Comic Genesis Forums

Does anyone know if chickens/roosters ejaculate? If they can then I think I may have solved which "came" first, the chicken or the egg...

Or maybe I'm just thinking strange thoughts because I'm so bored...

well... the short answer's got to be yes. If roosters didn't ejaculate, at least in some form, we'd run out of chickens in short order.

And now you've got me wondering if all sorts of female animals are orgasmic, thank-you-very-much, or if that's a thing reserved to we really kinky animals... You know. People, dolphins, chimps...

Oh, the kinky animals...

So... have I solved it then? the chicken came first. That seems too simple.

In the traditional sense of the question (Good $diety I'd never thought of that before... I shall broach that to my friends and disgust them! Yay!) I think it was the egg.

But anyway.... o.0

The Rooster probably came first and the Chicken had to finish herself off while the Rooster rolled over and went to sleep.

Don't know if this helps anyone, but apparently lots of birds don't even have phalluses, so coming might not mean much to them. It also doesn't help that some species' mating happens in under a second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird#Reproduction

I didn't find much about reproduction specific to chickens...

I seem to recall reading that some female animals don't orgasm, though they do feel the urge to mate ...

My personal opinion is that, if the theory of evolution is sound, the egg came first. One day, some prehistoric critter was mightily surprised when its egg hatched and the first bird we recognize as a chicken came out.

Error of Logic wrote:I seem to recall reading that some female animals don't orgasm, though they do feel the urge to mate ...

My personal opinion is that, if the theory of evolution is sound, the egg came first. One day, some prehistoric critter was mightily surprised when its egg hatched and the first bird we recognize as a chicken came out.

On a related note... I have a fairly-well-supported, intriguing spiel I can give in favor of the egg first. One day at a summer camp, some little kids (ages... 7-10ish) were discussing this problem in the CLASSICAL sense... not the... *shudder* new one. Anyway. They're talking about it, and just as I'm about to chime in (I was a counselor) with my spiel (which is based heavily on evolution and the assumption that chickens were NOT one of the first species in existence, and that they were not made by some higher power), one of the kids says something to the effect of "Why would God make chicken eggs without any chickens to take care of them?" (Something like that).

... I just kinda stopped with my mouth half open and slunk off unnoticed by that kid.

Agent Vesago wrote:The Rooster probably came first and the Chicken had to finish herself off while the Rooster rolled over and went to sleep.

quite probably yes hehe

Gengar003 wrote:

Error of Logic wrote:I seem to recall reading that some female animals don't orgasm, though they do feel the urge to mate ...

My personal opinion is that, if the theory of evolution is sound, the egg came first. One day, some prehistoric critter was mightily surprised when its egg hatched and the first bird we recognize as a chicken came out.

On a related note... I have a fairly-well-supported, intriguing spiel I can give in favor of the egg first. One day at a summer camp, some little kids (ages... 7-10ish) were discussing this problem in the CLASSICAL sense... not the... *shudder* new one. Anyway. They're talking about it, and just as I'm about to chime in (I was a counselor) with my spiel (which is based heavily on evolution and the assumption that chickens were NOT one of the first species in existence, and that they were not made by some higher power), one of the kids says something to the effect of "Why would God make chicken eggs without any chickens to take care of them?" (Something like that).

... I just kinda stopped with my mouth half open and slunk off unnoticed by that kid.

That is an awesome story! Mind if I pass it along?

Personally, I believe that the egg and the chook arrived at the exact same time, and it was actually, in fact, the walrus that came first.

Coo coo kachoo Mrs. Lulu...

I say biologically the egg because i believe in evolution (that sounds weird, i know) and it's more likely that genetic differences were passed on to offspring rather than actually causeing a change in the life of an animal.

~Sara

If you're a Creationist it was the chicken. The Big Guy made all the animals more or less as they are now in the Garden of Eden.

If you believe in science it was the egg. There were ancestors of the first chicken that weren't chickens. They all laid eggs.

If you're a pervy type you're worried that the egg always comes first and the chicken never comes at all.

Coo coo kachoo Mrs. Lulu...

But where to turn our lonely eyes to now? I'm not so sure that Mr. DiMaggio still cuts the mustard (so to speak)

Moo Cow wrote:...because i believe in evolution (that sounds weird, i know)...

O_o It does? Why?



Anyway. If we're actually going to discuss this old dog seriously... The whole question is a non-starter. The correct answer would have to be either "Neither one." or "Please phrase your question more succinctly."

But, if we assume by "the egg" it means "chicken egg" then it has to be the chicken... Due to natural mutations, eventually, a "chicken" emerged from a "not-chicken" egg. But, if we assume the name of an egg is the creature that will eventually emerge from it, then clearly a creature that was barely a "not-chicken" one day laid a "chicken" egg. Take your choice.

tellner wrote: ...If you're a Creationist it was the chicken....

Actually, a person being a creationist doesn't mean the chicken was first... Being a creationist just means the person in question is wrong.

Lulujayne wrote:

Coo coo kachoo Mrs. Lulu...

But where to turn our lonely eyes to now? I'm not so sure that Mr. DiMaggio still cuts the mustard (so to speak)

I don't care where those lonely eyes turn as long as there is some yellow matter custard happening..

What I ment was actually goo goo ga'joob.. dammit

Error of Logic wrote:

Gengar003 wrote:

Error of Logic wrote:I seem to recall reading that some female animals don't orgasm, though they do feel the urge to mate ...

My personal opinion is that, if the theory of evolution is sound, the egg came first. One day, some prehistoric critter was mightily surprised when its egg hatched and the first bird we recognize as a chicken came out.

On a related note... I have a fairly-well-supported, intriguing spiel I can give in favor of the egg first. One day at a summer camp, some little kids (ages... 7-10ish) were discussing this problem in the CLASSICAL sense... not the... *shudder* new one. Anyway. They're talking about it, and just as I'm about to chime in (I was a counselor) with my spiel (which is based heavily on evolution and the assumption that chickens were NOT one of the first species in existence, and that they were not made by some higher power), one of the kids says something to the effect of "Why would God make chicken eggs without any chickens to take care of them?" (Something like that).

... I just kinda stopped with my mouth half open and slunk off unnoticed by that kid.

That is an awesome story! Mind if I pass it along?

By all means! Go ahead!

Honor wrote:

Moo Cow wrote:...because i believe in evolution (that sounds weird, i know)...

O_o It does? Why?

Well, I'd probably say I accept evolution. To me accepting scientific theory is not the same thing as, for example, believing in a religion or political ideology.

Kind of like when my physics teacher was asking us if we believed in conservation of energy, I thought to myself "No, I don't believe. Science is not a faith-based discipline."

So yeah, having faith in science is just like having faith in a religion.

When you don't have faith, and question science, then it is science.

Says I. But I'm not too reliable.

Facts are for wussies!