that produced an egg containing a chicken. Thus, when the egg hatched, the first 'true' chicken came into the world. Before that, there were no chicken eggs, only an egg produced by a nonchicken and containing a chicken.
You did. So if a non-chicken produced a egg that had a chicken inside then we can determine that the inside animal was a chicken and that the animal that produced the egg was not. So we can reach the conclusion that the animal wich is produced inside the egg is the determinating factor and not the animal that pruduced the egg. Right?
So do you think if I say the egg came first (based on what I explained above) am I right?
Well, no, because I don't think of the egg that the very first chicken hatched from as a chicken egg, as it was produced by a nonchicken. The egg that the very first chicken laid would be what I would consider a real chicken egg.
Oh so you believe that the first generation of eggs from the first chicken would be considered a real chicken egg? Yeah you´re right on that view.
But if I understood correctly we´re trying to figure out if the chicken came first or the egg. Not necessarely a chicken egg. But the animal inside that egg.
Did I misunderstood the question? If I did I beg your pardon but as I told you before I really lack the skills to talk a correct English.
If the egg in the chicken vs. egg argument is not a chicken egg, then yes the answer would be egg as eggs have been around long before avian species existed at all. But the question would be too easy to answer in that case, so I think it is a chicken egg.
I don't think you misunderstood the question but the final issue to be resolved as how one defines the species of an egg: the producer of the egg, the contents of the egg, or both, and as I'm not sure there is a precedent, then the answer to that is subjective.
Well if we are talking about a chicken egg and not an egg with a chicken then you´re absolutely right.
According to modern philosopher Jacqueline Salk, the question is plainly answered by the fact that eggs existed in other species before chickens ever walked the earth. Consequently, the answer is simple: the egg came first.
Let us assume that E(Q) was not a chicken egg. A species may be defined by certain aspects of its genetic sequence. The mutation in the genetic sequence that would change the non-chicken species into a chicken could only occur, as all mutations occur, during cell division (unless the egg was zapped by radiation into the proper genetic sequence, but in that case it would be a chicken egg). That would mean that after the first division, one cell would be a chicken cell and the other a non-chicken cell, after the 2nd division 2 chicken and 2 non-chicken cells, and after the nth division 2n-1 chicken and 2n-1 non-chicken cells. Thus the final bird would not be a whole chicken, meaning that Q is not a chicken. But since Q was defined as a chicken, this must be a contradiction, meaning that the assumed statement was false. Thus E(Q) must have been a chicken egg, and since chronologically E(Q) must have preceded Q, the egg must have come before the chicken.
So, to me we can define the species by the contents of an egg.
Of course this may change with each person point-of-view.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
