The egg came first

[Deleted member 137296]

'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.

 

[Eltrē]

What laid the egg then?

You really should stop spamming threads and stick to replies.

 

[Deleted member 137296]

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.

 

[Deleted member 137296]

Give me the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery

 

[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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 137296]

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)

 

[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.

 

[Сигма Бой]

'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.

Niggacope.
Chiggunz' primordial.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? 🐣

Which came first?

looksmax.org

 

[Сигма Бой]

What laid the egg then?

You really should stop spamming threads and stick to replies.

Da farst chiggun.

 

[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.

Evolution'z never happened.

 

[Сигма Бой]

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.

 

[Deleted member 137296]

Shucks, you caught on.

The game is over.

I'm wasting my time bestowing my wisdom to you ungrateful incels

 

[Copercel]

'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.

 

[Eltrē]

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.

 

[Deleted member 137296]

There is not a real answer.
View attachment 3857464

There is and this thread proved it - The question shouldn't even be a question in the first place.