03 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by CoconutIt seems that freddie is correct if you are a religous person who believes in creation. Otherwise (assuming evolution), it just depends on your definition of chicken's egg. If you believe that a chicken's egg is one that must have come from a chicken, then indeed the chicken came first. If you belive that a chicken's egg is one that must simply contain what will later be a chicken, then the egg came first.
Freddie is correct.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by xsBut by that rational the chicken came first... The egg was created by the unchanged attributes of the parents. It's the chicken that makes the difference, the egg was created by non-chicken predecessors.
Nope...the egg!
In evolution the offspring are the ones with the changed attributes. So the first chicken species were in eggs first before they hatched and became the chicken.
Unless, of course, you believe chickens came from dust.
03 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by xsOf course they came in eggs. They were just not chicken eggs, but jurassic chicken eggs.
Nope...the egg!
In evolution the offspring are the ones with the changed attributes. So the first chicken species were in eggs first before they hatched and became the chicken.
Unless, of course, you believe chickens came from dust.
But if you define egg as any type of egg, not just chicken eggs, then there were a lot of previous species that were oviparous and the debate would be pointless.
So a chicken egg had to be layed by a chicken and the first chicken had to be born from a jurassic chicken egg, which is not the egg in question.
Hence, the chicken came first.
Edit: The eggs were already eggs before fertilization.
03 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm going to open a huge can right here and tell you all why you can't figure this out.
But by that rational the chicken came first... The egg was created by the unchanged attributes of the parents. It's the chicken that makes the difference, the egg was created by non-chicken predecessors.
Because evolution isn't true. You're all proving it to yourselves right here as you ponder how/when a non-chicken becomes a chicken. The question doesn't matter, because that step never happened, because chickens were created chickens have always been chickens. Some attributes about them can change, yes, but they have always been of the chicken species.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by CoconutWho let the crazy in here?
I'm going to open a huge can right here and tell you all why you can't figure this out.
Because evolution isn't true. You're all proving it to yourselves right here as you ponder how/when a non-chicken becomes a chicken. The question doesn't matter, because that step never happened, because chickens were created chickens have always been chickens. Some attributes about them can change, yes, but they have always been of the chicken species.