Has there been any serious scientific inquiries into answering this age old question?
|
closed as not constructive by Mad Scientist♦ Apr 5 '12 at 18:55
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
|
Dunno about any serious scientific inquiries into the answer but I always thought the answer is egg. At some point the modern chicken has come into being as the progeny of two pre-modern chickens, however it had to be an egg before it could be a chicken and its parents couldn't have been modern chickens. However, all that presupposes that you can draw a line in the evolutionary history of the modern (extant) chicken and say this is modern and what goes before is not. I dunno if that really can be done. Edit: came across this guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/26/uknews
And from Prof. Brookfield of the University of Nottingham:
|
|||||||||
|
|
Most theories about origin of life says that unicellular organisms was first and multicellularity (like chicken) evolve much later, so in that meaning egg (single cell)* was first. Also, almost all chicken ancestors lays eggs (primitive birds, non-avian reptiles, amphibians, fishes and so on...) so eggs existed much earlier than chickens. *in the meaning of zygote. The development of chicken embryo starts in hen's oviducts, so it's not a single cell at the moment when hen lays it (Gilbert, 2000). |
||||
|
|
|
The question makes the false assumption that chicken and eggs are different life forms. But they are the same thing and therefore this question is invalid. |
||||
|
|
|
This is a classic case of "it depends on the context."
|
|||
|
|