This is a rather basic question that I happen to find myself asking sometimes. What is your opinion? State which you think would've come first and give a good reason as to why. I don't know if there has already been a thread on this, but I apologize if there has.
I think we already established an actual answer to this question a while ago. But, just in case you guys missed it, here:
In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.
Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.
Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.
{Me:} It's not a matter of what came first, it's a matter of what died first. See, if a chick or an unborn egg-chick died, then they had no chance to mate. Whereas, an older chicken would have the chance to mate, and would also be forced to mate (breeding) in post-paleolithic society. {Me:} Also, if you really want to go there, in the bible- {InternetTroll:} Oh great, another one of them... {Me:} -it says that God created the animals of the sky, which means that they could have, biblicly, been mature enough to fly, which means that they would have not been an egg. Apply that concept to animals of the land, a.k.a., chickens. {Me:} Sorry, but evolutionist theories are just to far-fetched to be believeable (Hey, lets create a theory that people can't possibly prove or disprove from a scientific standpoint!) and I, personally, don't understand how one could believe in evolutionism and creationism, being that they are, in principle, polar opposits.
Actually, when one considers it from an omnipotent standpoint, it DOES NOT MATTER wether or not the chicken or the egg came first. What does matter is that we are debating about something that can have absolutely no affect on our lives at all.
Sorry, but evolutionist theories are just to far-fetched to be believeable (Hey, lets create a theory that people can't possibly prove or disprove from a scientific standpoint!)
If you're not going to accept evolution, then the answer is pretty obvious, I suppose. The question becomes extremely uninteresting, and the answer is plainly that the chicken came first. If you do accept evolution (which is quite believable and does pass verifiability criteria) then the answer is clearly that the egg came first. I don't know where this thread can go, since the answers are irrefutable in their respective systems. And I certainly don't want to turn this into another creation vs. evolution thread.
Actually, when one considers it from an omnipotent standpoint, it DOES NOT MATTER wether or not the chicken or the egg came first. What does matter is that we are debating about something that can have absolutely no affect on our lives at all.
First, how can we possible consider something from an omnipotent standpoint. And why would the question not matter in that respect? It can be an uninteresting question (see above paragraph) but I think the fact of the matter does have an effect on our lives. Maybe not driving to work or going to the bathroom, but in an overall coherent network of beliefs.
