NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I believe to have solved the chicken or the egg dilemma.

It was the chicken.

Why? Most people seem to try to argue either side of the great debate, by asking 'But if the chicken existed first, where did it come from?', or 'But if the Egg existed first, where did it come from?'. I thought about this, and considered it from a different point of view... 'Which can survive without the other?'

a) The chicken can walk, eat, drink, and live without the existance of an egg present. It does not need the egg, unless you ask such questions as to where the chicken came from; which can be easily counteracted by asking where did the egg come from.

b) The egg cannot exist without the chicken being present. Without the chicken, the egg would grow cold and its pre-hatchling would die inside, therefore the egg would not hatch, and we would not have chickens to begin with!

So solved? Give me your thoughts/opinions...

Nope. It was the egg.

Wrong it was a Dinosaur egg

Nope. It was the egg.

Would you care to explain why you think this?

It was an incubator, a "My First Genetic Lab" kit, and an egg.

No. It was the egg, sheltered by the Grace of God so that it could become a chicken.

Egg. fish lay eggs. there were fish before there were birds.

The evolutionary predecessor to the chicken laid an egg of what would become the chicken. Thus, the egg precedes the chicken, because the first chicken egg was not laid by a chicken as we know it.

The evolutionary predecessor to the chicken laid an egg of what would become the chicken. Thus, the egg precedes the chicken, because the first chicken egg was not laid by a chicken as we know it.

Dammit, you beat me to it!

I killed the first chicken, and then I bread the babies, and I just keep on killing them and breeding them. Dammit, they need to stop being so tasty!

Would you care to explain why you think this?

Sure. There had to be a first chicken. And all chickens come from eggs. Therefore before the first chicken, there was the first chicken egg. Therefore the egg preceded the chicken. Q.E.D.

There was a bird before the Chicken that laid an egg with a genetic mutation, that genetic mutation created the chicken, so thereforth the egg came first.

Like all good scientists, I believe the chicken and the egg spontaneously appeared from nothing. Then the chicken and the egg had sex which led to baby chicken eggs.

Like all good scientists, I believe the chicken and the egg spontaneously appeared from nothing. Then the chicken and the egg had sex which led to baby chicken eggs.

Isn't that pedophilia? Or chick-o-philia?

Actually, It MUST be the chicken, because the egg would not be considered a chicken egg unless it spawns from a chicken, but a chicken is a chicken no matter where it spawns frome

Actually, It MUST be the chicken, because the egg would not be considered a chicken egg unless it spawns from a chicken, but a chicken is a chicken no matter where it spawns frome

No, because then the first chicken would not have come from a chicken egg, which is logically absurd. The first chicken was born from a chicken egg, and therefore the egg came first. Any other explanation is wrong.

Like all good scientists, I believe the chicken and the egg spontaneously appeared from nothing. Then the chicken and the egg had sex which led to baby chicken eggs.

You win the thread.

*gives cookie (http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg)*

Isn't that pedophilia? Or chick-o-philia?

Eggophilia?

You win the thread.

*gives cookie (http://wiki.coolmon.org/files/cookie.jpg)*

Cruel to have a cookie without a drop of milk.

Cruel to have a cookie without a drop of milk.

Sorry! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Milk_l_de.jpg/200px-Milk_l_de.jpg)

Sorry! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Milk_l_de.jpg/200px-Milk_l_de.jpg)

Excellent. I appreciate my victory of this thread with full force and a light heart.

Excellent. I appreciate my victory of this thread with full force and a light heart.

Ah, but did you enjoy your snack? :D

No, because then the first chicken would not have come from a chicken egg, which is logically absurd. The first chicken was born from a chicken egg, and therefore the egg came first. Any other explanation is wrong.

If evolution holds true, then the egg would have cam from some other creature, but not a chicken, and that egg would spawn the chicken, but that egg would NOT be considered a chicken egg, as it never came from a chicken.

And the statement "any other explanation is wrong" is absurd, you can't just say that your right and completly disregard my thoughts!

it had to have been the egg, for the simple fact that the egg comes first in the growth cycle. if there was a mutation that separated the chicken from protochicken, it had to be in the dna present in atleast one of the gametes that was different from that of the parents, and the genes of the gametes form the dna of the initial egg cell,which has to be present to grow into the chicken.

If evolution holds true, then the egg would have cam from some other creature, but not a chicken, and that egg would spawn the chicken, but that egg would NOT be considered a chicken egg, as it never came from a chicken.

And the statement "any other explanation is wrong" is absurd, you can't just say that your right and completly disregard my thoughts!

It's "the chicken or the egg". Where do you see the word "chicken"? :confused:

Explain.

hmm... all this talk about chickens and eggs makes me want breakfast.

Well, I believe to have solved the chicken or the egg dilemma.

It was the chicken.

Why? Most people seem to try to argue either side of the great debate, by asking 'But if the chicken existed first, where did it come from?', or 'But if the Egg existed first, where did it come from?'. I thought about this, and considered it from a different point of view... 'Which can survive without the other?'

a) The chicken can walk, eat, drink, and live without the existance of an egg present. It does not need the egg, unless you ask such questions as to where the chicken came from; which can be easily counteracted by asking where did the egg come from.

b) The egg cannot exist without the chicken being present. Without the chicken, the egg would grow cold and its pre-hatchling would die inside, therefore the egg would not hatch, and we would not have chickens to begin with!

So solved? Give me your thoughts/opinions...


Idiot. You fail at Zen. This is not intended as a test. It is an insoluble problem that is supposed to help illuminate the nature of existence by your consideration of its insoluble nature. Meditate further.

If evolution holds true, then the egg would have cam from some other creature, but not a chicken, and that egg would spawn the chicken, but that egg would NOT be considered a chicken egg, as it never came from a chicken.

And the statement "any other explanation is wrong" is absurd, you can't just say that your right and completly disregard my thoughts!

But it contained a chicken ... therefore it is the egg OF a chicken if not necessarily FROM a chicken

If evolution holds true, then the egg would have cam from some other creature, but not a chicken, and that egg would spawn the chicken, but that egg would NOT be considered a chicken egg, as it never came from a chicken.

And the statement "any other explanation is wrong" is absurd, you can't just say that your right and completly disregard my thoughts!

but the egg contained the genetic material of a chicken.

Yea verily, for it was written that in those days that fourscore oxen
were set upon in those fields by ravening chicken-beasts most foul of
countenance, possessed of tough, blanched skins round as that of gourds.
"Twas the Lard what done it", cried the ox-master, " 'e's off 'is head again!" And
he too was beset by the Devillish flock forthwith...

http://www.auctionsbymark.com/pics/sculptures/bosch/eggmonster.jpg

Egg. The first creature that we could classify as a chicken would have been in an egg laid by a non-chicken.

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed together.The chicken is smoking a cigarette and the egg is saying "Well I guess we solved that one.":D

It all depends on how you define your terms. To answer the question you must first define what the egg is and what the chicken is.

Does the question mean an egg is - A female gamete; an ovum. Also called an egg cell. The round or oval female reproductive body of various animals, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and insects, consisting usually of an embryo surrounded by nutrient material and a protective covering. The oval, thin-shelled reproductive body of a bird, especially that of a hen, used as food.If definition three is used then is the egg defined by where it comes from or what it will become?

The evolutionary predecessor to the chicken laid an egg of what would become the chicken. Thus, the egg precedes the chicken, because the first chicken egg was not laid by a chicken as we know it.

Then it wasn't a chicken egg. The egg is named after what laid it, not what comes out of it.

So the first chicken didn't come out of a chicken egg. *nod*

There is no first chicken, and no first chicken egg. It's absurd to think that from one generation to the next you'd go from not-chicken to chicken. It's a gray fuzzy area with no clear line of distinction.

There is no first chicken, and no first chicken egg. It's absurd to think that from one generation to the next you'd go from not-chicken to chicken. It's a gray fuzzy area with no clear line of distinction.

Of course; I just tried to answer the question within it's current parameters.

Then it wasn't a chicken egg. The egg is named after what laid it, not what comes out of it.

So the first chicken didn't come out of a chicken egg. *nod*

Where is that defined? I've never actually read anything that states that for sure.

Then it wasn't a chicken egg. The egg is named after what laid it, not what comes out of it.

So the first chicken didn't come out of a chicken egg. *nod*

Never said it had to be a chicken egg. *nod*

Where is that defined? I've never actually read anything that states that for sure.
Everything LG says is true.

It all depends on how you define your terms. To answer the question you must first define what the egg is and what the chicken is.

Does the question mean an egg is - A female gamete; an ovum. Also called an egg cell. The round or oval female reproductive body of various animals, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and insects, consisting usually of an embryo surrounded by nutrient material and a protective covering. The oval, thin-shelled reproductive body of a bird, especially that of a hen, used as food.If definition three is used then is the egg defined by where it comes from or what it will become?

All those things are, technically, the same. An egg cell, seen in mammals mainly, possibnly exclusively, is a reduced form the amniotic egg (here, both 2 and 3 describe amniotic eggs), also a gamtete, that you see in reptiles and birds, and the amniotic egg is itself a modification of the amphibian egg which is tractable right back to osteichthyes fish. So using all "definitions" of egg you still have the same naming problem. I would imagine, though, that an egg is named based on the genetic material contained within, and the resulting organism it will produce.

I would imagine, though, that an egg is named based on the genetic material contained within, and the resulting organism it will produce.I'm more partial to naming it according to the animal it comes from.
Perhaps a poll is in order.

All those things are, technically, the same. An egg cell, seen in mammals mainly, possibnly exclusively, is a reduced form the amniotic egg (here, both 2 and 3 describe amniotic eggs), also a gamtete, that you see in reptiles and birds, and the amniotic egg is itself a modification of the amphibian egg which is tractable right back to osteichthyes fish. So using all "definitions" of egg you still have the same naming problem. I would imagine, though, that an egg is named based on the genetic material contained within, and the resulting organism it will produce.Not really, they are increasinly specialised definitions. A chicken egg is an ovum, but an ovum is not necessarily a chicken egg. However, you're right in that the whether an egg is defined by where is comes, from or what it will become is independent of the three definitions. I just changed by the subject of the post halfway through and thought it'd be lazy and leave what I'd already written. I was intending to write on about problems of how humans define themselves. Where they come from and who they could be. And which is more important in defining who you are?

But thank you for the brief bit of biology. I was not aware of the history of eggs in such detail. What with me being a chemist turned political analyst.

Neither. All chickens (and their eggs) are nothing more than optical illusions.

BBC figured out the correct answer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/5019682.stm

It really depends on your definition of "egg" in this instance, the order went something like this:

a non chicken lifeform lays an egg.

Within the egg a mutation occurs in the embryo making it an embryotic chicken. This egg then becomes the first egg to contain a chicken.

The egg hatched, and what comes from it is the first chicken.

This chicken then later lays an egg, this is the first egg to come from a chicken.

So the order is: egg to first contain the chicken, chicken, chicken egg.

If the question thus is: "which came first, the chicken or the egg containing a chicken" the answer is "egg"

if the question thus is: "which came first, the chicken or the egg laid by the chicken" the answer is "chicken"

The egg. It's the chicken or the egg, not the chicken or the chicken egg.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?


Metaphorically speaking, the chicken represents the male and the egg represents the female.

So it's simple, the chicken always comes first and the egg rarely comes at all.

of course it was the egg.

The evolutionary predecessor to the chicken laid an egg of what would become the chicken. Thus, the egg precedes the chicken, because the first chicken egg was not laid by a chicken as we know it.ah, but that egg was laid by the Chicken's Predecessor, that would make the egg not a chicken egg, but the Egg of the Chicken's Predecessor.

snip.

egg-sperts disagree according to aunty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5019682.stm

edit: doh! khadgar beat me to it :p

See cartoon #5 (http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/chicken_and_egg.asp) for the answer ;)

It just depends on how you define what kind of egg an egg is. Lets say the chickens immediate evolutionary predecessor was a picken. a picken laid an egg, and a chicken came out of it. is an egg defined by what laid it or what came out of it? If its the first, it was a picken egg so the chicken came first. If the second, its a chicken egg so the chicken came first.

I say the egg came first because the first chicken came out of an egg that existed before any chickens. But I dont really care.

Scientists say the egg (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5019682.stm) from interesting BBC list. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/index.html#a007948)

So many arguments... of course, I guess it's kinda the point.

I think the answer for this changes depending on your beliefs. For example, I (a Christian) would say the chicken came first, as God created all the animals in the beginning. I'm not sure what non-Christians say; I suppose in the end, you could just say that it doesn't matter, the past is gone, and they're both good eating. I want some Church's now... :(

Metaphorically speaking, the chicken represents the male and the egg represents the female.

So it's simple, the chicken always comes first and the egg rarely comes at all.

Score.

egg-sperts disagree according to aunty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5019682.stm

edit: doh! khadgar beat me to it :p

They are saying that the egg (or type of egg) is defined by the creature that comes out of it, and not the creature that lays it.

Thus, according to them, the definition of the Egg is dependant of the Chicken that emerges from the egg. However, in the question, it examines both the chicken and the egg as seperate entities.

thus until the chicken emerges from the egg, the container is classified by the creature that laid it or, if you will, the egg of the Proto-chicken.
Once the chicken emerges, (assuming you can tell right away the difference between a chicken Chick and a Proto-chicken chick) you can reclassify the egg into a chicken egg, but by then, the chicken already appeared.

and that is assuming that there was no outside effect to cause the mutation in the egg itself while it lay there.

They are saying that the egg (or type of egg) is defined by the creature that comes out of it, and not the creature that lays it.

Thus, according to them, the definition of the Egg is dependant of the Chicken that emerges from the egg. However, in the question, it examines both the chicken and the egg as seperate entities.

thus until the chicken emerges from the egg, the container is classified by the creature that laid it or, if you will, the egg of the Proto-chicken.
Once the chicken emerges, (assuming you can tell right away the difference between a chicken Chick and a Proto-chicken chick) you can reclassify the egg into a chicken egg, but by then, the chicken already appeared.

and that is assuming that there was no outside effect to cause the mutation in the egg itself while it lay there.


Schrodinger's Egg.

no, it was the egg, since chickens are neither the only or the first animal to lay eggs.

no, it was the egg, since chickens are neither the only or the first animal to lay eggs.

and the egg is classified by the creature laying it. thus an egg from a turtle is a turtle's egg...

if the first chicken was a mutation from another bird, then the egg is acutally from the genus family of the layer, not the creature hatched.

Schrodinger's Egg.

... you know... I like that... :D

Actually, It MUST be the chicken, because the egg would not be considered a chicken egg unless it spawns from a chicken, but a chicken is a chicken no matter where it spawns frome

According to what definition? In any case, the question is not the chicken or the chicken egg, it's the chicken or the egg.