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

[Black Rose]

chickens lay eggs
if a chicken was born not from an egg but then the chicken laid eggs chicken came first
if the egg surrounded the chicken but the parent was not chicken then egg came first

 

[Yellow]

Jenny wins.

Seconded.

But really guys, the egg came first. Something that wasn't a chicken laid an egg that was. Now, how that first chicken could later produce more baby chickens with something that wasn't a chicken (birds are the only taxonomic group to which that definition of species is still strictly applied because bird people are crazy people), is a different story. The fact remains that at some point, the first chicken egg was laid by a bird that wasn't quite a chicken.

 

[Brontosaurie]

But really guys

all due respect

that point has been made by at least three people already.

 

[Yellow]

all due respect

that point has been made by at least three people already.

I know, and I'm just vain enough to think that I'll tip the scales.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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.

You're seeing two arguments. What I do when I see threads like this is think of how many possible ways to make an argument and then argue them all at once, because I entertain myself by causing chaos and confusion. But you're going along with it so now I feel bad.

The first one: If they're both encompassed by the definition of an organism, whether unicellular or multicellular, they're really not different and it doesn't matter which came first.

The second one: But if you're going to distinguish between how each is produced, one directly through meiosis and the other through mitosis, then the mitotic cell had to come first because meiotic cells don't reproduce.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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

i'm out.

I didn't even know I was in a competition, but the part that makes your surrender a surrender is where you admittedly worry about others thinking you're surrendering.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

How do you exactly tell an egg from a chicken?
One is a more progressed in age version of the other, I see no point of this debate.

The genetic material is created at one stage, later it's only expressing in the physical world.

 

[Rook]

*settles in to watch the show*

My expectations have been surpassed.
Great stuff, great stuff.

 

[8151147]

You're seeing two arguments. What I do when I see threads like this is think of how many possible ways to make an argument and then argue them all at once, because I entertain myself by causing chaos and confusion. But you're going along with it so now I feel bad.

The first one: If they're both encompassed by the definition of an organism, whether unicellular or multicellular, they're really not different and it doesn't matter which came first.

The second one: But if you're going to distinguish between how each is produced, one directly through meiosis and the other through mitosis, then the mitotic cell had to come first because meiotic cells don't reproduce.

The fact that they are not different in certain context since egg are protect shell of the chicken, doesn't relate to the meaning of the question. You just try to mislead the point of the question from A to B.

It's like in exam they ask a question: "1+1=?"
And you answer this:
- One water drop plus one water drop is still one water drop so the answer is 1, or
- Number and mathematical symbols are just human concepts and not "real" so the answer doesn't have value to the real universe, it's just delusion of human brain...blah blah blah

These kind of answers may are not wrong and even able to be accepted in certain contexts, fields... but they just digress the point of the question. You expect the teacher and the jury accept these answer, that your answers are creative and something "think different"? It's just simply digression and sophistry.

How do you exactly tell an egg from a chicken?
One is a more progressed in age version of the other, I see no point of this debate.

The genetic material is created at one stage, later it's only expressing in the physical world.

#teamchicken

The point of the question is simply to see which came first from the view of the human. The egg shell contain the chicken body and the chicken which are oviparity animal laid eggs, so of course we can perceive whether we can see the egg or the chicken appear first. Is this simple common sense hard to understand, seriously? There are no logic bullshit here, just a direct question that can be answered.

chickens lay eggs
if a chicken was born not from an egg but then the chicken laid eggs chicken came first
if the egg surrounded the chicken but the parent was not chicken then egg came first

The bold: chicken-like and chickens are oviparity animals so it's impossible to a chicken was born not from an egg at the first place. In case if it was possible, then that "chicken" was not a chicken-oviparity.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The point of the question is simply to see which came first from the view of the human. The egg shell contain the chicken body and the chicken which are oviparity animal laid eggs, so of course we can perceive whether we can see the egg or the chicken appear first. Is this simple common sense hard to understand, seriously? There are no logic bullshit here, just a direct question that can be answered.

The question isn't defined precisely.
Chicken egg doesn't require a completely chicken organism, however assigning labels and agreeing/disagreeing to call an organism chicken at the stage when it clearly performs as one is what a more legislative part of scientific community does for living.

So if there is an arbitrary line to be drawn somewhere, then it has to begin with the new organism, hence the egg, so a discontinuity is created, for the sake of meaningless ordering.

The fact that they are not different in certain context since egg are protect shell of the chicken, doesn't relate to the meaning of the question. You just try to mislead the point of the question from A to B.

It's like in exam they ask a question: "1+1=?"
And you answer this:
- One water drop plus one water drop is still one water drop so the answer is 1, or
- Number and mathematical symbols are just human concepts and not "real" so the answer doesn't have value to the real universe, it's just delusion of human brain...blah blah blah

These kind of answers may are not wrong and even able to be accepted in certain contexts, fields... but they just digress the point of the question. You expect the teacher and the jury accept these answer, that your answers are creative and something "think different"? It's just simply digression and sophistry.

I was expecting something more interesting to be at stake here. Your response to THD shows the kind of scientific bureaucratic mindset and preoccupation with inane binary logics.

Why would the OP ask this question if the answer was so linear and basic? Clearly the expansion on the concept and complexity were intended.

 

[Brontosaurie]

The question isn't defined precisely.
Chicken egg doesn't require a completely chicken organism, however assigning labels and agreeing/disagreeing to call an organism chicken at the stage when it clearly performs as one is what a more legislative part of scientific community does for living.

So if there is an arbitrary line to be drawn somewhere, then it has to begin with the new organism, hence the egg, so a discontinuity is created, for the sake of meaningless ordering.

I was expecting something more interesting to be at stake here. Your response to THD shows the kind of scientific bureaucratic mindset and preoccupation with inane binary logics.

Why would the OP ask this question if the answer was so linear and basic? Clearly the expansion on the concept and complexity were intended.

there is a right, logically sound way to understand/deconstruct the proposed problem. sure we could associate and brain-storm ahoy from there. refusing to admit the linear and basic, however, isn't associating and brain-storming from there. it's provocation. it's poking fun at people's willingness to engage in a serious examination of the subject. or put more bluntly: trolling.

8151147's analogies are perfectly adequate.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Who are you to judge the meaning of the question? The fact that the two are different in your context does nothing for the truth of the answer.

This thread is awesome. How about this one:

An egg by definition is a haploid reproductive cell. In order to produce a chicken it must be fertilized by a haploid sperm of the same species, lest we get into parthenogenic chickens. But even in the case of parthenogenesis, the offspring is a clone of the parent...

#teamchickensex

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

there is a right, logically sound way to understand/deconstruct the proposed problem. sure we could associate and brain-storm ahoy from there. refusing to admit the linear and basic, however, isn't associating and brain-storming from there. it's provocation. it's poking fun at people's willingness to engage in a serious examination of the subject. or put more bluntly: trolling.

8151147's analogies are perfectly adequate.

So what are we doing here exactly?
The answer is included in the question basically. IF said question was specified more clearly:

Which came first, the organism representing a given set of genetic traits that delineate it as chicken, or the egg of such an organism?

I was thinking of looking at the first instances of egg-hatching and the beginnings of this process, or maybe some alternatives to the onset of such.

Since the question is open I am seeing multiple ways to answer.

 

[8151147]

Re: Who came first chicken or the egg? - my chilbettdhood answer

The question isn't defined precisely.
Chicken egg doesn't require a completely chicken organism, however assigning labels and agreeing/disagreeing to call an organism chicken at the stage when it clearly performs as one is what a more legislative part of scientific community does for living.

So if there is an arbitrary line to be drawn somewhere, then it has to begin with the new organism, hence the egg, so a discontinuity is created, for the sake of meaningless ordering.

I was expecting something more interesting to be at stake here. Your response to THD shows the kind of scientific bureaucratic mindset and preoccupation with inane binary logics.

Why would the OP ask this question if the answer was so linear and basic? Clearly the expansion on the concept and complexity were intended.

How the fuck it's not defined precisely?

You really need exactly detail conditions for a question like "find x where x=1+1"? Can we just assumed that the condition is mathematics context instead?
And how the fuck this is assigning labels? Although it's reasonable to say that the egg and the chicken are merely one, but in this question, we accept two processes:

- The chicken laid an egg
- The egg doesn't give birth the chicken, but the egg contain the chicken and it broke the eggshell to start its life. So we can assume this process is similar to the first one but is reserve.

And this is common sense, people understand it and accept the question, not saying it is not defined precisely. I won't say your reasoning is wrong, every questions and answers are relative. But in this question, the common sense context is just better than your context that you claim egg and chicken are the one. So we can lead to the conclusion that whether if egg or chicken came first, according to evolution concepts, not "meaningless ordering" bullshit. Saying a question that is able to answered is meaningless, just sophistry.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Re: Who came first chicken or the egg? - my chilbettdhood answer

How the fuck it's not defined precisely?

You really need exactly detail conditions for a question like "find x where x=1+1"? Can we just assumed that the condition is mathematics context instead?

No because it isn't mathematics.
Mathematics uses a beautifully succinct system of propositional calculus to outline problems to avoid ambiguities and misdirections.

And how the fuck this is assigning labels? Although it's reasonable to say that the egg and the chicken are merely one, but in this question, we accept two processes:

- The chicken laid an egg
- The egg doesn't give birth the chicken, but the egg contain the chicken and it broke the eggshell to start its life. So we can assume this process is similar to the first one but is reserve.

Most certainly we don't have to accept it. I understand your arguments in favour of this representation, but given the nature of this question many different assumptions can be made.

And this is common sense, people understand it and accept the question, not saying it is not defined precisely.

Fallacious assertions from here on. Clearly people do not see it the way you see it and do not share your common sense. Appeals to common sense and majority won't give any more reason to your argument.

side note: Keep your temper in check.

 

[redbaron]

But really guys, the egg came first. Something that wasn't a chicken laid an egg that was.

Not quite that simple unfortunately.

Despite this being reasonable to human understanding, it's not really the case. The reality is that the limited amount of mutation capable of being passed on by any bird-like creature means that if you take any parent-child relationship, they're still the same species. Generation 1 can't spawn a new species at generation 2.

Yet over time, say by generation 100 - there can be a different species to generation 1. Yet the tipping point isn't some definite point where you can say, "between generation 99 and 100, the species changed".

But why?

Because generations 1&2, 50&51, 99&100 (and so on and so forth) are still the same species as each other - even if generation 1 and 100 are considered different species. There isn't a specific point where a parent is considered a different species to the child - we artificially insert that point, for the purpose of our own understanding because our minds work within the frameworks of things having a beginning and an end. However reality simply doesn't adhere to the same frameworks by which we understand evolution.

 

[Brontosaurie]

So what are we doing here exactly?
The answer is included in the question basically. IF said question was specified more clearly:

Which came first, the organism representing a given set of genetic traits that delineate it as chicken, or the egg of such an organism?

I was thinking of looking at the first instances of egg-hatching and the beginnings of this process, or maybe some alternatives to the onset of such.

Since the question is open I am seeing multiple ways to answer.

yeah, it's an easy puzzle. but it's one people make out to be harder than it is. that's why the truth is relevant and not entirely trivial.

i'm not making a case for limiting the discussion to the sound, contextually appropriate and parsimonious interpretation of the proposed problem - merely that it be recognized as such.

implicit in said sound, contextually appropriate and parsimonious interpretation is, among other things, the assumption that we're talking about a chicken egg and not eggs in general. honestly i don't see any point in trying to sneak around the subject like that. there's way more fun to be had elsewhere.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Not quite that simple unfortunately.

Despite this being reasonable to human understanding, it's not really the case. The reality is that the limited amount of mutation capable of being passed on by any bird-like creature means that if you take any parent-child relationship, they're still the same species. Generation 1 can't spawn a new species at generation 2.

Yet over time, say by generation 100 - there can be a different species to generation 1. Yet the tipping point isn't some definite point where you can say, "between generation 99 and 100, the species changed".

But why?

Because generations 1&2, 50&51, 99&100 (and so on and so forth) are still the same species as each other - even if generation 1 and 100 are considered different species. There isn't a specific point where a parent is considered a different species to the child - we artificially insert that point, for the purpose of our own understanding because our minds work within the frameworks of things having a beginning and an end. However reality simply doesn't adhere to the same frameworks by which we understand evolution.

elimination to the general demarcation problem, again. i've covered this. what are you trying to achieve? discrediting Yellow's basic understanding of evolution as a slow gradual process?

IF a demarcation can be supposed, then the answer is: egg. however, precise demarcation is generally problematic. that's all.

 

[8151147]

Re: Who came first chicken or the egg? - my chilbettdhood answer

No because it isn't mathematics.
Mathematics uses a beautifully succinct system of propositional calculus to outline problems to avoid ambiguities and misdirections.

I know my grammar and vocabulary sucked but I googled this. According to this definition, my claiming it is mathematics is acceptable.

Propositional calculus (also called propositional logic, sentential calculus, or sentential logic) is the branch of mathematical logic concerned with the study of propositions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus
It's just an example however, does it really matter?

Most certainly we don't since a number of people chose to accept different processes.

Fallacious assertions from here on. Clearly people do not see it the way you see it and do not share your common sense. Arguments to common sense and majority won't give any more reason to your argument.

side note: Keep your temper in check.

What I mean is people use common sense: assume, guess, suppose...etc and accept the question is able to be answered. Since it is common sense, most people have it and use it, no need to go detail or analyze, clarity... I didn't mean claim that other see the way I see. At least above half of accounts in this thread haven't said the question is not precise at first. That's mean "people" use common sense and accept the question is able to be answered. I've just use common sense like other people. Have no idea how you can lead it to fallacy, well play.

The problem is if we follow your reasoning, the question is not able to be answered: claim that egg and chicken are merely one so the question is "meaningless order". I call that is bullshit. Every questions and answers are relative, so every questions have holes to be exploited that it may not able to be answered fully or precisely. Sound like agnoticism. I didn't say your reasoning are wrong, you just deny the common sense context and your posts act like sophistry.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

final proof for camp rooster/quasi-benevolent god:

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The problem is if we follow your reasoning, the question is not able to be answered: claim that egg and chicken are merely one so the question is "meaningless order". I call that is bullshit. Every questions and answers are relative, so every questions have holes to be exploited that it may not able to be answered fully or precisely. Sound like agnoticism. I didn't say your reasoning are wrong, you just deny the common sense context and your posts act like sophistry.

I am not bothered with my initial position on the question. You are misrepresenting my position, which was divided in two parts. One was adressing the question and the other was about the whole clarity of meaning.
You didn't understand, what I meant was that if we use your interpretation of the question then it's really as straightforward as seeing the egg had to come before the fully genetically represented chicken.

My problem is with the artificial boundaries that denote very similar organisms where one is deemed a chicken and other is not. If we use hard boundaries then the answer is meaningless in a way that it's obvious for the first chicken in the long branching tree of egg hatching avians, it had to come from the egg produced by a close ancestor species.

Another disagreement I have has to do with your apparent claiming that this question is to be only interpreted the way you propose and that there is any "common sense" or "reason" that your way is correct and some others are "sophistry".

I think I understand your position and I hope you can grasp mine after this post. I am quite disheartened that you use rhetorics instead of logics and proof to argue and I will no longer participate in this particular exchange. I don't claim that you aren't capable, I don't have the time or motivation necessary to continue this one.

yeah, it's an easy puzzle. but it's one people make out to be harder than it is. that's why the truth is relevant and not entirely trivial.

i'm not making a case for limiting the discussion to the sound, contextually appropriate and parsimonious interpretation of the proposed problem - merely that it be recognized as such.

implicit in said sound, contextually appropriate and parsimonious interpretation is, among other things, the assumption that we're talking about a chicken egg and not eggs in general. honestly i don't see any point in trying to sneak around the subject like that. there's way more fun to be had elsewhere.

I get it, well put. Here's a tequila (insert your favourite drink) and let's have some fun at the (insert your favourite place).