Which Came First, Egg or Chicken, But Where is the Rooster

The scrambled question...

The egg or the chicken... but where is the rooster?
The egg or the chicken... but where is the rooster?

There is something missing in this ageless chicken or egg crap.

In old age debate that is fiercely fought in all four corners of the earth. The debate of which came first is actually the problem of the past and present evolutionists especially those who are rooting for the Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Since there is no human observer during the time which of the two came first, hehehe, the evolution theory is a mere fiction right from the very start and will never be a fact. A law is tried and tested by the step-by-step process of the Scientific Method while a theory is always not proven, thus will never qualify as a valid fact.

The question about egg or chicken will always be scrambled and a puzzle that leads to the labyrinth of unending confusion.

This old puzzle can be likened to "Which Came First the Protein or the Deoxyribonucleic Acid". According to Francis Hitching, "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein."

Since it is near impossible to acquire nucleotides, the units that forms DNA, which has the genetic codes, the validity of natural selection is completely shattered. Without the genetic codes there are no materials for the natural selection to begin with. Thus, conducting experiment which is one of the core part of the Scientific Method is a difficult endeavor or perhaps impossible. Thus the validity of evolution theory is still hanging in the balance or perhaps a fiction forever.

The question which came first, "egg or chicken" is a void question to start with. This question is actually incomplete without the word --- ROOSTER. The egg cannot be laid by a chicken (a hen, waikikik) without the aid of his sweetheart the rooster and assuming the egg came first, eventually hatches from its egg shell and reach full maturity do you think the chicken (a hen) will lay egg(s) on its own without a partner, whoa this illogical and irrational.

Why make things complicated when common sense is always present to provide concrete and brilliant answers and this common sense answer will point towards the Intelligent Design.

One of the chink in the armor of Darwinian's Evolution Theory is this ageless question, Chicken or Egg something but the Holy Scriptures can easily provide an answer to this so-called puzzle with relative ease: the chicken (a hen, for the nth time, nyahaha) and the rooster surfaces first, just like the other animals that made their very first presence in the planet by pair (male and female).

This is my eighteenth hub in the Hubchallenge.



More by this Author


Comments 33 comments

Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

Dear friend

Next time, state the frame of your mind ... before posting a question on these Pages, so that you may be answered accordingly.

Anyway ... Plain Common Sense, under the Microscope, is Cold Reason ... simplified ... in the Metaphysical approach to Reasoning ...

Good bye General


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 5 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

I am not actually employing rational thinking here, its plain common sense... why make simple things complicated...

I would rather believe on this than believing I exist because of chance... Darwin's Theory have a lot of holes and I will never believe on this fable...


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

I have mentioned about this riddle, somewhere in one of my Hubs ...

You are correct in observing the 'missing link' ... Rooster ... Because In the Sequences of Creation ... The Rooster comes first ... followed by the chicken, then the obvious ... Egg !

The Problem with Rational Thinking is, that it Presumes a lot ... especially where there is no Logical explanation of an Happening ...

This is within a political arrangement, with the objective of confusing the simple Believer, thereby, getting him or her in their camp of Thinking.

shahidbukhari.hubpages.com


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

Please give me a moment to complete my editings ...

Secularism, thus, Science, follow this Logic,thus, Theory, comes up with the idea of Self-Existence, of all, that Exists ... because, Neither Science, nor Reason itself, can break out of this self-imposed "in Circles... Cyclic Movement of Reality" ... in, terms of their held Concepts of the Existential.


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

Let me add,

You have, what is a rational Question ... So you should know, your question relates, a Logic's Postulated Paradox ... In ... Challenging the Validity of Creation ... Thus, Existence of a Creator, hence, God.

But in this Challenging, Logic gives away The Truth of the "Unending Circle" of an Untended Human Belief ... In, human Intellect being subjected ... to what be a "Never Ending Circle" in Cognitions ... Manifest, as the held belief, in both Hinduism, and Buddhism !


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

A year or two ago, I had stated somewhere on these Pages, that In, The Word of Allah, "the Rooster, came First" ... the hen, the act of procreation; thus, eggs and chicks, followed.

The Koranic Word, States, "Adam" ... a Male, Is, "the first, in Creation."


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Hey, General,

I know you are interested in this sort of thing so I felt you would like to know that your argument about DNA/protein which came first? is already extinct.

It's an RNA World now.

"An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.

John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.

The feat, never performed before, bolsters the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis, which suggests that life began when RNA, a polymer related to DNA that can duplicate itself and catalyse reactions, emerged from a prebiotic soup of chemicals.

'This is extremely strong evidence for the RNA world.'"

Guess it's time for a new Creationist versus RNA hub, eh General?


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 6 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

@AKA - likewise my friend hehehe thanks a lot for keeping me busy...

Have a nice day...


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(I will never accept the fact)

Somehow I'm not shocked. Oh, well. Have fun singing to the choir.

Have a safe and prosperous life, General. In the meantime this is Earth, signing off.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 6 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

I cant believe that you embraces a theory that is not yet tested why not go with the laws in Science and this is very unacceptable I will never accept the fact that I came from chance, and that will be ridiculous. Whoa, facts are irreversible and if you want more bombs which your make your hands full it is a privilege doing so. Your evolution theory provides a lot of inaccuracies and it is so easy to pounced on them. By the way I am an instructor back home and not a military man and you who meted out military ordinance by rephrasing my earlier reply which is I think not a good thing to do...


AKA Winston 6 years ago

I follow the old Chinese proverb: nerver argue with someone who has military ordinance as a last name.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 6 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Nyahahahaha I am indeed but where are the proofs, but sorry pal you cannot find anything... the thing you believe in, that is, the evolution will soon find its demise... and this is inevitable wahehehe...


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(Show me the proofs)

Sounds like you've been into the 80 proof enough, already.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 6 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Show me the proofs nyahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha... You cant show anything and you are such a loser... such a loser... you are wasting my time.. and thanks for adding page impressions to this hub wakikikik... Rephrasing is definitely not the right reply I am looking for waheheheheheheehehe....


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Here, let me help you fix your mistakes.

(I believe)evolution is directly related to how living creatures originated, tsk tsk tsk... On diversity of speciation can you give me a fossil that a bird evolved from a dinosaur... (you can't because I won't accept any examples like ) the archeopteryx presented before by this so called evolutionists (because I think it) is a hoax... or show me the missing link, which is forever missing since no such thing exists, (and even if it did I wouldn't accept the proof)between man and apes... with DNA thing I said well enough (even though I can't explain what how it operates) to vouch this article do not drag RNA (which is the other necessity for replication) here...(because my brain is scrambled now from all this talk about eggs.)


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 6 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

@AKA - evolution is directly related to how living creatures originated, tsk tsk tsk... On diversity of speciation can you give me a fossil that a bird evolved from a dinosaur... the archeopteryx presented before by this so called evolutionists is a hoax... or show me the missing link (which is forever missing since no such thing exists)between man and apes... with DNA thing I said well enough to vouch this article do not drag RNA here...


AKA Winston 6 years ago

You pose a valid question.

However, the question itself is NOT a valid criticism of Darwinian theory nor is it supportive of Creationism. Evolutionary theory never proposed that life emerged by itself.

Darwin did not purport to answer the question of how life originated. He simply proposed a rational explantaion for the diversity of speciation.

The fact that evolutionay theory cannot show how life originated does not mean Creationism is automatically right, for Creationism cannot rationally explain the understood interdependency of RNA and DNA, either.

Just as evolution cannot explain how RNA and DNA developed seperately, neither can Creationists prove that RNA and DNA did NOT evolve seperately by some unknown natural mechanism.

See, that is the difference between science and believers; science admits to its ignorance; believers claim ignorance as proof.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 6 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

@agdiom - hehehe evolution don't didnt transpire in the first place why should I bother with your lame comment hehehe... Hehehe there is no scientific evidence that a bird evolved from a dinosaur the archaeoptyrix is sorry null and void and the link between human and apes will forever be a missing link since the link will never exist ;)


wilmiers77 profile image

wilmiers77 6 years ago from Oklahoma City, OK

This article is very eye openning. Yes, natural selection of evolution shall soon collapse. I would like to add a remark concerning intelligent design: Man has created multitudes of forms, but where did they get the dirt?


Agdiom profile image

Agdiom 6 years ago

Your sheer lack of understanding of evolution, and even basic science is blatantly obvious. You lack even a highschooler’s understanding of science and yet claim to have shown a flaw in the single most well tested and documented modern scientific theory with your petulant whining shows arrogance that is appalling.

Scientific theories do not graduate into laws. A scientific hypothesis that stands up to extensive testing and peer review and for which no conceivable evidence could possibly overturn is graduated to a scientific theory. That is to say that theory is the highest level in science. Scientific laws are precise logical (usually mathematical) explanations for how something works. Scientific theories do not become laws, but laws may be incorporated into theories. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact.

As for which came first, the chicken or the egg, evolution actually easily answers this age old conundrum. A proto chicken and proto rooster which were both one mutation from being a modern chicken mated and the chicken laid the egg with the mutation that we now know as the modern chicken. So, the egg came first but was preceded by a near chicken ancestor. You have to remember that evolution happens slowly and among POPULATIONS, not individuals.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 7 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Well-crafted quote hehehehe... Many great Scientists opposes evolution theory...

You emailed this hub to him? If it is thanks... Now I just found an ally in you... Take care dear friend...


jaynap01 7 years ago

I actually emailed this to a friend! :)


jaynap01 7 years ago

"The renowned philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out that evolution is not science because it is “not testable” but rather “metaphysical.” It is impossible to test/observe evolution? unless one can wait millions of years. Darwin himself sets out an impossible test for his theory: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would completely break down.” How is one to set up an experiment to put it to the test? We cannot go back in time and directly observe supposed organ evolution over millions of years. Besides, a Christian fundamentalist could easily posit: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would completely break down."

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/catego...


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 7 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Thanks earnest nyahahaha a forced one here:)


earnestshub profile image

earnestshub 7 years ago from Melbourne Australia

Well I enjoyed the discussion!


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 7 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Oh here you are again... ignorance?, hehehe knowing the truth is difficult to bear eh... substantial logic equals common sense, for those who seek the real truth, evolution is nothing but a mere mistake that misled a lot of people already. Why believe in evolution when it will never qualify as law using the Scientific Method...

Sorry I deleted your last comment Dgerrimea you already hogged one of my hub before, please be polite in popping in. You can't just appear all of a sudden and say something that crosses the line.


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 7 years ago

The sheer ignorance displayed in this article was too overpower, and I was not able to read the entire thing. You have, however, inspired me to write a piece on the unreliability of common sense, and its misuse when applied to scientific ideas such as evolution.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 7 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Yeah hehehe i hope you enjoy it thanks for dropping by... I'll be reading your hubs soon for the moment I'm busy with my Hubchallenge and being a Hubnugget Wannabe.


prasetio30 profile image

prasetio30 7 years ago from malang-indonesia

haha..it is the old question when I was a kid. thanks for share about this topic.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 7 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

Thanks James, glad you dropped by tc there dear friend...


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

This is a great Hub! It is wise and witty. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And you are right! Even more important. Thanks.


GeneralHowitzer profile image

GeneralHowitzer 7 years ago from Land of Salt, Philippines Author

This just a fragment that will reinforce the second part of my hub that I will release soon: "Does A Creator Exist Part 2"... I hope we're both right hehehe... qs... thanks for dropping by...


quicksand profile image

quicksand 7 years ago

Hi General, Kumu sta?

It was you who first brought this topic into a forum right here ... I still remember!

Using the simplest possible form of logic, the chicken and the rooster came together or one of them came after the other. When both of them had safely "landed," then came the egg. If the egg had come first, it could not hatch without the chicken!

So you are right! Cheers! :)

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working