The classic argument over which came first.I wanted to bring this up, because I was thinking a little bit and realized something.Why do scientist believe that the egg came first, if it had no mother to lay it, then keep it warm, and also after the eggs hatched they would have no way of surviving on their own without a parent to take care of them.So why do some scientist think this way when it is common sense that the chicken came first.I want to here your opinions on this matter.
Hmm well actually last time I checked it wasn't but I haven't really looked too far into it.I think we had a discussion about it in Biology before so last time I checked I don't think its just a saying.
Well thin about it. Which came first, a fully grown chicken or the egg? Was the chicken just created out of nowhere (creationism) or did it grow soming from an egg (evolution) Yes, it seems that the evolution part doesn't directly relate to evolution, but it grew into the chicken.
The answer is evolution a single celled organism evolved into a chicken. So the single celled pre-chicken came first so the chicken basically came first.
If you religious and don't believe in evolution this question is an unsolvable paradox.
he answer is evolution a single celled organism evolved into a chicken.
It was actually more like a organism similar to a chicken had offspring via laying an egg which in turn had offspring and so on until eventually the offspring which was the modern chicken that we know, thus the egg coming first as chickens didn't evolve directly from single celled organisms but rather from already living organisms that had characteristics similar to chickens (though if you follow the chain back long enough you do eventually come back to simple single celled organisms).
I think the egg came first because it was some sort of mutated bird that was a girl, when it layed more, then more mutated/normal birds were born until they mated with eachother and etc.
