Chicken or egg page 2

50 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by eProdigy:

There’s no way one can exist without the other one existing in the first place.


Originally posted by EPR89:

There were egg laying creature long before there were any birds. I never understood what fascinates people about such an obvious question.

 
Flag Post

Egg, obviously. It’s not a weird thing, eggs are advanced. I mean, look at an egg. Imagine you existed the time when chickens were ruling the world. Stare at the egg. Then suddenly, it cracks open like some kind of whale stuffed with TNT explosives. A chicken is born. Now look at the chickens. They’re pecking. So what? I could peck everyone all day long. It’s the egg that started it all. To me, an egg is a highly advanced type machinery, far more advanced than modern technology. It’s basically a device that starts chickens. The egg is the mastermind.

So what came first? DUH, stuff like chicken info, the egg always comes first.

 
Flag Post

It’s obviously the egg.
Who said it had to be a chicken egg?

 
Flag Post

now, now…

Assume(evolution as origin of life){

First, we had RNA or something running around with crude self-replicating capacities.
Then it found itself in a semi-permeable bubble and formed the first cell, eventually replacing RNA with DNA for information storage.

Then multi-celled organisms formed, with various methods to reproduce. some spat out miniature versions of themselves for young…and some eventually “figured out” that giving their young a temporarily extra-thick skin improved their chances of survival. (or something like that). then we wound up with frog eggs, which may have turned into solid-shell eggs when a misfire resulted in the code for “bone” being used instead of the code for “membrane”.

…yeah. Theories of evolution have long ago figured out how to deal with that particular paradox.

That said, if you DO believe in creation, the answer, of course, is either “chicken”, or “simultaneously created”.

Take your pick, but remember not to throw the other model too far away just yet.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fractalman:

That said, if you DO believe in creation, the answer, of course, is either “chicken”, or “simultaneously created”.

If you believe in an omnipotent god, why wouldn’t he be able to create an egg that hatched on its own?

 
Flag Post

Well, I suppose so, but I was thinking along the lines of Genesis chapter 1 (the poetic rendition).

 
Flag Post

Then why didn’t you say so? And why would that exclude the egg coming first?

 
Flag Post

To quote Harry Potter: ‘I think the answer is that a circle has no beginning’.
But in all seriousness, the egg.

 
Flag Post

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/fyi-which-came-first-chicken-or-egg

egg

 
Flag Post

The answer to this is tricky, as the question is terribly formulated (as in it’s not specific at all). It depends on the definition of “egg” – is it a chicken egg, or just an ordinary egg? Assuming the latter is true, then we have a scenario in which the egg came first. Egg-laying animals came long before any sort of bird, let alone chickens. However, if you take the former to be true, then we get a more interesting answer.

As biology defines it, a chicken is merely a domesticated Red Junglefowl. Since you clearly cannot domesticate eggs, the first thing that could be labeled as chicken were living animals born from Red Junglefowl eggs, who hereupon would lay chicken eggs.

If you’re one of those guys claiming you know the answer, I would ask you to please reconsider. The discussion involves paleontology, history, etymology, semantics, and biology. It’s not so simple.

 
Flag Post

You can claim that any question is terribly formulated if you want to resort to fancy word play.

 
Flag Post

Well, if it’s any normal egg then it was the egg that came first. As quite a few people have pointed out, there were egg-laying animals long before chickens even existed. But if it’s a chicken egg, then that’s a whole different story.
If a Red Junglefowl get’s domasticated, it lays a Red Junglefowl egg. But inside it is the embryo of a chicken.
So then the chicken hatches, breeds and lays a chicken egg, inside of which is a chicken embryo. The chicken came first and then layed a chicken egg, rather than a Red Junglefowl laying a chicken egg, because we live in a world where crocodiles lay crocidile eggs and not turkey eggs.
Then there’s the argument that an egg is defined by what is inside it, and not where it came from, in which case the egg came before the chicken.
Then there’s the question about what defines the stage at which a Red Junglefowl is a chicken and not a Red Junglefowl, at which point it gets confusing, since it seems more like a process of progression, but assuming that the egg layed in captivity contains a chicken, then the first two arguments take effect.
Then there’s the philosophical argument, in which the egg and the chicken don’t neccesarily have to be an egg and a chicken, but represent something like sunrise and sunset, in which case the egg came first again.
I, personally, believe the chicken came first.

 
Flag Post

The arguments presented by NaturalReject were astonishing. I congratulate you.

If a Red Junglefowl get’s domasticated, it lays a Red Junglefowl egg. But inside it is the embryo of a chicken.

I would beg to differ. The animal was born a Red Junglefowl and will die a chicken, since it was domesticated. It will lie chicken eggs after being domesticated, and would have laid Red Junglefowl eggs before domestication. So not only the animal inside the egg is considered a chicken, but also their progenitors.

A chicken is a domesticated Red Junglefowl and a domesticated Red Junglefowl is a chicken.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

The arguments presented by NaturalReject were astonishing. I congratulate you.

I’ll be waiting right here for you to state a question that I can’t argue is terribly formulated using arguments similar to yours. Ready? Go.

 
Flag Post

Inversion of burden of proof.
“Who appeared first in the evolutionary timeline of the Earth, amphibians or reptiles?”
Both the evolutionary timeline, amphibians, and reptiles are very well-defined concepts. However, in the chicken vs. egg question, it is non-specific because “egg” is an ambiguous concept. Could it be that reptile eggs are included? Or is it only about eggs laid by birds? Maybe it’s only considering the chicken eggs (otherwise the question doesn’t make as much sense)?

1. an animal reproductive body consisting of an ovum together with its nutritive and protective envelopes and having the capacity to develop into a new individual capable of independent existence

2. the hard-shelled reproductive body produced by a bird and especially by the common domestic chicken

 
Flag Post

That’s a terribly formulated question. Are you speaking of the first to exist, or the first one that someone managed to accurately place somewhere on the evolutionary timeline? Are you talking about amphibian animals, or amphibians from the Marvel Universe? Or perhaps an amphibian vehicle?

Even words that are “well-defined concepts” have ambiguous meanings, which means that if you want to pick a question apart in order to not understand it, you can.

 
Flag Post

The egg. Basically when the main ancestor came it evolved and became what we know as the chicken. So when the ancestor of the chicken where it came from laid the egg wherein the chicken came from.

 
Flag Post

You are correct, though I do think it wasn’t such a stretch to question if it was a chicken egg or just an ordinary egg. The chicken vs. egg debate is of humorous nature, anyway.

 
Flag Post

That’s where our opinions differ, I think the question quite strongly implies that the egg is a chicken egg.

 
Flag Post

It’s because of the strong implication that I questioned whether it was a chicken egg or just an ordinary egg. The question does not explicitly say it is a chicken egg, it’s up to you to interpret it, which is why I claimed it was terribly formulated. It strongly implies something, but since it’s implied you can think of it the other way around. There is much more validity to my “word play” in egg vs. chicken egg than yours in amphibian vs. amphibian car, precisely because of that implication. You are still correct in saying that I can claim any question is terribly formulated, but now I also think that that very argument is incomplete and insufficient to make a strong point. It does not take into account the validity of my claim, which is much higher than yours at the amphibian scenario – the statement acts as if both were equally invalid. This is why I dislike these big-impact phrases. Your post is one of those things people would post on Facebook between quotation marks followed by —NaturalReject. Their scope is too broad and their statements usually generalize too much, and there are no arguments backing it uup. These things require further analysis to determine their validity.

 
Flag Post

So, the more likely something is, the less likely it is? You’re just trolling, aren’t you?

 
Flag Post

Evolution doesn’t work in a way you can call a specie “chicken”. As evolution progresses, the animal that lays eggs becomes closer to the concept of “chicken”, but it never reaches a point you can call it “the chicken”, it always changes. The chickens of our time are genetically different to the time the name “chicken” was given. This cycle is progressing for a long time, and it started with microbes. So, the answer to me is chicken, because at some in the evolution, a microbe produced eggs instead of multiplying, and after that process each egg evolved, changed and finally got closer to the concept of “chicken”, so the first “chicken” was a microbe which produced eggs instead of dividing.

Many people chose eggs, but I think that is incorrect. What makes the egg layer not a chicken, and the new born chicken a chicken? They are both chicken-like as concepts, but it is not like another bird suddenly turned into a chicken. The concept of “chicken” is a term, is an illusion humans have made up, which tries to define a phase in the specie’s evolution.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

So, the more likely something is, the less likely it is? You’re just trolling, aren’t you?

You either strongly misinterpreted my post, or I made some kind of horrendous mistake that I could not detect upon proof-reading. Could you please point out where it is that my reasoning claims that? What I’m saying is, although it is highly likely that the question meant “chicken egg”, you could take it the other way around, since it does not specify that it has to be a chicken egg AT ALL. Meanwhile, in the amphibian example, it does strongly implies that it’s about amphibians, not amphibian cars – so it means what is written (meaning you don’t need to add words), unlike the egg scenario (in which you have to add “chicken”).

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator