DJ.Zen 0 Posted October 28, 2008 So which came first....THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?I say the chicken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Purple Haze 0 Posted October 28, 2008 R U KIDDING! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJ.Zen 0 Posted October 28, 2008 O i choose chicken becaue i believe a form of the chicken comes first before the egg could.no i am not kidding...just want to see what people would say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob 38 Posted October 28, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chronx @ Oct 28 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>R U KIDDING!Egg. because some for of mutation occurred inside the egg of an animal similar to a chicken. that mutation led to the chicken we know today. thus the mutated egg of a different animal hatched a chicken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJ.Zen 0 Posted October 28, 2008 People can get creative with their answers. I do this with my friends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJ.Zen 0 Posted October 28, 2008 so how do you know that the egg mutates first? wouldnt the chicken closely mutate to the chicken before the egg can be formed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir. Hot Mayo 1143 Posted October 28, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DIGITAL.ZEN @ Oct 28 2008, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>so how do you know that the egg mutates first? wouldnt the chicken closely mutate to the chicken before the egg can be formed?I think we are talking about evolving, not mutating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJ.Zen 0 Posted October 28, 2008 well pretty much it is kinda like evolution. why bad subject? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJ.Zen 0 Posted October 28, 2008 well i see mutate as an external forces (radiation/chemicals) that changes things...and evolution as a natural change. but maybe i am wrong Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob 38 Posted October 28, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DIGITAL.ZEN @ Oct 28 2008, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>so how do you know that the egg mutates first? wouldnt the chicken closely mutate to the chicken before the egg can be formed?well, since i am not considering the species close to being a chicken an actual chicken the egg has to come first. In order for a mutation, or evolving to happen, the chicken cant be born. It has to be a birth defect that makes it a chicken. So the defected egg came out of a weird species and there is the chicken. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir. Hot Mayo 1143 Posted October 28, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bob @ Oct 28 2008, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>So the defected egg came out of a weird species and there is the chicken.That or they've always been the same, just evolving. Doesn't necessarily have to come from another species, but I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Contract Killer 24 Posted October 29, 2008 Chuck Norris came first, you all lose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglewonj 167 Posted October 29, 2008 Yes, the Chicken Egg came before the first chicken. Eggs are technically named for what is in them, not what laid them. Today, that doesn't usually matter as both are one in the same, but at some point the line was drawn between chicken and its closest relative. The closest chicken relative laid a chicken egg, but was itself not a chicken. The animal that hatched from that egg was the first live chicken, hatched from a chicken egg that was not laid by a chicken. Evolution can be so cool sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comp 0 Posted October 29, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eaglewonj @ Oct 28 2008, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Yes, the Chicken Egg came before the first chicken. Eggs are technically named for what is in them, not what laid them. Today, that doesn't usually matter as both are one in the same, but at some point the line was drawn between chicken and its closest relative. The closest chicken relative laid a chicken egg, but was itself not a chicken. The animal that hatched from that egg was the first live chicken, hatched from a chicken egg that was not laid by a chicken. Evolution can be so cool sometimes.Way to kill the thread and answer the question Might as well lock it now...I vote we catch, roast, and eat Eagle for killing this thread! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglewonj 167 Posted October 29, 2008 Nah, it was basically answered already. Actually, bob gave the first real answer, roast him!You should see how I kill the glass half full/half empty one.If you were in the process of filling it, then its half fullIf you were in the process of emptying it, then its half emptyIf its just there....well, I'm a scientist, it is currently at 50% of its rated capacity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Comp 0 Posted October 29, 2008 Alright, get the rope, we'll hog tie him and mail a part of him to as many UV members as possible. Cooking styles are recommended but not limited to:1) Old fashion BBQ (Coal not Propane)2) Slow boil (Add kosher salt) 3) Marinade and cooked thoroughly at 350°FEnjoy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eggcracker 0 Posted October 29, 2008 I CAME FIRST!!! >end of story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MindSpring 73 Posted October 29, 2008 I need a mod to move this to Funny shaz, cause this doesn't really belong here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Succulent 0 Posted October 29, 2008 Neither came first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Øpiate 30 Posted October 29, 2008 Definitely the egg. Yes, it had to be laid by a very chicken-like bird, but it was the fertilization of the egg that made it the first chicken egg. Even though it did not come from a chicken, it will produce one, and is therefore that chicken's egg. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob 38 Posted October 30, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eaglewonj @ Oct 28 2008, 11:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Nah, it was basically answered already. Actually, bob gave the first real answer, roast him!You should see how I kill the glass half full/half empty one.If you were in the process of filling it, then its half fullIf you were in the process of emptying it, then its half emptyIf its just there....well, I'm a scientist, it is currently at 50% of its rated capacity.yes i gave the same answer as you, you are just more educated and can word it more properly. However, i bet you will taste a whole lot better than i do. Now we need you to solve the tree falling in the woods theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglewonj 167 Posted November 1, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bob @ Oct 30 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>yes i gave the same answer as you, you are just more educated and can word it more properly. However, i bet you will taste a whole lot better than i do. Now we need you to solve the tree falling in the woods theory.If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?Yes, the existence of sound is not dependent upon the existence of something to hear it. The fall still creates a compression wave which propagates outward from the site in all directions. Irregardless of someone hearing it, this still occurs. We know it still makes a sound not because we have to hear it, but because we know we don't. The hearing of the sound is not a critical juncture in its existence and thusly, the presence of an observer is not required. Simple, the tree falls, the sound occurs because you don't matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Llethander 230 Posted November 1, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eaglewonj @ Oct 31 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?Yes, the existence of sound is not dependent upon the existence of something to hear it. The fall still creates a compression wave which propagates outward from the site in all directions. Irregardless of someone hearing it, this still occurs. We know it still makes a sound not because we have to hear it, but because we know we don't. The hearing of the sound is not a critical juncture in its existence and thusly, the presence of an observer is not required. Simple, the tree falls, the sound occurs because you don't matter.Epic. Copypasta? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eaglewonj 167 Posted November 1, 2008 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Llethander (Panda) @ Oct 31 2008, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Epic. Copypasta? I don't need to copy and paste that. I am smart enough to spew that useless crap off the top of my head. Product of a Master's Degree with 6 years of college invested.... useless crap piles up, I'm just cleaning out the closet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites