well.... I guess that's that. it's about god damn time.. There actually isn't really an answer. First we'll assume that it is "Which came first the chicken or the chicken egg," because eggs were around a lon Chicken egg nigger


Anonymous comments allowed.
#73 - mltex (01/31/2013) [-]
#13 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
I figured out the answer to this one when I was 3. Get on my level.
User avatar #238 to #13 - traelos (01/31/2013) [-]
No you didn't.

The egg was laid by something that was not a chicken, therefore it was not a chicken egg, the egg belonged to whatever laid it. Then a chicken came out of it.

Naturally no one on this website would agree with that, but go ask your parents and you might be surprised.

Just another example of Neil deGrass Tyson having no ******* idea what he's talking about.
#244 to #238 - RipperMan (01/31/2013) [-]
He's talking about evolution. At some point something VERY close to a chicken laid an egg that hatched as a mutation of that bird; and that mutant chick came to be the modern day chicken.
#250 to #244 - traelos (01/31/2013) [-]
Yes, everyone knows that. The question is based on that. That is, in fact, quite obvious.

That in no way answers the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

That's like answering "Why did the chicken cross the road" by saying "A road is a long strip of packed soil, asphalt, gravel or other material used for long distance travel"
User avatar #231 to #15 - comandante (01/31/2013) [-]
I've been saying this for years..they said I was stupid....some ******** Neal, some ******** .
#78 - RandomSauce (01/31/2013) [-]
hey-oh, chicken on a raft.
#106 to #78 - wutda (01/31/2013) [-]
User avatar #5 - ssjkirby ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
There actually isn't really an answer.

First we'll assume that it is "Which came first the chicken or the chicken egg," because eggs were around a long time before birds.

Once this is established, it is just how people decide to define things. Is a chicken egg a chicken egg because it was laid by a chicken or because it has an undeveloped chicken fetus inside of it?

Do you see where I'm going with this or should I explain further?
User avatar #77 to #5 - srskate (01/31/2013) [-]
I understand exactly what you are saying, and it is a valid and highly interesting argument.
User avatar #121 to #5 - akneegrow (01/31/2013) [-]
I think that what's inside of the egg defines what kind of egg it is. Regardless of what it came out of.
#188 to #5 - hillbillypowpow ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
I always thought that whatever evolved into chicken's eventually laid an egg that was what we would consider a chicken, so the egg came first.
#198 to #5 - spysappinmysasha (01/31/2013) [-]
Actually there is an answer, and the answer is that I came first. Because I am pretty sure that chicken wasnt masturbating.
#6 to #5 - bollenn (01/30/2013) [-]
The question is if a chicken was first or the egg with a chicken inside, and the egg is clearly the answer
User avatar #7 to #6 - ssjkirby ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
But what if I argued that a chicken egg isn't a chicken egg unless it is laid by a chicken.
It all depends on how you define what a chicken egg is.
#8 to #7 - bollenn (01/30/2013) [-]
True, both answers are right depending on the meaning of it
#113 to #7 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
I wouldn't matter if it was a chicken egg or not. It would just have to contain a chicken. This would mean that it was unknown that it was a chicken egg when it was laid, diminishing it of a status which would relate it to any existing animal of the time.
Whatever creature that laid the egg would be the species which the egg belongs to, but since it cannot be a chicken, it is never in fact a chicken egg.

#16 to #5 - thisnick (01/30/2013) [-]
Birds came from reptiles, reptiles lay eggs, so technically it would be the egg no matter how you look at it
User avatar #12 to #10 - ssjkirby ONLINE (01/30/2013) [-]
That sums up the exact argument I had in my head that I was too lazy to write out.
User avatar #158 - kathuzada (01/31/2013) [-]
What if the chicken was born
#131 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #213 to #131 - mrmontombo (01/31/2013) [-]
I agree completely except for there can be a quick change according to Darwinism if it was born with a beneficial genetic mutation. For example a type of moth that lived in Europe during the Industrial age. The moth used to be white to blend in with the white trees around to protect from predators. But then the trees got covered in ash from nearby pollution. But there was a genetic mutation that occurred where the moths that were born were black. These moths were able to blend in better and survive which led to the white moths dying out and the black moths, being stronger, surviving.
#216 to #213 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #218 to #216 - mrmontombo (01/31/2013) [-]
Yes it is Darwinism. **** that's the example I was given from a university prof. Darwinism is when there is a change, and it is beneficial to the species and the weaker ones don't survive. Its adapting to your environment.
#221 to #218 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #228 to #221 - mrmontombo (01/31/2013) [-]
Good talk bro, good talk. (Not sarcasm haha)
User avatar #133 to #131 - yutakenusername (01/31/2013) [-]
I like people like you who explain to people that evolution means small changes throughout increments of time, creating differences in life. The gist of evolution is ******* not an ape turning into a man.
#138 to #133 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#135 to #131 - pariahlol (01/31/2013) [-]
I've always thought of it as a huge ass game of Telephone. The phrase starts out as something like "I like Vagina" and after very minute changes over a long course of time it can turn into something like "I **** Lasagna". However, there's no one point where I like Vagina becomes I **** Lasagna. There are the individual points where something as simple as a letter changes, and this adds up to the end result.
User avatar #141 to #135 - yutakenusername (01/31/2013) [-]
That was the best comparison I have ever seen to the actual theory of evolution and to the ****** up version of evolution people think of. You have quite the imagination.
#147 to #141 - pariahlol (01/31/2013) [-]
thank you, i take great pride in my imagination
#140 to #135 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #165 to #135 - redeadhunter (01/31/2013) [-]
Dude. If I ever have to explain evolution to anyone, I am using that. You should be a biology teacher.
#173 to #165 - pariahlol (01/31/2013) [-]
I dunno, I like biology, but not nearly as much as I like other stuff. Exhibit A:funnyjunk.com/channel/fucking-science/well....+I+guess+that+s+that/iadmGvn/145#145
User avatar #183 to #173 - redeadhunter (01/31/2013) [-]
You, I could chill with you.
#187 to #183 - pariahlol (01/31/2013) [-]
lol, thank you. I feel like I have too much to say in too little time, I should be asleep by now, yet I just finished my second post that used all 2000 characters available.
#177 - drfranky (01/31/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#48 - Fagdust ONLINE (01/31/2013) [-]
The egg has been around since male/female reproduction came about through evolution some time shortly before the Cambrian explosion. Eggs with protective shells came about through reptiles. At some point a reptilian proto-bird with a strong resemblance to a reptile laid an egg with a genetic structure differing enough from its predecessor that it was more bird than reptile - this happened for generations until there was a line where one was not a bird, but one was.

So, the bird egg came before the bird, because it was laid by a animal that was not defined as a true bird. There had to have been, at some point, a clear threshold that differentiated the one specie from the other.

That is why the egg comes before the bird. Same thing with the chicken, except the modern chicken comes from the hybrid offspring of the red and grey junglefowl, however; the same process applies, there was at one point a non-chicken laying an egg that birthed a true chicken.
User avatar #59 - blackenvy (01/31/2013) [-]
Didn't they discover some substances in the egg shell that can only be produced in the body of the hen ?
Or m I just remembering it wrong.
#61 to #59 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
You sir are correct. There is a protein in chicken eggs that only chickens are capable of producing. Thus, the evolutionary predecessor to the chicken would have laid an egg exemplary of another species; however it would contain a chicken. That chicken would then lay the first "chicken egg."

So in short: **** you, I'm spiderman.
User avatar #69 to #61 - blackenvy (01/31/2013) [-]
This brings up the question : Those Neil know that evolution isn t an instant change ?
Theoretically it might be possible that the chicken we know today wasn't born in the egg we know today.Thus there is a chance that the chicken came first.
In the end we solved nothing :P
User avatar #87 to #69 - Bion (01/31/2013) [-]
Evolution of a species takes thousands of years to actually create the new species.

Evolution of a generation, happens in just that. A generation. It is an instant change, as soon as the offspring is produced.

It might take thousands of years for the ancestor of the chicken (we'll call this the "Dinocock") to have developed the genetic mutation to produce an egg with a chicken inside it. Thus, the Dinocock lays an egg with a chicken, that chicken is produced, then that chicken begins to reproduce to have more and more chickens, developing the species, and entering the next stage of evolution.

TL;DR: Evolution happens both over thousands of years, as well as instantaneously. Just depends on how you look at it.
#99 to #87 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
If evolution is real, then why are there ******* ?

Monkeys - 0
Whites - 1
#49 - koobzacc (01/31/2013) [-]
This image has expired
MFW he says something I though of :D
#53 to #49 - biggrand (01/31/2013) [-]
This image has expired
mfw cromartie high images!
#33 - BowChickaBowWow (01/31/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #34 to #33 - BowChickaBowWow (01/31/2013) [-]
Oh **** , it's a gif...
#17 - applescryatnight (01/30/2013) [-]
this was pretty obvious to me at a young age.
even before i knew about evolution and such
i never understood why people didnt get this
#174 - mehmachine (01/31/2013) [-]
User avatar #185 to #174 - hokeymon (01/31/2013) [-]
Just so you know birds aren't the only ones to lay eggs.
#245 - lolsrsslybro (01/31/2013) [-]
so where did that bird come from?
so where did that bird come from?
User avatar #252 to #245 - pianoasis (02/02/2013) [-]
#255 to #245 - ekiouja has deleted their comment [-]
#256 to #255 - lolsrsslybro (02/25/2013) [-]
how did you even find this comment
#240 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
dammit i have been saying this for years and everyone just looks at me
its the only logical line of reasoning from an evolutionary standpoint, the first true modern chicken was born by a very close but distinctly different ancestor
User avatar #237 - shiifter (01/31/2013) [-]
I remember that one time, somebody told me a monkey laid it.

I get that now.

#229 - anon (01/31/2013) [-]
But does it have to be from a chicken to be a chicken egg or just have a chicken in it?
#52 - ipostfunny (01/31/2013) [-]
Define chicken egg, is it an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that will hatch into a chicken?

If the first is true then the chicken came first, if the second is true, then the second is true.
User avatar #62 to #52 - rhc (01/31/2013) [-]
the question isn't "what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?".
#63 to #62 - ipostfunny (01/31/2013) [-]
If it's not, then it's just stupid because eggs existed with dinosaurs. So I assumed the chicken egg part was implied.
User avatar #66 to #63 - rhc (01/31/2013) [-]
well okay, good point; then it is talking about the egg from which the chicken came, not the egg produced by the chicken.
#68 to #66 - ipostfunny (01/31/2013) [-]
Fair enough.
#19 - anon (01/30/2013) [-]
The egg that would hatch the first chicken was laid by a sort of "Proto-chicken". The "Proto-chicken" isn't quite a chicken yet, so it's egg would be the first egg to have a chicken in it, and still not count as a chicken laying it, and therefore making the answer the egg.
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

 Friends (0)