Who really came first?

In the bible, it states that men came first (no pun intended), but how true is that scientifically. Originally, I'm pretty sure mankind started of as some androgynous blob, but over time how did we first reproduce? As to my knowledge (may be faulty) it is that a "fetus" or whatever it is called when its still unborn is technically female until hormones act on it. So can it be true that females are the ones that really came before man?

PS Please don't try to call me a feminist or anything. I'm just curious on what the fakku community thinks on this matter.

Actually, nipples are sexually neutral when it comes to body parts. It's just the same with males and females having brains and feet and legs.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Don't answer that, it was rhetorical. But my point stands that it's hard to say which came first, hence the reason why people refer to Creationism where God created man and woman, Adam and Eve respectively. I don't want to believe in a "being" that created us out of nowhere, but other than the theory evolution, which still doesn't fully explain the origin of species or the deviation in the sexes, I think the matter is moot simply because we don't know.

All I really know is that dinosaurs came before man, by a whole lot of time, so man didn't really come first. Unless you believe that God put dinosaur bones in the dirt to test our faith. But if you believe that, then, you're kind of crazy.

I dont' care if it was retorical, the egg. Since the chicken that laid the egg of the first chicken wasn't a chicken, but a chicken's predecessor. The egg.

And I came first, into the premordial oze. And THAT is how life started.

Also, according to the Creationist 6,000 year-old Earth idea, carbon dating is the devil's work, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

omg! i was going to use the egg/chicken thing.

well i think nobody came first.
evolution? did we really come from monkeys?
how did the dinosaurs come into the picture after the Big Bang?
we pay alot of $ for these scientists who dont do shit really.

haha. otherwise i'd say the Penis God
came and made life with his sperm! :]

i wonder what KLoWn has to say about this xD

Har har, very funny. Don't get too full of yourself.

Wow, there are alot of great responses here! But just to clarify in case there may be any confusion to what i already said, i meant men coming before women. I surprised that this discussion extended toward the dinosaur and Creationism, not that there's anything wrong with it.

Also, what about the clitoris? The penis is an organ that is analogous to the clit, so does that mean the female design have come first? And if that is true, how the hell did the first males come about?

All in all, i really hope mankind was NOT born from someone going back in time and squirting various body fluid in the the primordial ooze. Tho, that would explain why the scientists have named it so...

I think when people hear "Did man come first?" and similar questions, they are used to the question meaning "Did mankind came first?" and not just "man" as in "the thing with a penis and no vagina." That's probably why the conversation went the way it did.

This discussion sounds sort of like feminist talk, which I despise, but it does also seem like genuine curiosity, and a decent discussion topic. So, I'll give my two cents:

I'm guessing that something existed that didn't have a gender. That something evolved to the point where two genders sprung up. The genders would have somehow come into existence at the same time, because without the other gender, one gender is useless. Women (not just human females, but female animals, insects, and whatnot) couldn't exist without men, because the men has to impregnate the female, and men couldn't exist without women because there'd be no one to give birth to offspring.

Thinking about how it all happens is giving me a headache. I've never before contemplated this sort of thing. Usually, it's all about whether we evolved or were put here by God, whether we evolved from monkeys, how we evolved from monkeys, of what are the dinosaurs the ancestors of, etc. Thinking about how genders were formed . . . do we know a single thing about that stuff? I've heard the primordial ooze idea, that everything came from a puddle of stuff or single-celled organisms or whatever, but that says nothing at all about why creatures would develop sex organs that are, essentially, a two-party system. Wouldn't it be easier if all the animals were just one gender, and any single one of them could impregnate any other one? Maybe two genders decreases the rate of childbirth. After all, if any person could knock up any other person, there would be a lot more people than there are. And a person could knock up someone else, then get knocked up him/herself. Theoretically, every person in the world could be pregnant at the same time! God, we'd all hate each other. Even more, I mean.

Yeah, the fact is that we don't know, and won't know till further research and evidence proves otherwise = moot.

I wouldn't like to be a hermaphrodite... there's no fun in it.

Better than being full of something like the spirit.
At least I know I exist. To whatever degree.

Also, evolution does not say we "came from monkeys," and it's a terribly annoying and overused phrase. Way, way, way back before we were humans, we shared a common predecessor (theoretically), with modern apes. There weren't any monkeys, as we know them, back then.
Whether the first creature that could be considered human was a male or female is irrelevant, because it was born in a mammalian fashion, from a male and female of the preceding species, Millions of years and evolutionary steps away from asexual, single-celled organisms.

Now, as far as the individual human development goes, we all basically start of female until our hormones tell us differently. So, I suppose a female would be a base template for a male much more logically than a male would be a base template for a female.

Well... isn't it a fact that the male gene in humans is slowly fading? Pretty soon we won't really even need a response to this issue, although I would love to comment on the beliefs of creation and even with that rhetorical question as I find myself having a pretty stern answer anyhow. SO, it would be my belief that while in the BIBLE(lol), it says that men came first, but in women, they have double of the same gene, where as men, we have a variation of it, so you could say, bourbon vs. whisky, where bourbon is derived originally from whisky, yet some people prefer it anyways, but the fact will always remain that whisky came first, as without it, there would have been no basis for bourbon. Please don't look into that with too much though into just alcoholic drinks and more of an outlined point of view to see past the figurative language, I get chewed out for it all the time on other forums... :?

As for that rhetorical question of "Chicken or the egg?", while it may be just symbolic, it is simple to come up with the simplistic choice of, the chicken, if there was something that created the chicken, there had to be something to create the egg, without the chicken, there would be nothing in the egg, so the egg might have been just a cover for the chicken, so there you have the explanation for the egg, where as with the chicken, it is my belief that it must have been made before, as without the chicken, there would be no egg, where as if you just have an egg, there would be no chicken. It might be slightly confusing, but the point that I am trying to present is that, there is no variation without the basics! BASICS!!! An egg may be pretty basic in form, but what it contains, truly is fascinating and things are much more complicated. Without the chicken anyways, the egg would just remain that... an egg, not much more, not much less, where as the possibility with the chicken, it can create the variation, being the egg, the egg is just a treasure chest to store the next generation of chicken, almost like two sides of the same coin now that I think about it.

My egg came first thing made more sense. Unless you are refuting evolution.
And would that make Scotc a hermaphrodite? Because I don't think that's fair. It's racist, is what it is.

Or how about this? Unicelled organisms came first that reproduced by asexual reproduction. Evolution came along and split the sexless into the sexful, though I would believe that asexual reproduction would have more advantages at the cost of variety.

But variety is the lifeblood of evolution. Also agrees with the egg coming before the chicken. Because creatures were laying eggs before chickens existed.

The asexually reproducing bacteria came first, obv.

Clearly, but if someone asked you which was better, Star Wars or Star Trek, you wouldn't say Battlestar Galactica.

Whatever came first must of reproduced Asexually, and then evolved sex organs. I have no idea why, but what will be, will be.