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.
DarkRazorBeast you might as well be asking how anything got where it is.Like I said before if the egg came first then they would have died off,because the eggs first off need to stay warm,and then second once they are hatched they need their mother to feed them,and such.It's not that hard to realize.
Hm. Being a catholic, I believe that we (everything) was created, so the chicken. But, just for arguments sake, if there was only one chicken, how could it have had more eggs to keep the species alive? But, the egg COULD NOT have lived on its own. Its possible that it rolled into something warm, and then somehow found food, but not really. ( **
I never considered this a question of creationism versus evolution. Either way, something had to occur to create something, an egg doesn't 'evolve' into a chicken, it *is* a chicken that is just born, just as a baby human doesn't 'evolve' into a grown up.
If the egg comes first, who is there to keep it warm until it hatches? I suppose if the chicken came first, why didn't it come out of an egg? I don't think chickens were there first, evolutionarily speaking... they probably evolved from some other sort of dinosaur or something, right?
BUT DINOSAURS WEREN'T CHICKENS! dinosaurs didn't even evolve into chickens! they were extinct. the things that evolved into chickens were bacteria and microscopic organisms. ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE DIED! so my answer still stands.....egg owns all
