Question

Did chicken came first or the egg? please help me!

Answer 1

hahaha the chicken came first darling.

Answer 2

But where this chicken came from? mars?

Answer 3

I would say the egg. The egg had to laid by something, so I'd say an almost-chicken laid it!

But if you want to go more into actual science and less into pseudo-science (since that answer was just loosely based on evolution ;p) I'd still say the egg. Why? Because eggs were around long before chickens! Dinosaurs and lizards laid eggs, too, you know :)

Answer 4

But where this so called chicken evolve from???? O_o

Answer 5

You'd need to look at the origin of birds.
Their ancestor probably laid small eggs, then evolution made the eggs bigger.
Neither of them were first.

Answer 6

Chickens evolved from older birds, which came from older dinosaurs, and so on a so forth. If you reeeeally wanna go far back, scientists speculate that the first living things started off as nonliving molecules that slowly became more and more efficient, and maybe it was a few lightning strikes that gave these molecules the energy to become, essentially, living biological machines.
If you wanna know where these molecules came from: Every element in the universe today comes from stars. If you wanna know where stars came from, read about the Big Bang Theory. Scientists don't have it all figured out yet, so if you're looking for the ultimate answer here, you just won't find it :'D

Answer 7

hmm but one of my uncle said once that they evolve from dinosaurs. But the point lets just consider for sometime that my uncle's theory is true but weren't dinosaurs reptiles ??
so should we consider chickens as reptiles ???

Answer 8

reptiles also lay eggs

Answer 9

And they were laying eggs long before chickens evolved!

Answer 10

dinosaurs are reptiles, they evolved to many of the organisms you see nowadays, like birds. So no, chickens are not reptiles.

And you will find an answer if you're looking for the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything, the answer is 42. Google it if you don't believe me xD

Answer 11

wait lemme search this one actually this question is bothering me after quiet a long time

Answer 12

Some biology books will say that birds are essentially just feathered reptiles, but others will say that they are different. If you want to consider chickens reptiles, you'll have a few biologists backing you up.
I'm not entirely sure if dinosaurs were reptiles or their own separate group (everywhere I look there seems to be disagreement), BUT THEY WERE NOT LIZARDS. Chickens and all other birds are, as of modern scientific consensus, dinosaurs. Not the descendants of dinosaurs that have since become another kind of animal, but true dinosaurs.

Answer 13

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=the+ultimate+answer+to+life+the+universe+and+everything

Answer 14

MGR thats the point you see reptiles are cold blooded but I never heard birds are cold blooded ??

Answer 15

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-448283/Proof-fearsome-T-Rex-evolved-chicken.html check this one out

Answer 16

and this one too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Answer 17

I mean this is really confusing that sometimes they are saying that reptiles and birds are two different families & sometimes they say birds were dinosaurs lol xD

Answer 18

That's true, birds are all warm-blooded. For the past few years people thought dinosaurs were warm-blooded, but I think some new evidence to challenge that came up.
Sorry, I don't really understand where your confusion is coming from. Are you asking if birds and reptiles have a common ancestor? The answer is yes, but it was not the dinosaur.

Answer 19

Yeah, I think scientists are pretty confused about that, too. I personally think birds and reptiles are different, and that birds ARE dinosaurs (though I think that last one is just fact, but a topic of debate).

Answer 20

*not a topic of debate

Answer 21

hmm but having common ancestor for two different type of animals, how that is possible ?

Answer 22

Tons of completely different animals have a common ancestor (the real question is if there were one or more common ancestors). If you have a starfish and a cat, those two have a common ancestor somewhere, but it lived an extremely long time ago. Cats' common ancestor with dogs, on the other hand, would be much more recent.

Answer 23

If you say that both have common ancestor then you are proving the theory that dinosaurs are not reptiles & warm blooded !
what starfish & cat ? haha I dont agree with that. Star fish is a sea creature & cat is a mammal.

Answer 24

MGR can you really give me an authentic example for your theory ???

Answer 25

@thomaster what do you have to say about about that guys theory ? do you agree with him

Answer 26

@MGR 's understanding is about the same as mine, for what that;s worth

Answer 27

Okie I found this family tree of birds showing that birds now a days are evolved from birds or prehistoric birds

Answer 28

that's an extremely limited chart, and it doesn't even cite a reference

Answer 29

Well, first of all, let me set this straight: These are not *my* theories. I told you which theories I think are more plausible, but I think so far I've mostly just told you what the scientific community is saying about this. As you can see, they are saying a lot, and don't always agree.
Second, that's not necessarily true. For all we know, dinosaurs could have been cold-blooded reptiles. I don't really understand where you're taking this conclusion from, though. We have a common ancestor with gorillas. We're both mammals. We also have a common ancestor with iguanas because we both have spines, making us both part of the phylum Chordata. Could you explain your thinking a bit more?
Are these examples authentic enough?

Answer 30

I truely believe that humans & monkeys are cousins no doubt about it, but will you say anything having 0.0001 similarity are having same ancestor. Well if this is true then it means Humans & Fish having spines have common ancestor which actually can't be true !
the thing I'm trying to understand here is a thing that was extent for about millions of years
that asteroid collision and stuff put an end too all prehistoric dinosaurs then how can you just say birds & dinosaurs have common ancestor???

Answer 31

Just because the dinosaurs went extinct doesn't mean all reptiles did

Answer 32

lol TT reptiles =/= birds xD

Answer 33

Is someone willing to tl;dr this thread?

Evolution aka mutations in the gene pool, caused chickens.

The way I see it is that there needs to be a person that already has the mutation to pass them on, so chicken may have been before the egg. Though the mutations may have occurred while the 'animal' was still in it embryonic form, so it really stands on which part do you want to take.

Source:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/190/

Citations needed, I couldn't read through this whole thread since I found it utterly misformatted. If anyone else has another though, please enlighten me.

Answer 34

the phylogeny of vertebrates is quite traceable back to bony fish
Birds and Lizards are not the same animal, nor are humans and chimps, but as has been said many times they share a common ancestor.

Answer 35

Yes, we do have a common ancestor with fish. It doesn't matter how long ago that common ancestor was or how little we have in common now. The ancestor existed at some point.
TuringTest is right on the money. with both his last posts.

Answer 36

I really think Opcode's point is solid one !
And to share with you guys what I believe is birds have existed long ago which due to evolution become what we see them now :)
but thanks for your time & I really gathered alot of information !
Thanks again

Answer 37

Secrets ^_^ I know I'm so smart

Answer 38

xDDD

Answer 39

I would say Chicken ._.

Answer 40

Its cuz chicken is so yummy...thats why it came first ._.

Answer 41

XDDD

Answer 42

logically egg came first...

Answer 43

The question's closed =.=
Don't talk about it anymore

Answer 44

hahha