[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 360x450, X.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3684515 [Reply] [Original]

The egg came before the chicken.
Proof:

The mother of the first chicken ever was a retard prechicken.

The retard prechicken got knocked up and decided to make the first chicken.

The first chicken's name was Dantonio, to make this proof less verbiage.

During Dantonio's growth, inside of his mother, we don't consider him to be a chicken. He is growing and developing to become a chicken.

The egg also develops during this time.

We'll consider Dantonio to be a chicken when he hatches out of his egg.

The egg is considered a chicken egg not because it has a chicken in it but because it has a developing chicken in it. Das what eggs do.


tldr egg came first
pic unrelate

>> No.3684530

it's pretty obvious the egg came first bro, you only just realised this?

>> No.3684538

>>3684530


shut up nerd. but yeah

>> No.3684570

>>3684538
>>3684530
>>3684515
The egg came first, no one gets confused except 10 year old children informed by virgin 30 year olds who want to look smart.

>> No.3684572

everyone knows the egg came first

>> No.3684565

>>3684515

>The mother of the first chicken ever was a retard prechicken.

Wow you have failed at your proof in the very first line.

>> No.3684576
File: 39 KB, 640x480, 1314931935135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3684565
>Hes not trolling

>> No.3684597

get sars u smug bastards

>> No.3684639

the egg came first because egglaying animals existed long before some of them evolved into birds

>> No.3684659

>>3684639


can't tell if troll

>> No.3684669

If you're randomly reading this thread to find the actual answer to "what came first...", the answer is the chicken. You get two parents to give birth to a slightly different-but-same animal.

The analogy might be flawed, but I hope I am right guys. I hope so.

>> No.3684683

If you are a rational, materialist, scientific individual who thinks evolution is true: the egg came first.

If you are a faith-based, idealist, religious individual who thinks creationism is true: the chicken came first.

>> No.3684700

>>3684683

trufe ain't conditional mayne

>> No.3684709 [DELETED] 

>>3684515
WRONG!

http://www.cracked.com/article_19195_7-simple-questions-you-wont-believe-science-just-answered.html

chicken came first.

>> No.3684705

>>3684700
Jamal? When'd you come to /sci/?

>> No.3684726

OP here.


now i'm confused halp

>> No.3684727

>>3684709
I love you, EK.

>> No.3684731

>>3684683
How does >>3684709 make you feel?

>> No.3684738

>>3684709
Do you only post when there is a chicken v egg debate?

>> No.3684745

talking about chicken eggs here, guys not just eggs

>> No.3684749 [DELETED] 
File: 278 KB, 476x350, 12645648.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3684738
LOL
<<<
you must be new here. i post all the fucking time.

>> No.3684754 [DELETED] 
File: 8 KB, 225x252, 1304355004701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3684727
aww, thanx hun.

>> No.3684752

>>3684749
It's actually my first day on /sci/.
So what?

>> No.3684764 [DELETED] 

>>3684752
no it fucking isn't. i've seen you post before.

>> No.3684766

>>3684709
Cracked is retarded.
>In the summer of 2010, British researchers cracked the eneggma when they discovered that the protein necessary to create the eggshell was fowlnd exclusively in the ovaries of the chicken.
>exclusively in the ovaries of the chicken.
Bad news, all other egg laying animals, apparently you don't have the right proteins. They're exclusively in the ovaries of the chicken!
So yeah, I guess every ancestor of the chicken gave live birth, until one offspring developed from a non-egg-laying animal into a chicken in every way.

Either that, or Cracked doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about.

>> No.3684770

the egg came before the chicken because the ability to lay eggs evolved long before avians separated from dinosaurs.

>> No.3684772

>>3684752
She Is EK, hate/ignore/love. SHe's just a tripfag among many.
>>3684749
Yeah you do post all the fucking time. However your posts are never really informative/"/sci/-worthy", and you almost never post in rael science threads.

>> No.3684785

OP HERE


SRSLY GUYS 1ST OF ALL CRACKED IS WRONG


SECOND IM TALKING ABOUT THE CHICKEN EGG NOT THE EGG IN GENERAL

>> No.3684790

Blackman you strange

>> No.3684807 [DELETED] 

>>3684766
we are exclusively talking about chicken eggs here. the chicken came before he chicken egg (in fact, that kinda should be obvious)
if you mean any egg, then sure, eggs came first.

>> No.3684818 [DELETED] 

>>3684807
*the

>> No.3684821

>>3684807


see >>3684515

>> No.3684823
File: 154 KB, 800x600, monitor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3684772
I'm more of a monitor

>>3684790
Define "strange"

>> No.3684832

Somebody's been watching QI. Someone probably already pointed this out, but I didn't read the thread.

>> No.3684847 [DELETED] 

>>3684821
a chickens egg comes from a chicken. therefore the chicken came first. the egg that contained the first chicken wasnt a chicken's egg, it was something else (very similar, but definitely not a chicken egg)

>> No.3684853
File: 6 KB, 109x147, x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3684515

Everyone knows this anyway. Chicken-egg problem? Really?

>> No.3684864

If you believe life begins at conception, then the chicken came first, as the moment the mutated prechicken (the first chicken) was conceived, then a strain of chicken DNA existed, with no egg to speak of.

If you believe life begins at birth (as in, when the life exits the mother) then I suppose the first chicken egg and the first chicken came at the same time.

Or you could look at it like this: is a chicken egg defined as an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that a chicken hatches from?

If the former: then the chicken must have came first, as the chicken hatched from a prechicken's egg. If the latter, then they again both came into the world at the same time.

>> No.3684884

>>3684847


think you're talking about a chicken's egg, not chicken egg

>> No.3684885

>>3684847
>not understanding evolution
A multicellular/post-natal creature cannot, and does not, evolve.

>> No.3684901

>>3684864


mother fucking word up.

>> No.3684966

>>3684864
Question: are you aware that female haploids are called ova (singular: ovum, literally meaning egg)? At conception, an ovum is inseminated by the sperm, and the cells begin development within the ovum.

Hence, the egg (ovum) existed before conception, and therefore existed before the creature we would call a chicken.

>> No.3684970 [DELETED] 

>>3684885
I never implied it did.

>> No.3685012

>>3684966
>cells begin development


u wouldn't call a building thas under construction a building, mayne

>> No.3685020

>>3685012
In that case, live doesn't begin at conception, and the egg comes first anyway. Egg comes first in either case.

And you just did call a building under construction a building.

>> No.3685028

>>3685020
*life, not live. Sorry

>> No.3685034

>>3684966

I thought of that, but I was assuming egg to be the hard, protective construct rather than in the reproductive context.

I would ask though, as my knowledge of avian reproduction is lacking: Does the ovum in any way 'become' the hard shell we refer to as an egg? IIRC it does. But does a chicken embryo developing within a prechicken ovum make the ovum a chicken ovum?

>> No.3685056

>>3685034


think that goes back to whether you define a chkn egg as
opt 0: egg that gives rise to chkn
opt 1: egg from chkn

>> No.3685072

>>3684738
No she posts whenever there is an exceedingly useless thread.

I pretty much just use EK to identify which threads to sage/ignore/hide.

>saged, ignored, hidden - - EK in thread.

>> No.3685089

>>3685034
The ovum does develop a hard shell after insemination, yeah, but the fact remains that even a soft-shelled, uninseminated female haploid is still known as an egg. The hard shell is not really a prerequisite for egg-ness.

And quite frankly, the argument over whether it's supposed to be "the chicken or the egg" or "the chicken or the chicken-egg" is a pointless digression into semantics.

So I'll say this: if the egg contains a chicken, it's a chicken egg. If a parasite drops some ova in a chickens intestines, the chicken shitting those ova doesn't magically turn them into chicken eggs. It's the life developing inside them, not the hole they squirt through, that determines what kind of egg is laid.

>> No.3685096

>>3685056

Right. I think that if Sperm A and Ovum B are both of prechicken DNA, then Chicken C was developed and hatched from a prechicken egg. Thus, the first chicken egg would not occur until that chicken reproduced, and therefore the chicken came before the (chicken) egg.

>> No.3685141

>>3685089

>It's the life developing inside them, not the hole they squirt through

yes
>So I'll say this: if the egg contains a chicken, it's a chicken egg.

what if the egg contains something which will soon become a chicken. u skimming the most important part

>> No.3685154

>>3685141
If the DNA is chicken, then it's a chicken egg.

And if you say, "It isn't a chicken until it's fully formed," then the egg still comes first, and it's still a chicken because in the moments before that chick breaks through, it's an egg containing a fully developed chicken infant.

The egg has never contained a prechicken, in any case, and hence cannot be a prechicken egg.

>> No.3685180

>>3685154
Let me rephrase this. I typed it in a hurry and I don't think it's very clear.

If an egg is determined by the organism it contains, and you argue that a chicken embryo isn't a chicken in and of itself because it isn't really alive yet or whatever reasoning you're using, then for most of the embryonic development, I would say that under your conditions, you have a chicken-embryo-egg.

I think that's stupid, and draws a lot of arbitrary lines between life and non-life that needlessly complicate the question in a vain attempt to make yourself seem more thoughtful than you are. As far as I'm concerned, an embryonic chicken is a chicken, and it's a chicken egg as such.

>> No.3685190

>>3685154
agree with all of that

but both the chicken and the egg are developing around the same time, right? so let's just say that the egg fully develops a week after conception for kicks. The main question is then when we can start calling the developing chicken a chicken.

>> No.3685212

>>3685190
No, the egg is an ovum, which is, as an ovum, more or less fully developed prior to conception.

>> No.3685216

>>3685180
>If an egg is determined by the organism it contains
no

egg is determined by the organism that hatches out of it

>> No.3685223

>>3685212
well i guess that settles the shit. egg comes first.

>> No.3685232

>>3685223

nawwwww. egg != ovum

>> No.3685258

>>3685216
That's a dumbass way of looking at it. If that's the case, you can't define what kind of egg it is until it hatches.

>> No.3685277

OP HERE


LEAVING DUE TO YOU ALL NOT BEING ABLE TO FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT.
GUES IT WILL REMAIN A MYSTERY

>> No.3685319

How do we even know we are real?

>> No.3686036

Of course the egg. The question implies the chicken egg not just "any bird lizard etc egg". The retarded prechicken did not lay the chicken egg but a "prechicken" egg. Only the first regular chicken laid the real chicken egg. QED