Andrecova said:Well, I'm sure most of you have at least once wondered about this old question, if it was the chicken or it's egg that came first.
Wonder no further, though, for the real answer has been found and disclosed by science: The chicken actually came first.
""It had long been suspected that the egg came first, but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," Sheffield University's Dr Colin Freeman, according to a report in the Metro.
Researchers from Scotland and England used a supercomputer called HECToR to look in such detail at a chicken eggshell that they were able to determine the vital role of a protein used to kick-start the egg's formation.
That protein is only found, wait for it... inside a chicken.
Freeman, who worked on HECToR with counterparts at Edinburgh's Warwick University, said the protein had been identified earlier by scientists and was known to be linked to egg formation, "but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process," he added, describing it as a catalyst."
The only problem now is discovering how the chicken came to be in the first place, though.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/14/tech/main6676542.shtml
So, does this goes for or against your previous thoughts about the question?
I'd personally never given it much of a thought, because when I did, I just found it inconclusive. Although I'd have gone with the chicken if I had to pick one from the start.
Folio said:The human came first before the foetus... what?
What I really want to know: What IS the sound of one hand clapping?
dathwampeer" post="18.212976.7202082 said:quote]
I guess that one was too easy. I expected Bart Simpson's reaction in the episode where he learns how to play golf. So didn't expect a video of an a-synchronised hand-clap beat.
I don't want to ask 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a sound?' Because I get the most retarded answers without anyone listening to what I have to say to it.
(To make it short, there is no answer, it's a lesson. You need one to listen for the other to communicate. So there is no one without the other, no Yin without Yang. Get it?)
And god has...Optix334 said:That was easy. Its pretty obvious that God created the chicken first to lay more eggs. All this evolution crap is just dumb. If there was a "near chicken" or "almost chicken" where is the proof? there would be a fossil or something. You evolutionists arent big of proof are you? seeing as your...religion if you will...hasnt been proven. In fact its been disproven more that proven. Even evolutions founder, Charles Darwin, said it was wrong.
Was the place, by any chance, also refured to as "Black masa"?!?!?!!Shian said:They got the first name wrong.Andrecova said:Freeman, who worked on HECToR with counterparts at Edinburgh's Warwick University...
HECToR, GLaDOS, HECToR, GLaDOS, Hmmmm, you have a point, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...Blueruler182 said:Does HECToR not sound like sci-fi's next big insane computer program to anyone else? I'm just saying, that egg examiner is going to kill us all.
And, technically, dinosaurs laid eggs. Ergo, eggs first.
My thoughts exactly.Double A said:This is worthy of scientific research why?
How do you think the T-rex feels looking at his descendants.Last Bullet said:The correct answer is "T-Rex."
Hmm. Well, at least now I know. Also, I like how (following the link) they actually put quotations around "Scientific Proof."
If I completely artificially craft an egg from scratch such that it will give birth to a chicken, have I created a chicken egg or a human egg or a technological egg? Perhaps others' thoughts differ, but to me this is obviously an artificially created chicken egg. "Artificial" modifies the egg independent of "chicken". I guess you could say, "proto-chicken-originated chicken egg". Although upon reflection, I suppose the genetic makeup of a chicken egg is that of its mother?? *throws hands up* Well, at least we agree that it's a chicken embryo inside that egg coming from a non-chicken, which I suppose is the important part.Tele-screen said:It is as I have long suspected. However, at some point there was a chicken who was the first genetically complete modern chicken and he/she had to have come out of an egg birthed from a non-chicken. Then it becomes a matter of semantics: is it a chicken egg that it came out of? or a non-chicken egg?
This.-Zen- said:The egg came first.
Animals laid eggs long before chickens existed.
Your point is moot.
Yeah, some scientists are really dumb.Ridonculous_Ninja said:An animal that was almost a chicken laid an egg that had a chicken in it.eggy32 said:The question is "Did the chicken egg or the chicken come first?" Everyone knows other animals laid eggs before chickens. Stop being an idiot.-Zen- said:The egg came first.
Animals laid eggs long before chickens existed.
Your point is moot.
Therefore the egg came first. If the protein is only found in chickens now, that's because the almost chicken animal became the chicken.
Troll..Troll..Troll...Optix334 said:That was easy. Its pretty obvious that God created the chicken first to lay more eggs. All this evolution crap is just dumb. If there was a "near chicken" or "almost chicken" where is the proof? there would be a fossil or something. You evolutionists arent big of proof are you? seeing as your...religion if you will...hasnt been proven. In fact its been disproven more that proven. Even evolutions founder, Charles Darwin, said it was wrong.