DEBATE TOURNAMENT : Round 1 : The chicken or the egg?

A three way debate on what came along first, the chicken or the egg?

You will be marked out of 100 for your debate. Your post is here in the debate forum and your sides are below. Good luck

Groups

Group 1: The chicken

Duck the Duck
amberg93
running_swift
Legendary
Cassieopea
Drkangelcat
Dancingsunset


Group 2: The egg

littleprincess_01
Remus Lupin
KatieBellaTrix
Brunette
Agatha Black
Raistlin The Wizard
Etta


Group 3: They both came at the same time

WaterLily
SilverLady
RhiannonMei
LilyFlower
Snapes_girl
jennifer Williams
streams of silver



PLEASE PUT YOUR GROUP (ie: group 1: chicken) DOWN IN EVERY POST TO MAKE MARKING EASIER!

(Group 2: The EGG)

What came first, the chicken or the egg, well i believe it was the egg.

Each being, human or animal, comes from cells in some way shape or form. In order for the Chicken to have been created, an egg must have come from another animal, the cells inside that egg could have then changed to give us what we now call the Chicken.

(Group 3: Same Time)

I believe that the chicken and the egg came at the same time. I have arrived at this conclusion through logical elimination:

I believe that the chicken couldn't have come first because, since it is an accepted fact that chickens come from eggs, there would have to be an egg for there to be a chicken, which is completely contrary to the concept that the chicken came first. The egg could not have come first because of similar reasoning. It is a generally accepted fact that the egg comes from a chicken and, so, the chicken would have had to come first for the egg even to exist. Although Etta gave a good arguement in support of the egg, there is no evidence of any kind to show that the egg could have come from another animal.

Thus, I believe that since it appears that the chicken couldn't have come first, but neither could the egg, only one other solution is possible: That they both arrived simultaneously.

(Group 1: The chicken)

I believe the chicken came first. The reason is, an egg can not be created without the chicken laying it. Also an egg needs heat to hatch, right? So, wouldn't that need a parent to keep it warm?

Let think of the concept of evolution. The egg of which the first chicken hatched from would technically not be a chicken egg, but another bird's egg. So thinking from the logic that I have, no matter how odd it may seem, the chicken came first.

(Group 3: Same Time)

I believe that the chicken and the egg appeared at the same time because I believe in God. In Genesis (the first book fo the Bible), it says that God created all of the animals blah blah blah. But since I believe that God created one chicken, he would also have had to create an egg.

Since I believe that there was only one chicken in the beginning, God would have had to create an egg because chickens have never been and will never be asexual, meaning that two would be needed to create an egg. But since only one chicken was created, the egg would have to be created simultaneously as well. I think God was tired that day.

//lol XD\\

(Group 1: The chicken)

Personally I do not believe in God, but I will give my opinion based on if he did. If he did exist then he would most like created both genders of the chicken [as chickens] at the same time or around the same time as each other,kind of like when he [supposedly] created Adam and then created Eve. This would seem more logical because then the chickens can start working on making babies instead of having one chicken wait for a chicken in an egg to hatch and grow old enough to start reproducing.

The hypothetical question 'what came first', is actually asking what came first- the animal or reproduction. Well of course the animal came first. The chickens (the animal) evolved from DNA mutations which produced the zygote (egg).The first animals (which were prokaryotes) reproduced through cell division (mitosis) but absolutely did not reproduce through meiosis (which requires an egg).

(Group 2: The egg)

The egg came first. As Etta said the cells inside the egg evolved to create a new type of bird - a chicken. Kinda like this:

1. Mother bird lays egg
2. Mother bird sits on egg and waits for it to hatch, not knowing what is going on inside the egg.
3. The cells inside the egg got a bit...hyped up and jumbled the chorosomes round a little to create a new species: The chicken!!

So you see...it all makes perfect sense!!

(Group 1: The chicken)

Yes Aliza, it would create the species chicken, but technically the egg would not be a chicken egg. It would be the mother bird's species egg.

(Group 2:The Egg)

The egg would have evolved to be a chicken egg, Cat! How is it possible for a chicken to hatch from a non chicken egg?

(Group 3: both at the same time)

Well, the question about which came first does always sound funny to us - but why? Becasue we know there's no clear answer to it - it wasn't the chicken, it wasn't the egg - so it must have been both at the same time - othwise we would have no eggs and no chicken till today. Just as June said in her first post here.

Apart from this rather distanced view on the problem - we all know how difficult it is to understand how evolution worked - so it is very much probable that we had one animal very similar to the chicken in the beginning, that could both give birth to alive animals and lay eggs. This would be probable seen as the conditions for animals to live on earth were very difficult millions of years ago - see ice ages.

There are even today animals capable to reproduce in more than one way - for example the saline crab in the Dead Sea. The saline crab can reproduce in 3 methods:
1. through eggs with a soft shell
2. through larves
3. through eggs with a very hard shell - when salinity is espacially raised.

This was only a paranthesis to explain my actual point: if there indeed was an animal with similar attributes of reproduction, we can assume that the most resistant form of reproduction - laying eggs - was passed on to the next generations, making it uncertain when the first exclusively egg-laying chicken appeared. In any case, we may well presume that there was once an animal that could have been theoretically able to lay an egg and give birth to an alive organism at the same time. And that that new born organism might have had the exact characteristics of a chicken, no matter through what procedure it was born.

Now, if I may go back and refer to what Cat said: if I understand well, you mean that an organism that could only reproduce through mitosis (cell division) suddenly gave birth to an organism that could reproduce only though meiosis (forming of eggs). Nevertheless, we must take into account the fact that mitosis means asexual organisms - not chicken. Of course, the reproducing scheme had to change at some point - and it could have very well led to the kind of animal that I just described - but I think it is going a bit too far into natural history to look at the first animals that only reproduced through cell division, because chicken are definitely a higher class of animals than those. And where would you get the information for "sexual reporduction by laying eggs" if you only had beings capable to self-reproduct before?

//I hope I'm not too confusing ^^"\\

(Group 2: The Egg)


First of all, please take a brief second to read the following:

Quote :

LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."

as i said in my first post, the egg came first and the quote backs up exactly what i was trying to say.

again another quote to back up what i ahve already said:

Quote :

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.

It all goes back to evolution, and some may argue that god did this that and the other, but i don't believe in god and there wont bring god back into this debate.

As i was saying, evolution has taken place through the ages, we as humans have evolved, and some point in our future we will evolve again, either way, DNA plays a big part in everything that is living, so i ask, how can we have a chicken if an egg from another bird like creature did hold small changes in DNA which later came to create the Chicken, therefore i stand by my first post and the evidence i have provided, the egg came first.

Quotes were taken from:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm

((EGG))

Now, in addition to what Etta has so rightly mentioned, we know, that everything once evolved from a microscopic organism or bacteria of some sort. As times have gone on, throughout millions and billions of years, these "animals" have evolved into the ones we used today. How do they know to evolve? Well breifly, there parents (and them) needed to adapt to the world around them in order to survive and move up the food chain, they did this through making their young hybrid versions of themselves, passing on only the good genes. This is how chickens were created. This gentetic materal was passed on through genes, through EGGS! This means, that in order to have a chicken you muct first have an egg!

(Group 2 - The Egg)

*looks at Agatha* "Can i have one of those coats?"

*back to the debate*

As Agatha has already said in the simplest terms possible, due to evolution the DNA from Birds has changed over time causing the creation of an Egg which then hatched to be the chicken. I can't see any further evidence which my group can provide to strengthen our argument and unless someone from the opposing sides can find any solid evidence to say otherwise, to say that a Chicken came before the Egg, i see no further need to discuss this matter further.

We have supplied all the relevant information and if needs be, we can suppy some more, but honestly, is there any way which you can prove our evidence is incorrect? I highly doubt it, admit it, you know we are right, The Egg came first.

(Group 3: Same Time)

I bellieve that the chicken and the egg came simultaneously because of the below quote.

Quote :

The discovery of catalytic properties in RNA also gives us a new insight into the way in which biological processes once began on this earth, billions of years ago. Researchers have wondered which were the first biological molecules. How could life begin if the DNA molecules of the genetic code can only be reproduced and deciphered with the aid of protein enzymes, and proteins can only be produced by means of genetic information from DNA? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Altman and Cech have now found the missing link. Probably it was the RNA molecule that came first. This molecule has the properties needed by an original biomolecule, because it is capable of being both genetic code and enzyme at one and the same time.

Altman and Cech received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1989 for finding the RNA molecule, which is capable of being both genetic code and enzyme simultaneously. So technically, the chicken and the egg came at the same time, in one molecule. The below quote from the Office of Public Affairs at Yale also corroborates my belief.

Quote :

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A possible solution to this ancient evolutionary riddle is found in a single class of molecules that appears to have functioned figuratively as both chicken and eggearly in the evolution of life, perhaps even providing the first method for primitive cells to reproduce. Biochemist Jennifer Doudna and her colleagues have produced stunning "snapshots" that reveal the three-dimensional structure of a large molecule in this chicken-and-egg category -- a specialized ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecule called an RNA enzyme, or ribozyme. The discovery could help scientists design new drugs to fight lethal viruses, including the AIDS virus, and repair genetic errors that cause diseases ranging from cystic fibrosis to muscular dystrophy and sickle cell anemia. Ribozymes can function as precision scissors that snip out flawed genetic segments and splice in corrected versions, or can cut a virus's genetic code to shreds so it can't replicate. (Science, Vol. 273, No. 5282: 1678-1698, Sept. 20, 1996.) News release, slides.

and this one:

Quote :

Gerry Joyce: The notion than RNA could serve as both the chicken and egg, and by that we mean a molecule that can have both function, wiggle like a chicken and genetics, encode a chicken like an egg does. That notion was ‘hatched’ in the late 60s by several people more or less simultaneously. Carl Wose, Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick all wrote sort of seminal pieces beginning to wonder how did this complex genetic system that we see across biology come about and worrying about the question of which came first – the function or the genetics. And one answer that came to all three of these individuals was, perhaps the same molecule, an RNA molecule, can be both a genetic molecule like DNA and a function molecule like protein but have both of those properties in the self-same molecule. That’s the notion of what later was called the RNA world.

By the way, eggs are proteins and the chickens would be the DNA

[Group #2]

I would also like to point out that eggs were around millions of years before chickens were. Dinosaur eggs for instance. So clearly the egg came before the chicken.

Quote :

Early amniotes developed a calcified shell on the outer membrane of the egg. Their survival was better than those with soft shell eggs and vastly superior to the water permeable eggs of amphibians. So the first hard shell eggs (typical of chicken eggs) were in the Middle Carboniferous Period about 310 million to 301 million years ago. The reptilian egg was from the lower Permian, 290 million to 256 million years ago. We know that the reptiles who developed into Dinosaurs in the late Triassic laid hard shelled eggs. Some of these have been found and CAT scanned showing the dino embryo inside.

Birds apparently developed in the Jurassic Period of the Mesozoic from Therapod bipedal dinosaurs related to Velociraptors. That would have been sometime between 178-160 million years ago. A Jurassic Duck similar to modern ducks has been found in Late Jurassic deposits. We don't know exactly when chickens evolved but it is likely that it came about the same time as ducks and other birds of the Jurassic and early Cretaceous.

So hard shelled eggs date back to 310 million years ago, but birds did not evolve from raptor dinosaurs until about 170-160 million years ago.

Conclusion the Egg came before the Chicken, by 140 million years or so. http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota..._Vertebrat

Thought I would stick that quote in there for good measure.

(Group 3: both at the same time)

I do have to admit that the scientific evidence given especially by the members of the "egg" group is very strong. Nevertheless, I would like to propose seeing our question from a different point of view, a more "philosophical" one:
Everything exists only as far as we acknowledge its existence. So there might be millions of species on this earth that we don't know about yet - as long as we don't know they are there and what they are, they don't exist for us. What I'm trying to get to - when we first became aware of the world, we discovered both egg and chicken at the same time.
From this viewpoint, both came together, at the same time.

//slightly edited because poster realized half an hour after posting, while doing something random, that she was contradicting herself. ^^" ...tired or so, I guess.\\

(Group 3: Same Time)

//Agatha, I thought this was only concerning a chicken's egg and the chicken....\\

Cosmologically speaking, both the chicken and the egg are made up of matter and so during the Big Bang when the Earth and matter was created, technically, the chicken and the egg came into being at the same time. Also, if you think about it, they came simultaneously no matter what.

Because although two birds could ahve gotten together and created an egg with a 'mutant' bird (the chicken) inside, the egg, when created, would still contain the 'chicken' cells. The chicken-in-process would have appeared the instant the egg appeared, because it develops within the egg to hatch out as a chicken. So they (l'oeuf et le poulet) came at the same time because when the egg was first created, chicken cells were also inside of it.

//Excuse my french... lol XD. It means the egg and the chicken, respectively.\\

(Group 1: The Chicken)

I am here to present to you my debate that it is, in fact, the chicken which came first. There are many reasons for this, as have been pointed out by some of my esteemed team, but there are several matters that they have not yet addressed.

Firstly, we must consider how things come to be. Steering clear of religion, the immediate answer is evolution. Everything evolves from something else, so why is it so hard to believe the chicken simply evolved from another bird? Thus, the chicken came before the egg.

Something else to consider is the idea that if everything is evolved from something else, it's possible that the very first chicken was hatched from something that was not a chicken egg. So, whilst it may have been that the very first chicken did come from an egg, it was not a chicken's egg, and so therefore the chicken came first.

My final point at this stage in the debate is the thought that if a chicken egg will hatch a chicken, and was laid by a chicken, then the chicken must have come first. This follows because if the definition of "chicken" used does not refer to "chicken eggs," then the chicken must come first, because without chickens there cannot be any chicken eggs.

And now, I would like to leave you with a chicken and egg joke (or should that be 'yoke'?), but the only one I can find is a little innappropriate :stuck:

(Group 1: The Chicken)

Like Amy said, the egg would be that of another bird if we think on the concept of evolution. Yes inside the egg may be a chicken, but technically since the egg would have been born by a mother bird,that is not a chicken, then the egg would not be considered a "chicken egg". So, the the chicken came before the egg.

Also it may be possible, due to evolution, that the thing before the chicken, whatever species it may be, may not have laid eggs. It may be possible that the first animals on earth were all viviparous, meaning they had live-birth, instead of oviparous, meaning to lay eggs. This would mean the chicken, an oviparous animal, might have first been born to an viviparous animal. The viviparous animal could no lay eggs due to its dna and other things, so the chicken would not have started in an egg at all.

(Group 2: The Egg)


The question in which Elfie asked was not, which came first the Chicken or the Chicken Egg. The question she asked was, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" team one have already admitted that Chicken from an Egg, although not a Chicken's egg, it still came from an egg, therefore, the Egg came before the chicken.

As my lobely, hard working team as already pointed out, an Egg from another a bird, an egg which this bird, sat laid, sat on, watched hatch maybe, changed over time, as time went by, the DNA began to change, the parent birds did not know, they laid their eggs, they sat on them, they basically did all a parent would do, and now i have well and truly forgotten what i have to say.

*will edit when i remember*

(Group 1: The chicken)

It's kind of taken as a given though, that it'd be a chicken egg, otherwise the whole debate would be moot. Of course there are going to be eggs before chickens - dinosaurs had eggs.

Your first point Etta, whilst well put across, is pretty much null and void.

[Group 2-The Egg]

Quote :

LONDON, England -- It's a question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now a team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

Quotes were taken from:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm

Apparently no one read this article that Etta posted...it has some valid points that some of you will find hard to accept, but they are the scientists.

(Group 3: Both)

I can see that you have heard the RNA arguments, etc, that the chicken and the egg came at the same time. I have another argument for this belief, non-scientific though it may be.

A chicken lays an egg. Said chicken must now sit on said egg to incubate it. Any egg would die if not incubated. Chickens need eggs to continue reproduction. Eggs need incubation, preferably from the mother hens. Thus, the chicken and the egg must have been "created" by "God" simultaneously to be able to survive.

[I don't actually believe this but it makes some sort of sense...I believe in evolution!]

[Group 2]


An egg doesn't need to be incubated by the animal who produced it. There are many cases of mothers being killed and surrogate animals taking over and incubating the eggs in her place. We see it all the time in chicken farms and classrooms with chickens being hatched in incubators. I do see were you are coming from and I do agree the eggs can't survive with out being incubated, however this role can be filled by a lot of different things and not just a chicken.

(Group 3 Both)

Of course, but the mother hen would want to carry out its maternal instinct and care for her own eggs! Surely that is reason enough for the hen and the egg to co-exist?!

[ok. when i wrote that, it sounded ludicrous. but it was all i could think of and made some...dubious...sense]

(Group... something. The chicken. XD)

Okay, so there's pretty much - scientific - concrete evidence that the egg came first. So let's say we weren't scientists - that we didn't know the biology of an egg emerging from a chicken or vice versa. (Just so you know, I don't know where I'm going with this XD)

To delude from fact for the moment, does it not make common sense for the chicken to come first? The egg cannot be fully chicken if it is not from a chicken it has hatched. Of course, if we put this into perspective, the chicken most definitely came first. Trace the history of animals that lay eggs - for surely the chicken must have come from them - and we go back to the reign of the dinosaurs. As an aside, it is dinosaurs that formed first at the start of life on earth, not the eggs. An exaggeration, but one can hardly imagine primordial soup giving birth to an egg...

Back to the question. The question itself is flawed. It's the same as asking 'what came first, the dinosaur or the egg?' And, of course, I've just answered this question. Both of the questions build on the same concept - was it the animal that came first, or the birth of the animal?

I stray. Who knows...

(Group 2 The Egg)

(Rai! You rocked! lol)

Alrighty then, so, WL, you say that the material mother would want to sit on/do whatever it does, to the egg, but how could that be possible if said mother was dead?

Also, the mother of the Egg which created the first chicken, would not know that the DNA in its own body and the DNA of its hubby (Do animals have wives nd hubbys?) has evolved into a completely different animal, the mother would sit and protect the egg and when it hatched into a chickentonight the parents would do one of two things, kill the chicken, raise the chicken, i'd say the parents would raise the chicken, simply because their own DNA and features wouldnt have been all that different to the chicken, simply because of evolution, this final change (for now atleast) gave us what is known as the chicken, it came from an Egg which has evolved, no whatshisname involved, it was simple evolution, Eggy first, chicken later .... now im hungry...now i want chicken.

*runs to KFC*

(the chicken)

I'm likely to be repeating what has already been said, because there is an exhaustive list of topics in a debate of this nature.

However, I will reiterate what I have said before: the chicken came before the egg. Those on the side of the egg make excellent points, but if you follow the path of evolution, surely the chicken had to have evolved from something else, thus meaning the chicken came first?

Sure, you can argue that the egg came first because, in the nature of evolution, a non-chicken which laid an egg from which came a chicken does NOT mean that the egg came first, because it is NOT a chicken's egg.

Therefore it is my firm belief that the chicken came first, perhaps evolved from a similar sort of animal.

Quote :

Sure, you can argue that the egg came first because, in the nature of evolution, a non-chicken which laid an egg from which came a chicken does NOT mean that the egg came first, because it is NOT a chicken's egg.

Tell me something, when you eat a chicken egg, or a duck egg, do you think it’s a chicken egg or duck egg because a chicken or duck lay them or because of what’s inside? Aren’t you eating a chicken or duck egg? Isn’t what’s inside a chicken or a duck?

(the chicken)

Your post is very confusing, Raistlin. However, I will attempt to answer the best I can.

Quote :

Tell me something, when you eat a chicken egg, or a duck egg, do you think it’s a chicken egg or duck egg because a chicken or duck lay them or because of what’s inside?

Well, of course you think it's a chicken or duck egg because a chicken or a duck has laid them. But there is also the difference in taste and price.

Quote :

Aren’t you eating a chicken or duck egg? Isn’t what’s inside a chicken or a duck?

Of course what's inside is a chicken or a duck, but I fail to see what this has to do with the original question. My argument was that an egg containing a chicken cannot be laid by a non-chicken, therefore the chicken came first. Your post doesn't have anything to do with this, and is extremely confusing.

Quote :

My argument was that an egg containing a chicken cannot be laid by a non-chicken, therefore the chicken came first.

Haven't we proved that this is possible with molecules changes? That is possible for a non-chicken to put a chicken egg? Cuz if what's coming out of egg is a chicken even though not laid by a chicken, then the egg was of a chicken, therefore, the egg though not laid by a chicken come first.

What was I try to say is that what makes an egg a chicken egg or duck egg is not the animal who lay it but what's actually inside of it. Was i clear now? Or not?

(the chicken)

Molecules don't change. You'd mess up the whole gene system of the poor animal! It can't possibly be possible for a non-chicken to lay a chicken egg unless it's been put there by someone - ie the animal acts as the one who hatches the egg. The only thing that can lay a chicken egg is a chicken, and I also agree with Amy that your post makes no sense, Rai. Duck eggs are totally different from chicken eggs. For one, they're grey in colour. Two, they're bigger. Three, they're more expensive. Four, they taste nicer. XD

If you talk about genetic mutation, this has to happen inside the egg; hence, the egg was not chicken in the first place. A chicken came from the egg, but the egg was not a chicken egg. So the chicken has to have come first!

The chicken

God created all animals first, so he created the chicken and the chicken laid the egg. It's as simple as that.

The egg

Quote :

God created all animals first, so he created the chicken and the chicken laid the egg. It's as simple as that.

That may be so, but there is no evidence on that, so you can't simply go by that.

Quote :

If you talk about genetic mutation, this has to happen inside the egg; hence, the egg was not chicken in the first place. A chicken came from the egg, but the egg was not a chicken egg. So the chicken has to have come first!

I'm already slightly lost in this whole non chicken from egg thingy. lol. Making my head hurt trying to work it out. Anyway...how do you know? maybe the egg was a chicken, just because it went under genetic mutation or whatever doesn't make it any less of a chicken! Sooo I say the egg came first.

*looks at fingernails*

I apologies that this turned into a single debate
rather than a tournament. We will Endeavour to bring you a full debate tournament
next term.





This debate was marked out of 100





Group 1: The chicken



Duck the Duck : 85

amberg93

running_swift : 45

Legendary

Cassieopea

Drkangelcat : 70

Dancingsunset





Group 2: The egg (Each member who participated in this group gets an
extra 40 points for working together well and being the most active group)



littleprincess_01 : 30

Remus Lupin

KatieBellaTrix : 30

Brunette : 30

Agatha Black : 85

Raistlin The Wizard : 60

Etta : 100





Group 3: They both came at the same time



WaterLily : 35

SilverLady : 55

RhiannonMei : 100

LilyFlower

Snapes_girl

jennifer Williams

streams of silver