The egg came first

neurosis

neurosis

actually it's you're, not your
Joined
Mar 29, 2025
Posts
2,508
Reputation
3,626
'Did the chicken or the egg come first' - Another stupid normie riddle analogous to 'is water wet?' (water isn't wet)

Obviously the egg came first.
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: 5'7 zoomer, Сигма Бой and optimisticzoomer
What laid the egg then?

You really should stop spamming threads and stick to replies.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Сигма Бой and acertyxx_
What laid the egg then?

You really should stop spamming threads and stick to replies.
The precursor of the chicken ie Something that hadn't mutated into a chicken yet and couldn't be classified as a chicken.

'Did the first person with blue eyes have parents with blue eyes' ??? No they fucking did not because they were the first person with blue eyes, and the egg was the first chicken - The egg came first.

I'm right on this one.
 
  • Hmm...
  • JFL
Reactions: 5'7 zoomer and Сигма Бой
Give me the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Сигма Бой
The precursor of the chicken ie Something that hadn't mutated into a chicken yet and couldn't be classified as a chicken.

'Did the first person with blue eyes have parents with blue eyes' ??? No they fucking did not because they were the first person with blue eyes, and the egg was the first chicken - The egg came first.

I'm right on this one.
Obviously if we're doing talking about the midwit interpretation (you'll take this as an insult most likely) of the phrase then yes, eggs did come before the chicken but after seeing you become a bit more sensical I assumed you meant it in the philosophical sense.

In that sense, the 'chicken', or in a normal persons interpretation any lifeform, would have come before the egg since organisms have long existed before sexual reproduction.

Your blue eye analogy makes zero sense since the parents of the first person with blue eyes did actually have the genes for blue eyes but simply didn't express it, now obviously as the smartass you are you'll say "b-but they didn't have blue eyes!".
Yes, they didn't have it visibly, but they had the genes for it, making your statement with the prior context absolutely shit.
 
  • Hmm...
  • JFL
Reactions: 5'7 zoomer and Сигма Бой
Obviously if we're doing talking about the midwit interpretation (you'll take this as an insult most likely) of the phrase then yes, eggs did come before the chicken but after seeing you become a bit more sensical I assumed you meant it in the philosophical sense.

In that sense, the 'chicken', or in a normal persons interpretation any lifeform, would have come before the egg since organisms have long existed before sexual reproduction.

Your blue eye analogy makes zero sense since the parents of the first person with blue eyes did actually have the genes for blue eyes but simply didn't express it, now obviously as the smartass you are you'll say "b-but they didn't have blue eyes!".
Yes, they didn't have it visibly, but they had the genes for it, making your statement with the prior context absolutely shit.
I can't tell if this is meant to bait in the form of a low IQ argument or just a sincere low IQ argument. I can't trust you anymore.
In that sense, the 'chicken', or in a normal persons interpretation any lifeform, would have come before the egg since organisms have long existed before sexual reproduction.
Not really. If that were the case then question would be 'did any lifeform come before sexual reproduction?', but it isn't. lol
Your blue eye analogy makes zero sense since the parents of the first person with blue eyes did actually have the genes for blue eyes but simply didn't express it, now obviously as the smartass you are you'll say "b-but they didn't have blue eyes!".
Yes, they didn't have it visibly, but they had the genes for it, making your statement with the prior context absolutely shit.
Having the genes for xyz != Having xyz trait or being xyz - My analogy makes sense considering the precursor to the chicken (and it's partner that it copulated with) had all the genes to produce a brand new organism/phenotypical expression (ie the first chicken or the first person with blue eyes), as did the non-blue eyed parents, but neither would be considered a chicken or blue-eyed. Source: De Novo Mutations and Mitosis

The egg came first (literal interpretation)
And obv lifeforms came first (whatever your bizarre schizophrenic meta interpretation of the question seems to be)
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
Reactions: 5'7 zoomer, Сигма Бой and Eltrē
I can't tell if this is meant to bait in the form of a low IQ argument or just a sincere low IQ argument. I can't trust you anymore.

Not really. If that were the case then question would be 'did any lifeform come before sexual reproduction?', but it isn't. lol

Having the genes for xyz != Having xyz trait or being xyz - My analogy makes sense considering the precursor to the chicken (and it's partner that it copulated with) had all the genes to produce a brand new organism/phenotypical expression (ie the first chicken or the first person with blue eyes), as did the non-blue eyed parents, but neither would be considered a chicken or blue-eyed. Source: De Novo Mutations and Mitosis

The egg came first (literal interpretation)
And obv lifeforms came first (whatever your bizarre schizophrenic meta interpretation of the question seems to be)
Shucks, you caught on.

The game is over.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Сигма Бой
  • JFL
Reactions: Eltrē
The precursor of the chicken ie Something that hadn't mutated into a chicken yet and couldn't be classified as a chicken.

'Did the first person with blue eyes have parents with blue eyes' ??? No they fucking did not because they were the first person with blue eyes, and the egg was the first chicken - The egg came first.

I'm right on this one.
Evolution'z never happened. :feelsshh:
 
I can't tell if this is meant to bait in the form of a low IQ argument or just a sincere low IQ argument. I can't trust you anymore.

Not really. If that were the case then question would be 'did any lifeform come before sexual reproduction?', but it isn't. lol

Having the genes for xyz != Having xyz trait or being xyz - My analogy makes sense considering the precursor to the chicken (and it's partner that it copulated with) had all the genes to produce a brand new organism/phenotypical expression (ie the first chicken or the first person with blue eyes), as did the non-blue eyed parents, but neither would be considered a chicken or blue-eyed. Source: De Novo Mutations and Mitosis

The egg came first (literal interpretation)
And obv lifeforms came first (whatever your bizarre schizophrenic meta interpretation of the question seems to be)
Tha ancient chiggunz wuz nascering via pathernogenesis.
 
'Did the chicken or the egg come first' - Another stupid normie riddle analogous to 'is water wet?' (water isn't wet)

Obviously the egg came first.
There is not a real answer.
IMG 1899
 
  • +1
Reactions: jeff1234
I'm wasting my time bestowing my wisdom to you ungrateful incels
What wisdom?
Philosophical questions given to 6 year old children to boost their brain development?

Gee, thanks man.
 

Similar threads

Сигма Бой
Replies
20
Views
234
Сигма Бой
Сигма Бой
spanishmog
Replies
70
Views
2K
amp
amp
superpsycho
Replies
91
Views
2K
waitingallmylife
waitingallmylife
D
Replies
6
Views
165
psychomandible
psychomandible
Sven
Replies
19
Views
481
xzx_
xzx_

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top