The Instigator
Aric
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
giantrobot11
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The chicken came before the egg.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
giantrobot11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,263 times Debate No: 8785
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Aric

Pro

I say that the chicken had to have came before the egg. If you believe in creationism, you believe that god created all creatures and placed them into the garden of Eden, ergo, God created the chicken. God had to have created the chicken, as if he had created the egg, there would be nothing to incubate it, causing chickens to become extinct.

If you believe in evolution, you realize that a chicken like creature had to have laid an egg, which hatched and became a chicken through genetic mutation. While the DNA is set from the minute the egg is fertilized, it is still the chicken like creature's egg, and not a chicken's egg. But when it hatches, it can bee seen the creature is it's own independent being, a chicken.

Thanks to whomever takes this argument.

Egg: A chicken egg.
Chicken: http://en.wikipedia.org...
giantrobot11

Con

It is impossible for chickens to spontaneously come into existence, therefore, in order for the chicken, Gallus gallus domesticus, the first of this species would have to come for an egg, as laying eggs is the reproductive behaviour for all fowl.

Chickens aside, there have been oviparous animals for millions of years, among invertebrates, reptiles like the dinosaurs, or fish and other aquatic organisms. There have been fossilized eggs found dating back to the Cambrian period ( 542 � 0.3 million years ago to 488.3 � 1.7 million years ago ). The first historical mention of the domesticated chicken we know today was 8,000 years ago. This puts a difference of at least 426,992,000 million years between the egg and the chicken, the egg being obviously first.
Debate Round No. 1
Aric

Pro

"It is impossible for chickens to spontaneously come into existence,"

Tell that to the Christians.

"the first of this species would have to come for an egg, as laying eggs is the reproductive behaviour for all fowl."

This statement makes no sense whatsoever, and it completely rapes the English language. Come for an egg? What? I shall ignore this for the time being.

"Chickens aside, there have been oviparous animals for millions of years, among invertebrates, reptiles like the dinosaurs, or fish and other aquatic organisms. There have been fossilized eggs found dating back to the Cambrian period ( 542 � 0.3 million years ago to 488.3 � 1.7 million years ago ). The first historical mention of the domesticated chicken we know today was 8,000 years ago. This puts a difference of at least 426,992,000 million years between the egg and the chicken, the egg being obviously first."

First of all, you have no proof to back up your statement. Second of all, this is in reference to the chicken egg. Yes, there have been eggs before chicken eggs. But the specific question, is which came first, the chicken, or the egg? The egg is an obvious reference to a chicken egg. Did you honestly think the question was going to be which came first, the chicken or the 488.3 million year old dinosaur egg? Because if it was, we wouldn't be having this debate.

I shall take this time to restate my arguments while my opponent rephrases his argument.

An egg needs incubation to survive. If you believe god created all beings, god had to have created a chicken first, as if he created an egg first, nothing could incubate it, therefore, the egg would not hatch.

Evolution wise, a chicken like creature could have incubated it's egg, and when it hatched, if it was a chicken, the first chicken is born.
giantrobot11

Con

To make your life easier, I do not believe the creation story, and will be aruging only from the standpoint that takes evolution into account.
What I mean was "come from an egg", I apologize.

http://www.sciencemag.org...
"Small globular fossils known as Olivooides and Markuelia from basal Cambrian rocks in China and Siberia, respectively, contain directly developing embryos of metazoans. Fossilization is due to early diagenetic phosphatization. A nearly full developmental sequence of Olivooides can be observed, from late embryonic stages still within an egg membrane, to hatched specimens belonging to several ontogenetic stages. Earlier cleavage stages also occur, but cannot be identified to taxon. Olivooides shows similarities to coronate scyphozoans and to their probable Paleozoic representatives, the conulariids. Markuelia eggs contain looped embryos of a segmented worm with short, conical processes covering the body. "
S. Bengtson, Department of Palaeozoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden.
Yue Zhao, Institute of Geology, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Baiwanzhuang Road, 100037 Beijing, People's Republic of China.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org...
"Silicified egg clusters from a Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale–type deposit, Guizhou, south China
Jih-Pai Lin*,1, Andrew C. Scott2, Chia-Wei Li3, Hung-Jen Wu3, William I. Ausich4, Yuan-Long Zhao5 and Yeu-Kuang Hwu6
1 Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
2 Geology Department, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 OEX, UK
3 Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Life Sciences, National Tsing Hwa University, Hsinchu, 300, Taiwan
4 Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
5 Institute of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Guizhou University, Guiyang, 550003, China
6 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan

Although knowledge of Cambrian fossil eggs and/or embryos has increased dramatically, embryos were previously unknown in siliciclastic settings of coeval strata. Here we report for the first time egg clusters in a fine-grained siliciclastic matrix from the Middle Cambrian Kaili Formation lagerst�tte (513–501 Ma), south China. Some were imaged under synchrotron radiation. These spheroids are preferentially preserved as microcrystalline quartz and interpreted as marine invertebrate fossil eggs based on patterns of spheroid arrangement, shape, and analogues of fossil and modern invertebrate eggs. Embryos with cleavage cells are evident in at least one cluster. Detailed element analyses show that eggs are primarily preserved as solid silica replacement, and there is a calcite layer covering the eggs replacing the original organic layer. Silicification of intact invertebrate egg clusters is reported here as a new mode of preservation associated with a Burgess Shale–type deposit. "

You said in your opening statement: "I say that the chicken had to have came before the egg". You make no specific reference to a chicken egg, so I can understand from this that you are suggesting the chicken species came about before eggs did.

The common chicken which I assume you are referring to (Gallus Gallus Domesticus) came from the Red Junglefowl (Gallus Gallus) which was domesticated and over many years became the chicken. Speciation would not occur in the original predecessor of the chicken, the Red Junglefowl, only in its offspring, with enough variation to classify it as a separate species. The offspring would have come from the egg; therefore the egg came before the chicken.
Debate Round No. 2
Aric

Pro

All right, I accept that you do not believe in creationism. However, I think that the voters should take into account their own personal beliefs. If the voter is a creationist, I would recommend voting for me, as I have proved that the chicken had to have come first if god has created the universe. All creationists should logically vote for me, as I have represented them and enlightened them on which came first in their scenario. Not to mention, how could a creationist vote for someone who will not even acknowledge that creationism may be the truth. I mean, what if it is the truth? Then the evolution chicken/egg argument is in vain, and I have truly one here by proving that if creationism is true, the chicken had to come first. And I know that all creationists believe creationism is true. =) So yeah, vote for me. But I ramble...

"The common chicken which I assume you are referring to (Gallus Gallus Domesticus) came from the Red Junglefowl (Gallus Gallus) which was domesticated and over many years became the chicken. Speciation would not occur in the original predecessor of the chicken, the Red Junglefowl, only in its offspring, with enough variation to classify it as a separate species. The offspring would have come from the egg; therefore the egg came before the chicken."

But see, if the Red Jungle Fowl laid an egg, it would be a Red Jungle Fowl egg, regardless of whether or not the embryo mutated into a Gallus Gallus Domesticus. But when it hatches, you can PROVE that the species that came out of that egg is a Gallus Gallus Domesticus, and not a Gallus Gallus. So yes, if you look at Red Jungle Fowl egg, you can say that it could be a chicken egg. But that's just baseless conjecture. Until it hatches, we don't know what it is. And also, keep in mind, that the Red Jungle Fowl laid the egg, making it a Red Jungle Fowl egg, regardless of what is inside.

Vote pro!
giantrobot11

Con

Speciation occurs from gradual change over a long period of time. The first chicken would have to be the offspring of a red junglefowl, but one with genetic variations from the first red junglefowl. Between it and its offspring a genetic variation would occur, making it difference great enough to classify it as a separate species. The first chicken could not have come from another chicken as this statement suggests:
"But see, if the Red Jungle Fowl laid an egg, it would be a Red Jungle Fowl egg, regardless of whether or not the embryo mutated into a Gallus Gallus Domesticus."
By this you are saying that the species of an egg is determined by the animal of origin, and the offspring and the egg layer will always be the same species. If this holds true every species present on this planet would have had existed since the beginning of life.
It isn't a red junglefowl egg, it is an egg laid by a red junglefowl, variated enough from preceding organisms from the sames species that its offspring will vary enough from it to constitute another species. Before the chicken it was a developing embryo inside an egg, therefore the egg came before the chicken.

This being my final argument, I thank you for the opportunity to engage in debate and look forward to another debate with you.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Haven't seen one of these for a few weeks...

C: Tie - I wasn't crazy about the conduct of either debater; Pro appealed to Creationist readers to vote based on their beliefs, while Con pulled the old "not necessarily chicken egg" trick. In the end, these balanced out.
S & G: Tie - A few things here and there but nothing outstanding.
A: Tie - Both arguments were pretty standard but nothing really stood out as more convincing. This may have been different if less time was spent on the "not necessarily chicken egg" bit.
S: Tie - Considering Con's sources didn't relate to his actual argument, this is a wash.

There you have it, a justified tie =D
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
That was a quick debate...
Posted by Aric 7 years ago
Aric
Maybe I misinterpreted what you posted, but I'm pretty sure I'm not con...
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
True, but every time I see it, and that Aric is Con, I get a rush (like debate-drenalin).

And I can think of some pretty good arguments now =(.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Because that's not how the saying goes!
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Why not just change the title to "The chicken came before its egg" or "The chicken came before the chicken egg"?
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Evolution approach: Genetic drift/variation occurs in the egg, not the layer.

BOOM, BABY!
Posted by Prophecy_Denied 7 years ago
Prophecy_Denied
Darn I'm Pro too. But I use a different approach lol.
Posted by Aric 7 years ago
Aric
Aha, woops, Thank you.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
You might want to define "egg" as a chicken egg.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
Aricgiantrobot11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
Aricgiantrobot11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30