who came first?

[falcon9]

A gigantic asteroid smacked what we know as the Yucatan peninsula along with massive climate change (most likely triggered by volcanism + the asteroid) killed off about 95% of species on the earth. This is inarguable since the fossil record shows this gap all over the world, though there are a few other theories that could be argued. Those 2 are the most unanimous since there is ample proof of these things happening. Mammals were lucky enough to survive, slowly evolved, and here we are now.

Wasn't it mammilian precursers which were lucky enough to survive the impact's effects and mutate into various species over time?

"Oh I almost forgot that EVOLUTION fell from the sky, Just kidding pardon my sly remark." When a scientific principle invades even grammar school, it has long since passed the stage of theory to established fact so I won't argue this one even thought it arouses a bit of questioning; the sudden way in which so many species disappeared point towards a cataclysmic event and the crater in the Yucatan Peninsula is said to be proof.

 
Chickens (Gallus domesticus) are known to be descendants of the famous Archaeopteryx from the Jurassic period. Scientists have identified that domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus) and appeared as early as 4,000 BC in Southeast Asia. The domesticated chickens were initially used for entertainment in the form of physical fighting, rather than food. However, Archaeopteryx may be only a birdlike dinosaur rather than a dinosaurlike true bird. 

Well Increasingly, in a perverse twist of science new results became to be judged by how well they supported the impact hypothesis, rather than how well they tested it
But don't take my word for it read and judge for yourself. Checkout this study from the Geological Society 
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/keller/page7668.html

"Most mass extinctions over the past 500Ma occurred during times of major volcanic eruptions, some occurred at times of multiple impacts." No one said any one particular impact was the single cause of a MEE, (Mass Extinction Event).  Between the numerous volcanic eruptions and periodic meteor impacts, the climatic changes engendered massive losses of flora & fauna species.  These included the more massive dinosaurs, but not all reptilian critters, nor all plant life.  Whether the MEE of that time period was sudden or, a drawn-out die-off, we don't get many huge dinosaurs these days, (various dragon legends nothwithstanding).

Another thing only "mammalian precursors" were lucky enough to survive the impact right?

No, not "only" them; several different plants and animals managed to hang on through the climatic shifts, (volcanic ash clouds, temperature changes, tectonic plate-shifts, etc.).  The big 'uns had about a 100 million year run and didn't make the transition that surviving species did.

I'd think you were referring to the platypus and the echidna am I right? But seeing that the chicken is a completely different vertebrate from mammals are they some additional form of meteoric evolution?

Species either evolve over time to survive in a changing environment or, they die out. "Chinese paleontologists reported in the current issue of the journal Nature that a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur with feathers, named Xiaotingia zhengi. The skeleton was embedded in shale, along with the clear impressions of feathers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02fossil.html

Now don't get me wrong, I am in no wise attempting to be rude. I'm just asking these questions seeing that you seem to posses a more in-depth understanding in the study of Paleontology.

No worries, I replied without really calling 'fowl'/foul.

[mahhum12]

Obviously ur mom

[ninajay]

I think the chicken came first

[Getinonthis]

I'd think you were referring to the platypus and the echidna am I right? But seeing that the chicken is a completely different vertebrate from mammals are they some additional form of meteoric evolution?

Species either evolve over time to survive in a changing environment or, they die out. "Chinese paleontologists reported in the current issue of the journal Nature that a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur with feathers, named Xiaotingia zhengi. The skeleton was embedded in shale, along with the clear impressions of feathers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02fossil.html

First let me say thank you for sharing some light on the topic. Like I shared before I was never a big fan of paleontology never the less I am hooked "whenever" I reserve myself to indulge in the discovery channel, Geological Society and other open resources that shed in-dept light on or these topics.  

I checked the above mentioned article on the Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx has perched high on the avian family tree as the earliest and most primitive bird, somewhere near the evolutionary moment when some dinosaurs gave rise to birds. While this one was not striking in appearance as additional remain it was good enough apparently to contradict conventional wisdom about proto-birds.

In other words; ok it's no longer that, though it could be either that or this but lets settle with this seeing that it's the closest resemblance to the chicken. Personally I'm surprised they didn't put an ostrich next to it seeing that seems to be more prehistoric in resemblance to dinosaurs, but that wouldn't have sufficed the existence of birds, namely the chicken.
My point is after finding such an interesting/marvelous discovery why settle at that? I personally would be motivated in finding something a bit closer to the real thing after seeing that. Rather than saying ok boys it's a wrap (that'll do), pack it up and lets go home.

[falcon9]

First let me say thank you for sharing some light on the topic. Like I shared before I was never a big fan of paleontology never the less I am hooked "whenever" I reserve myself to indulge in the discovery channel, Geological Society and other open resources that shed in-dept light on or these topics.  

I checked the above mentioned article on the Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx has perched high on the avian family tree as the earliest and most primitive bird, somewhere near the evolutionary moment when some dinosaurs gave rise to birds. While this one was not striking in appearance as additional remain it was good enough apparently to contradict conventional wisdom about proto-birds.

In other words; ok it's no longer that, though it could be either that or this but lets settle with this seeing that it's the closest resemblance to the chicken. Personally I'm surprised they didn't put an ostrich next to it seeing that seems to be more prehistoric in resemblance to dinosaurs, but that wouldn't have sufficed the existence of birds, namely the chicken.
My point is after finding such an interesting/marvelous discovery why settle at that? I personally would be motivated in finding something a bit closer to the real thing after seeing that. Rather than saying ok boys it's a wrap (that'll do), pack it up and lets go home.

Well, they didn't settle at Archaeopteryx after all; the more recently-discovered evolutionary link between dinos and birds was mentioned as "Xiaotingia zhengi" - "a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. The question now is, if not Archaeopteryx, which of many feathered dinosaurs or dinosaurlike birds being found is closest to the first bird?"

[Moosetoaster]

Obviously, the chicken and the egg as we know them are highly irrelevant to this entire discussion. If you wish to make a chicken, you must first create the universe.

[Getinonthis]

In other words; ok it's no longer that, though it could be either that or this but lets settle with this seeing that it's the closest resemblance to the chicken. Personally I'm surprised they didn't put an ostrich next to it seeing that seems to be more prehistoric in resemblance to dinosaurs, but that wouldn't have sufficed the existence of birds, namely the chicken.
My point is after finding such an interesting/marvelous discovery why settle at that? I personally would be motivated in finding something a bit closer to the real thing after seeing that. Rather than saying ok boys it's a wrap (that'll do), pack it up and lets go home.



Well, they didn't settle at Archaeopteryx after all; the more recently-discovered evolutionary link between dinos and birds was mentioned as "Xiaotingia zhengi" - "a previously unknown chicken-size 155-million-year-old dinosaur challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. The question now is, if not Archaeopteryx, which of many feathered dinosaurs or dinosaurlike birds being found is closest to the first bird?"

Would you consider the chicken to be a more advanced or mature stage than it's precursor?

I ask this not to drift from the point but I still find it a bit hard to acknowledge evolution seeing that it's based on rationalization. Meaning it's consistency is so inconsistent that it could be changed by the next discovery which turns out to be a cycle of theoretic explanations. For example I was watching the History channel MEGA DISASTERS: the theory that an asteroid strike may have been responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.  
This took our discussion into another cycle, which again shows that as man's understanding transcends, what was once former turns out to be inconsistent and illogical therefore it demands further study/discussion/explanation.

I find it a bit hard seeing that job of a Scientist is to "CREATE" an answer or solution whether rhetorical or theoretic (false) until something is found to replace it.

[mardukblood2009]

The chicken came first. It was cells multiplying that eventually formed the chicken just like everything else did in the whole world and everywheres else. The egg has nothing to do with the process it is just how the chicken reproduces.

[falcon9]

Would you consider the chicken to be a more advanced or mature stage than it's precursor?

A precurser is just that; something that came before something else. While evolution holds that species tend to evolve to adapt to changing enviromental factors, there's nothing that says a species must do so, (and these species either die out or, 'devolve').

I ask this not to drift from the point but I still find it a bit hard to acknowledge evolution seeing that it's based on rationalization. Meaning it's consistency is so inconsistent that it could be changed by the next discovery which turns out to be a cycle of theoretic explanations.

The theory of evolution is a theory, (says so, right in the name).  Theories are not final conclusions; they remain tenetive and subject to new information. Different theories can be in dispute with one another while each supposedly strives to explain observed data.  Any inconsistencies arising from competing theories are nominally based upon varying degrees of emphasis, de-emphasis or, not considering myraid contributing factors.  As more reliable and accurate information becomes available through new discoveries, some theories will evolve while others become extinct - just like flora & fauna.

For example I was watching the History channel MEGA DISASTERS: the theory that an asteroid strike may have been responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.  
This took our discussion into another cycle, which again shows that as man's understanding transcends, what was once former turns out to be inconsistent and illogical therefore it demands further study/discussion/explanation.

There's nothing "inconsistent and illogical" about physical evidence of huge rocks smacking into the earth's surface since physical evidence of this exists.  What's being disputed by different theories is how much impact these impacts had on dramatically altering the climate and other environmental factors to either cause sudden or, gradual MEEs, (Mass Extinction Events).

I find it a bit hard seeing that job of a Scientist is to "CREATE" an answer or solution whether rhetorical or theoretic (false) until something is found to replace it.

A theoretic hypothesis isn't automatically false; it is considered to be a possible explanation for observed data, (dictionary definitions will expand on this brief synopsis).  Scientists aren't the only ones who theorize; almost everyone does that on a daily basis regarding routine matters.  Oftentimes, insufficient information is all that is available when attempting to find a solution or answer to a problem/question.

  One common error of 'logic' is to assume that, just because there is insufficient information available, one's unsupported opinion is equivalent to a theory which has at least some substantiating evidence.  Another is assuming that a lack of evidence constitutes evidence to support an unsubstantiated theory or opinion.  No evidence means just that; it is not the equivalent of evidence itself.  As new information becomes available, theories normally change or, are discarded in favor of theories which better explain phenomenon.

[gemini0314]

Thats a hard one since a chicken cant grow into a chick without the egg and an egg cant be made without a chicken.. so we may never know.

[Kiki1992]

This  question: which came first, the chicken or the egg, is just another way of asking, which do you believe, Creation or Evolution. Depending on which one you believe, there will come your answer.

[handllucas]

Just to stoke the fire here---
God created all the animals of the earth, he did not create eggs.
Give it a thought.

[falcon9]

Just to stoke the fire here---
God created all the animals of the earth, he did not create eggs.

'Given that alligators, snakes and other reptiles taste like chicken, it's likely that even dinosaurs had flesh with that ubiquitous poutry-flavor. Both amphibians and terrestrial animals developed a flavor and texture that now persists in birds, reptiles and amphibians, although the flavor has gradually become absent in most mammals.'

Give it a thought.

Some have given it more thought than an unquestioned 'belief' in an unsupported claim, have you?

[mtmailey]

animals were made from earth along with mortals at first-just like i was reading the dead sea scrolls one person had something about him being made from clay.

[acarswell]

I believe that God created Chicken first. Then the chicken  laid an egg in order to reproduce. So chickens came first but then the egg... Im just not sure why they keep trying to cross roads