ASK A QUESTION ¿El pollo y el huevo?
He oído recientemente que la repuesta a esta pregunta depende de sus vistas en el creacionoismo vs. la evolución. Los creacionistas creen que fue el pollo, porque Dios creó todas las bestias de la tierra, mar y aire. Los evolucionistas creen que fue el huevo, porque el pollo evolucionó de animales más temprano, y el primer pollo nacido como una mutación en el huevo de un animal similar, pero diferente.
(I have heard recently that the answer to this question depends on your views on creationism vs. evolution. Creationists believe that it was the chicken, because God created all of the beasts on land, sea, and air. Evolutionists believe that it was the egg, because the chicken evolved from earlier animals, and the first chicken was born as a mutation from the egg of a similar, but different, animal.)
It makes sense to me. I don't remember hearing about God creating any eggs, and if he/she can drop an entire human on the Earth without worrying about gestation, a chicken without an egg would be no problem. And if chickens evolved from other animals, the first chicken would have had to come from the egg of another animal. I guess I don't really have a question, but given McLovin's line of questions, I was reminded of the chicken and the egg.
If I may give my humble opinion on this subject…I have noticed that everything in this Universe has either a circular movement or it’s round. Everything also gets recycled. Stars get recycled, planets get recycled and all organic matter gets recycled. Everything seems to emanate from one source while continuing to evolve. Eggs are also round and subjected to evolution. Birds lay eggs and mammals carry the seed in the womb, therefore it looks like a different form of conception but it’s not. It is only when we start comparing mammals to an egg that we see that the entire animal has become the egg.
The seemingly tautological question of whether the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus) or the egg (Gallus prezygoticos) first emerged in evolutionary history has often been visited by many speakers. This enduring debate has manifested itself as a metaphor for a circumstance or a condition in which no clear causal or temporal ordering can be determined. In considering the use of this seemingly flawed metaphor, it is astonishing that such a debate could remain contentious, given the shear weight of scientific and historical evidence. In fact, there really is no support for the continued use of this inaccurate metaphor and to do so may demonstrate a lack of logical sophistication.
The conundrum posed by the inquiry as to “which came first the chicken or the egg?” the perceived paradox is as follows. The chicken could not have come first because it must hatch from an egg. Conversely, the egg could not have come first, as it must have been laid by a chicken. While seemingly contradictory, a brief examination of history, archeological records, and evolutionary theory provides the solution
Has anyone ever considered that they must have arrived at the same time? If it was the chicken that appeared first, the egg was inside of her and if it was the egg that appeared first, the chicken was inside of it. Case closed, problem solved - jajaja!
¡Qué interesante, jrey! Mi clase de español hoy estaba hablando sobre los mitos de creación en various países. Creo en parte del creacionoismo con Dios, pero creo que el huevo pasó primero. ¿Qué forma de creación le gusta, el creacionoismo o la evolución?
How interesting, jrey! My spanish class today was just talking about creation myths in various countries. I believe in some of creationism with God, but I believe that the egg happened first. What do you like more, creationism or evolution?