BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have always thought of this as one of those conundrums with no definitive answer intended to invoke discussion rather than solution.

But I am inclined to agree with your tutor in as much as the mutation occurs in the embryonic egg stage which develops from what would have been a T-Rex into a series of progressively more Chicken like creatures.

[MikeG]

For me, the chicken is just an allegory. The question really is, what came first, the egg, or the animal that produced it? If we accept this scenario, then its obviously the animal.If we go back to the first unicellular and then multicellular organisms, reproduction was purely by mitosis. So the first universal ancestors pre-existed the egg, which was an adaptation to help the survival of the species, for whatever reason.

If the question is taken literally to refer to a chicken, then as noted by others, then its the egg. As noted by MPL, the chickens ancestor is widely believed to be T-Rex. If thats the case, then the egg existed long before the chicken arrived on the scene.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/20 ... -dna_N.htm

[Shadowwolf]

It might have been one of those questions designed to promote thought etc., but we really can answer it now.

[MikeG]

This is a take from SHadowWolfs philosophy link on the subject at hand

If the egg came before the chicken, what the Disallowed does that even mean? - It means you're not high enough.

[nemisis1960]

The chicken can't come without the egg but the egg can't come without the chicken.

Then again the machines don't know what a chicken taste like so that could be the reason why chicken taste's the way it does

Seriously though is it a question of the egg and the chicken or is it a question of where we came from. You can philosophy the question you can scientifically explain it but should the question be where we came from, as this particular question can be applied to all life on the planet.

Is it a case of evolution progressing to a level were animals mated to reproduce if that is the case then the chicken came first to produce the egg as the egg is produce by the chicken to be fertilized by the male just as a women’s ovaries produce an egg to be fertilized by a man

[Gabriel]

Of course, mr. Wolf, and I gave you two acceptable answers. Maybe there are more, but if you are searching scientific explanation, this is what I found.

[Shadowwolf]

Of course, mr. Wolf, and I gave you two acceptable answers. Maybe there are more, but if you are searching scientific explanation, this is what I found.

Scuse me?

If you refer to my last post, well perhaps I should have included quotes but I merely referred to the two preceding posts and nothing to do with your post.

[Gabriel]

Sorry, I...(I don´t know how do you say in english: "I don`t understood" or "I didn`t understand"?)...Thanks for explain it¡

[Shadowwolf]

I didn't understand

Given the context I believe that above is the meaning you meant to convey.

[Thewestguy1]

Well it depends, if for example you subscribe to the idea of evolution then your answer will be the egg, eg a chickens very close ancestor would lay this egg and due to a mutation the chicken would be born and due to natural selection the ancestor would eventually die out and the chicken would live due to being naturally superior. (a very simple way to put it)

If however you are say a religious person, the answer would probably be the chicken, as one would believe that god created all things.

Although I do not think this question is meant to be interpreted literally.

[Shadowwolf]

Although I do not think this question is meant to be interpreted literally.

Yes the question was initially one of those thought provoking questions, however, in light of knowledge these days it would be mine and others position that the question is actually answerable and we need not concern ourselves with further philosophical meanderings.

The answer is the first one you've given, even though certain people may be disposed towards giving the second answer they would be wrong. You see the first answer can actually muster evidence in its favour whereas the second is mere assertion and often contrary to the established evidence; belief does not confer validity.