• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Who came first chicken or the egg? - my childhood answer

Ostap Bender

Member
Local time
Yesterday 8:43 PM
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
25
---
When I was young and asked this question I would answer that it was chicken because it had to exist to create an egg. It seemed very logical for me to understand this and other kids found it confusing when instead of A/B answer I gave C. I didn't know or understand evolution at the time but I was not puzzled by one came from the other.

Must be INTP thing...
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 11:13 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
Your answer was A not C :confused:

Mustn't be an INTP :p
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
If you truly understand the modern evolution concept, you should realize the egg of the chicken came first before the chicken.

It's not about bullshit logical or some retard knowledges, just about truly understanding a concept.
 
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
Which came first depends how they're defined, as usual. Semantics triumphs over evolution. :D

I could further the debate above... the chicken came first, for contained within the egg is chicken DNA... (C is right, most of the time :D)
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
Which came first depends how they're defined, as usual. Semantics triumphs over evolution. :D
With two cases:
- The egg of the chicken is the egg that chicken laid
- The egg of the chicken is the egg that contain the chicken

Follow the evolution concept, the second definition make more sense than the first one. The chicken-like laid an egg that not contain a chicken-like but a modern chicken nowday. Therefore the egg came first.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
The red junglefowl (evolutionary ancestor to the domestic chicken according to Wikipedia). And there you have answer C :cool:
 

RaBind

sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
664
---
Location
Kent, UK
I could further the debate above... the chicken came first, for contained within the egg is chicken DNA... (C is right, most of the time :D)

That means that the chicken DNA is in the egg, not that the egg was that of a chicken's. If a monkey gave birth to a human, the monkey doesn't magically turn into a human even if we call the offspring a human baby.
 
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
With two cases:
- The egg of the chicken is the egg that chicken laid
- The egg of the chicken is the egg that contain the chicken

Follow the evolution concept, the second definition make more sense than the first one. The chicken-like laid an egg that not contain a chicken-like but a modern chicken nowday. Therefore the egg came first.
Ah, but you see there is no difference between chicken and egg except scale, which is dependent on the observer. The chicken is itself a collection of specialized eggs (cells). It's a mistake to say that one came before the other as they're merely a continuation of the same thing through time. Where does the chicken end and the universe begin? Where am I? Who am I? What is I? :cat:
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
egg is the correct answer and why is this a thing? a better metaphor is required for dialectic pendulum feedback continuity whatever. or maybe we just call it that.
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
Ah, but you see there is no difference between chicken and egg except scale, which is dependent on the observer. The chicken is itself a collection of specialized eggs (cells). It's a mistake to say that one came before the other as they're merely a continuation of the same thing through time. Where does the chicken end and the universe begin? Where am I? Who am I? What is I? :cat:
If we follow your reasoning then either the question not make sense at the first place or we can't say that they are same thing.

The question already assume egg and chicken are totally different objects. Egg contain the chicken and chicken inside egg.
 

Ostap Bender

Member
Local time
Yesterday 8:43 PM
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
25
---
Early chickens could've replicated without producing eggs and only evolving to produce eggs later. Parent entity (chicken) of some form must exist to create child entity (egg) of some form.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Early chickens could've replicated without producing eggs and only evolving to produce eggs later. Parent entity (chicken) of some form must exist to create child entity (egg) of some form.

offspring differs from parents (a prerequisite for the stipulation of the problem) and if you gotta draw the line somewhere, it's between specimens, not within one specimen. thus the egg is first, period. there is no distinct dilemma. it's just the general demarcation problem.

if it's at all feasible to demarcate, the mother of the first chicken wasn't a chicken. and the first chicken was an egg before being a chicken.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
How did the first chicken reproduce?

with the second one, who may or may not have been the first one's sibling. :D

(could have been the third one perhaps or the millionth one but that's stretching it)
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---

i feel stupid now having forgotten the handy word "circular" :D but i shall rationalize forth reasons why the clumsily synonymic word-pile in my first post has merit aswell - and may in fact elucidate some deeper truth about the phenomenon.

but anyway i fail to grasp/accept the argument that science says chicken. does the genetic recombination that results from mating, and yields the hypothetical first chicken, already exist in either of the mating subjects prior to mating? how is this applicable to a first chicken but not the egg it was? the either mating subject is defined as a non-chicken. who is that first chicken that didn't come from its egg? please explain. i refer to mine and 8151147's arguments in favor of egg, for comparison. reading further, the wiki contains that same argument, in favor of egg, but provides unclear reasoning for the initial assertion that science says chicken.

maybe i am incorrect in assuming that you subscribe to the argument and conclusion in the wiki's initial summary. maybe you just wanted to give some background info. but if you could explain it, that'd be good.
 

RaBind

sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
664
---
Location
Kent, UK
If we follow your reasoning then either the question not make sense at the first place or we can't say that they are same thing.

The question already assume egg and chicken are totally different objects. Egg contain the chicken and chicken inside egg.

The question is the answer.
 

Jennywocky

Creepy Clown Chick
Local time
Yesterday 8:43 PM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,739
---
Location
Charn
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The rooster.

There's your "C".
 

StevenM

beep
Local time
Yesterday 8:43 PM
Joined
Apr 11, 2014
Messages
1,077
---
Eggs were around way before the chickens.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The rooster.

There's your "C".

how the male is ontologically supreme and inciter of every progress. that bastard. how dare he challenge the tranquil ignorance of the womb?

can we now fight???
 
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
If we follow your reasoning then either the question not make sense at the first place or we can't say that they are same thing.

The question already assume egg and chicken are totally different objects. Egg contain the chicken and chicken inside egg.
The question is a false dichotomy. It's basically asking "Which came first: the cell or cells?"
How did the first chicken reproduce?
Easter bunny.
2829356_f260.jpg
 

StevenM

beep
Local time
Yesterday 8:43 PM
Joined
Apr 11, 2014
Messages
1,077
---
stop! you must take this subject seriously and not bog it down with superficial trivia!

oh.

Now, I regress my comment. After considering the vantage stance taken from 4 dimensions (and beyond), I suppose both the chicken and egg were always just 'there', occupying the same space with countless bizarre variations thereof.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
oh.

Now, I regress my comment. After considering the vantage stance taken from 4 dimensions (and beyond), I suppose both the chicken and egg were always just 'there', occupying the same space with countless bizarre variations thereof.

i can dig that man
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 12:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
@Bronto

From the Wiki
Scientific resolution
A simple explanation of why the egg came first was by Roy A. Sorensen in his one-page-article in 1992. He argued that although it is indeterminate which animal was the first chicken, the question of whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first has a determinate answer. Since an animal does not evolve into another species during its lifetime, and since organisms can fail to breed true, it is biologically necessary that the chicken egg came first.[12]

Evolution changes species over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified before and after birth,[13] it can be argued that a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that a creature similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[14][15] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

However, no one mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[16] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Even if such a threshold could be defined, an observer would be unlikely to identify that the threshold had been crossed until the first chicken had been hatched and hence the first chicken egg could not be identified as such.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not a chicken—it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, the argument is settled and the 'egg' had to have come first. However, whether this was defined as a chicken egg or proto-chicken egg is debatable. So technically the egg came before the chicken, but the chicken may have come before the chicken egg. So it depends on whether the question is "What came first, the chicken or the egg" or "what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg".

Logically the final conclusion can be drawn that the egg indeed came before the chicken, as a bird that was not a chicken could accumulate germline mutations in a single sperm or ovum to produce the first genetically identifiable chicken, but a non-chicken egg is much less likely to produce a non-chicken which accumulates enough identical somatic cell mutations across its cells to create a chicken spontaneously.
To be honest the answer really rests on how you interpret the meaning of egg. If it means eggs in general, then they existed well before birds ever did. So the egg was first in that sense.

If the meaning is specifically for chicken eggs, then the 'chicken' came first. Although it wasn't the modern-day chicken we see.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
the paragraphs you now quoted agree with me and 81511417, for the most part.

question is, afaict, if you should count the egg from which the first chicken hatched a chicken egg. there's no reason not to.
 

Polaris

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 2:43 PM
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,261
---
Primordial kitchen soup made in God's chicken.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 10:43 AM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
---
God came first

*flies away*

edit: !! jinx, polaris
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Today 12:43 PM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
643
---
Location
Victoria, Australia
I think part of the issue with the riddle is that most people aren't aware that the change from a 'pre-chicken' to a chicken was a gradual change.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 12:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
I think part of the issue with the riddle is that most people aren't aware that the change from a 'pre-chicken' to a chicken was a gradual change.

Yeah, that's why the chicken came first.
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
The question is a false dichotomy. It's basically asking "Which came first: the cell or cells?"
that's bullshit. It's silly like argue back the question that it's asking which atom came first. The egg and the chicken are two totally different objects in the question.
If the meaning is specifically for chicken eggs, then the 'chicken' came first. Although it wasn't the modern-day chicken we see.

I think part of the issue with the riddle is that most people aren't aware that the change from a 'pre-chicken' to a chicken was a gradual change.

Yeah, that's why the chicken came first.
No. The question assume here the egg is the egg of the chicken, not egg of other species. It just makes more sense. And even in that case the egg of the chicken came first.

You either don't know about evolution concept or misunderstand its mechanism. What you mean is similar to a common misunderstanding statement about evolution: "Human evolve from apes". But human didn't evolve from apes, we just share a common ancestor with them.

Apply to this chicken case the modern-day chicken we see didn't evolve directly from the chicken's ancestor. One odd day, one of the chicken's ancestor - I call a chicken-like - laid an egg that not contain a regular chicken-like, but a chicken-similar-to-the-modern-day-chicken. This is a random mutation. By chance and luck, from time to time, this mutation chicken is better at adaption the change of the environment, so it survive better than both other regular chicken-like and other mutation chicken that not similar-to-the-modern-day-chicken. This is called natural selection. So its mutant genes is conversed and develop till the modern-chicken we see today, through reproduction. The natural selection only process through the reproduction, then the egg contain the modern-chicken came first before the modern-chicken broke the egg shell. It's not like the chicken-like "evolve directly" to the modern-chicken so there are no "gradual change" here.

I didn't learn evolution by english when I was in high school so this may be not the best grammar to explain the evolution, sry.
 
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
that's bullshit. It's silly like argue back the question that it's asking which atom came first. The egg and the chicken are two totally different objects in the question.
What is an egg and what is a chicken? Cells. It's bullshit, but it's not wrong. :D
Technically the first one's a grain of sand and the second is several hundred thousand grains of sand molded together by geothermal forces. But they both look the same to me. :angel: Same deal with cells and cell aggregates .
BigPlayground_01_w%20scale.jpg

product-shot.png
There's also another chicken-first argument centered around the ancestral chicken... whatever organism first underwent meiosis was in effect the ancestral chicken and the egg was the first product of sexual reproduction. Don't have to take it to the atomic level.
56450655.jpg
I keep reminding myself of this one:

"When Plato gave Socrates' definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man." After this incident, "with broad flat nails" was added to Plato's definition."
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
What is an egg and what is a chicken? Cells. It's bullshit, but it's not wrong. :D

I don't care if it was wrong or true, it just doesn't relate the meaning of the question. What's the point of forcing defined them as cells?

In the philosophy context, the question is an expressing way of a dilemma. But in reality, it's a problem need to use evolution field to explain. I won't say you are wrong when saying egg and chicken are cells, you just derailed the topic.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
THD you could just say "i've studied quite some biology, lookie me" if that's what you mean. no reason to introduce absolute hipster garbage sophist nonsense here.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 12:43 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
THD's reference to meiosis isn't garbage.

Again the problem lies in the realm of what Thurlor mentioned about evolution being such a long process as to make each stage of evolution by a species practically indistinguishable. The first animal that laid a chicken egg would have been indistinguishable from the modern day chicken. It's easier to understand if we relate this to humans.

Say you have a creature that is in every way exactly the same as a human, with the only difference being that it has no eyebrows. Now assume that creature gives birth to a modern day human with eyebrows - do you consider them two different species?

The popular notion is that the first chicken came when a non-chicken laid a chicken egg and hatched a chicken. Yet you can't actually distinguish between chicken and non-chicken in just one generation of mutations. Just like if a human without eyebrows birthed a human with them, you'd still consider the parent to be human as well.

It appeals to human reasoning to claim egg first, but what's reasonable isn't always true.

The point here is that we really can't make any specific distinction between just one generation of chickens because the significance of the mutations that take place in only one generation are so small. If you tracked mutations for 100 generations, you could find that generation 1 and 100 are readily distinguishable. Yet any two generations occurring right next to each other (say 99-100) would not be.

With an unavoidable gray area it follows that the argument for egg is flawed, since it rests on their being a very specific point at which a non-chicken laid a chicken egg - yet the significance of mutation from just one generation to the next isn't significant enough that you can make that distinction.
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
Say you have a creature that is in every way exactly the same as a human, with the only difference being that it has no eyebrows. Now assume that creature gives birth to a modern day human with eyebrows - do you consider them two different species?

The popular notion is that the first chicken came when a non-chicken laid a chicken egg and hatched a chicken. Yet you can't actually distinguish between chicken and non-chicken in just one generation of mutations. Just like if a human without eyebrows birthed a human with them, you'd still consider the parent to be human as well.

It appeals to human reasoning to claim egg first, but what's reasonable isn't always true.

The point here is that we really can't make any specific distinction between just one generation of chickens because the significance of the mutations that take place in only one generation are so small. If you tracked mutations for 100 generations, you could find that generation 1 and 100 are readily distinguishable. Yet any two generations occurring right next to each other (say 99-100) would not be.

With an unavoidable gray area it follows that the argument for egg is flawed, since it rests on their being a very specific point at which a non-chicken laid a chicken egg - yet the significance of mutation from just one generation to the next isn't significant enough that you can make that distinction.

It is considered as a different specie if it can reproduce and conversed mutation genes for next generations. Not every random mutations are fit the survival, this is "survival of the fittest". As long as the eyebrows is the trait that help the individual survived better than other, it is conversed and develop strongly. And these genes are just part of the what make the modern-day chicken. The wider and the more complex of the genes pool, the different we classified biological units are: from species to genus, family, class...etc. So in that case our modern-day chicken is a species in fact, I would say yes.

However it doesn't really relate to the point of the question. Because I haven't seen from your reasoning, how you can lead to the conclusion that the chicken came first? The key is actually about how we defined the egg of the chicken, assumed no one confuse about evolution concepts anymore.

- The egg of the chicken is the egg that chicken laid
- The egg of the chicken is the egg that contain the chicken

The first definition is just necessary, but not sufficient enough. Because the chicken-like actually laid a chicken. The second definition is complete and better. It simply make sense.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
THD's reference to meiosis isn't garbage.

Again the problem lies in the realm of what Thurlor mentioned about evolution being such a long process as to make each stage of evolution by a species practically indistinguishable. The first animal that laid a chicken egg would have been indistinguishable from the modern day chicken. It's easier to understand if we relate this to humans.

Say you have a creature that is in every way exactly the same as a human, with the only difference being that it has no eyebrows. Now assume that creature gives birth to a modern day human with eyebrows - do you consider them two different species?

The popular notion is that the first chicken came when a non-chicken laid a chicken egg and hatched a chicken. Yet you can't actually distinguish between chicken and non-chicken in just one generation of mutations. Just like if a human without eyebrows birthed a human with them, you'd still consider the parent to be human as well.

It appeals to human reasoning to claim egg first, but what's reasonable isn't always true.

The point here is that we really can't make any specific distinction between just one generation of chickens because the significance of the mutations that take place in only one generation are so small. If you tracked mutations for 100 generations, you could find that generation 1 and 100 are readily distinguishable. Yet any two generations occurring right next to each other (say 99-100) would not be.

With an unavoidable gray area it follows that the argument for egg is flawed, since it rests on their being a very specific point at which a non-chicken laid a chicken egg - yet the significance of mutation from just one generation to the next isn't significant enough that you can make that distinction.

and that's precisely why the chicken-egg metaphor actualizes nothing more than the general demarcation problem, as i've stated.

nothing wrong with exploring that in contextual technical detail, but it's not a substantial objection to 8151147's argument, or mine.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
The first definition is just necessary, but not sufficient enough. Because the chicken-like actually laid an chicken. The second definition is complete and better. It simply make sense.

exactly.
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Today 12:43 PM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
643
---
Location
Victoria, Australia
I couldn't have done a better job explaining it than Redbaron.

The same gradual changes can be seen in living animals that are Ring Species. Replace time with distance.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
---
Location
our brain
tbh it seems that you need an exact definition of what encompasses a "chicken" to solve this. How far back the evolutionary chain can we go and still consider the creature a "chicken" at some point it stops being that and then something other than "chicken" has laid the egg for the chicken.

Chicken-like creature that wasn't a "chicken" in the strictest terms came first, then came the egg and then came the chicken.
 
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
THD you could just say "i've studied quite some biology, lookie me" if that's what you mean. no reason to introduce absolute hipster garbage sophist nonsense here.
You're literally criticizing sophistry in a thread about which came first, the chicken or the egg? :D
I don't care if it was wrong or true, it just doesn't relate the meaning of the question. What's the point of forcing defined them as cells?

In the philosophy context, the question is an expressing way of a dilemma. But in reality, it's a problem need to use evolution field to explain. I won't say you are wrong when saying egg and chicken are cells, you just derailed the topic.
It wasn't a derail. In order to answer the question you've first got to look at the attributes of each in relation to each other as well as in relation to other things in the same category.
tbh it seems that you need an exact definition of what encompasses a "chicken" to solve this. How far back the evolutionary chain can we go and still consider the creature a "chicken" at some point it stops being that and then something other than "chicken" has laid the egg for the chicken.

Chicken-like creature that wasn't a "chicken" in the strictest terms came first, then came the egg and then came the chicken.
"Chicken" at the very least encompasses the sum genetics of a population of hundreds of breeds ranging from wild jungle fowl to... say... the dorking, an old world breed that isn't the product of modern hybridization between old world and Asian breeds. There's certainly more genetic variation between those two breeds than between the "first chicken" and the "proto-chicken," yet they're all chickens. The immediate ancestor isn't beyond the scope of being defined as a chicken. And well, once it is, the measure of diversity within the "chicken population" is still far greater than the measure between "chicken" and immediate ancestor, so soon it encompass all of Aves, their reptilian ancestry, aquatic ancestry... all the way back to the instance of first meiosis. That is something that appreciably differed from the generation before it, and we know that all haploid cells are produced by diploid cells.

Oh, and you're also relying on Mendelain genetics. What if the chicken underwent an epigenetic mutation during its lifetime that caused it to produce eggs? That's basically what produced the first instance of meiosis.
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
It wasn't a derail. In order to answer the question you've first got to look at the attributes of each in relation to each other as well as in relation to other things in the same category.
So following your reasoning, what answer you provided for the question? I didn't even see your conclusion that if egg or chicken came first.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
You're literally criticizing sophistry in a thread about which came first, the chicken or the egg? :D

thread being about that doesn't mean you have to accept the regular connotations of the silly metaphor and play by its rules. a ridiculous attempt at justification.

you are reiterating points already made in superfluous detail. it has been stated that the purported chicken-egg problem is just a special case of the general demarcation problem. which is what you're trying to say in a roundabout overly concrete way, achieving only confusion and dilution.
 
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
So following your reasoning, what answer you provided for the question? I didn't even see your conclusion that if egg or chicken came first.
#teamchicken
thread being about that doesn't mean you have to accept the regular connotations of the silly metaphor and play by its rules. a ridiculous attempt at justification.

superfluous detail
Non-superfluous detail is boring. Anybody could do that. :seriousface:

Justification? My chosen choices haven't haphazardly muddled me atop a particular position outside of #teamchicken.

Which came first, my continued sophistry or the points I'm reiterating?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 2:43 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Non-superfluous detail is boring. Anybody could do that. :seriousface:

Justification? My chosen choices haven't haphazardly muddled me atop a particular position outside of #teamchicken.

Which came first, my continued sophistry or the points I'm reiterating?

honestly you seem quite volatile and i feel like i might hurt someone if i go on.

shout-outs to my grumpy tert-Fi groupies who'll smugly interpret this as my surrender even though you are making zero sense :D

i'm out.
 

8151147

KISS
Local time
Today 1:43 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
191
---
Location
asia
#teamchicken
K so this is what I understood from your meaning, you can correct me if any misunderstood:
1. Chicken are egg are basically cells,
2. So they are the same
3. Therefore an egg are merely a chicken.
4. Therefore chicken came first

Can you see how it bullshit from that reasoning? It has just totally negate the exist of the egg so there was only chicken exist, how it can be ordered when only 1 object exist? You just modified the question and made it far different from the original and answer a totally different question.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today 9:43 AM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,044
---
Location
Philippines
Top Bottom