Which Came First the Chicken or the Egg?

Corey · Feb 13, 2008

I say neither came first. First there was platypus...and it was weird.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Feb 13, 2008

Split Rock said:
Which came first?

"10" or the desire to understand "10"??

Discuss.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

Loudmouth · Feb 13, 2008

CACTUSJACKmankin said:
Who was the first kid to start speaking english to his german parents?

For me, that's the best way to view it. We can't take a modern snap shot of species which have diverged and expect there to be a single step that spans that divergence. While the Romance Languages may in fact share a common ancestor it is not as if one person starting speaking modern French while everyone else was speaking Vulgar Latin or Albanian.

Allister · Feb 13, 2008

Loudmouth said:
For me, that's the best way to view it. We can't take a modern snap shot of species which have diverged and expect there to be a single step that spans that divergence. While the Romance Languages may in fact share a common ancestor it is not as if one person starting speaking modern French while everyone else was speaking Vulgar Latin or Albanian.

True, but there must be a moment in time where they split apart and became distinct from each other. Does not the same apply to the chicken and the pre-chicken or the modern human and the pre human?

Split Rock · Feb 13, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

Yes, but why insist on "10" which is divisible by 5, rather than 14 which is divisible by 7?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Feb 13, 2008

Split Rock said:
Yes, but why insist on "10" which is divisible by 5, rather than 14 which is divisible by 7?

If you look at your hands it should be obvious. My question is what do you do when you need to count to 21?

Deadbolt · Feb 13, 2008

Isn't it silly to use a domesticated animal in an argument for or against creationism?

Atheuz · Feb 13, 2008

sfs said:
The question didn't say "chicken egg". It said "egg".

Now you're just diving into semantics really.

Corey · Feb 13, 2008

Split Rock said:
Yes, but why insist on "10" which is divisible by 5, rather than 14 which is divisible by 7?

Obviously you're not in the group that understand binary.

Split Rock · Feb 13, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
If you look at your hands it should be obvious. My question is what do you do when you need to count to 21?

LOL! I use my fingers, toes, and my nose!

Corey said:
Obviously you're not in the group that understand binary.

I thought this thread was about evolution, not binary language.

Can you explain "10" or not? If you cannot, then you must admit that evolution is THE BIG LIE and we don't come from monkeys. :wave:

EnemyPartyII · Feb 13, 2008

FishFace said:
Is a true chicken egg an egg laid by a true chicken or an egg containing a true chicken?

By looking at it like this, it's just another case of the Sorites paradox. Yay.

its not a paradox at all... the first true chicken egg was laid by a very late chicken-like proto-chicken

talkingmonkey · Feb 13, 2008

This forum is making me use old sayings..

SO, what the sang darg it is this "10" blah, anyway? I must have missed the 40 page thread about it.

How bout, what came first: Orange the fruit, or the colour?

And also the joke: "A chicken and an egg were lying in bed, when the chicken turned to the egg and said "Well..I guess that solves that question"

If I was any funnier, I would take Rove's position on Rove Live!!

Chalnoth · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
its not a paradox at all... the first true chicken egg was laid by a very late chicken-like proto-chicken

As I've said, though, the problem is that if you can find a way to define things that explicitly (which would be entirely arbitrary and meaningless), then many of the descendants of this "first chicken" would themselves be classified as proto-chickens. So it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Hnefi · Feb 14, 2008

Chalnoth said:
As I've said, though, the problem is that if you can find a way to define things that explicitly (which would be entirely arbitrary and meaningless), then many of the descendants of this "first chicken" would themselves be classified as proto-chickens. So it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Why would that be a problem? Sure, it could happen, but if protochicken can have early chicken offspring, we would expect early chickens to be able to have protochicken offspring as well. Evolution is not a ladder to climb, remember? Temporary state reversals are inherent in all stochastic processes.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

Chalnoth said:
As I've said, though, the problem is that if you can find a way to define things that explicitly (which would be entirely arbitrary and meaningless), then many of the descendants of this "first chicken" would themselves be classified as proto-chickens. So it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

what you say is quite true... but that isn't the topic... the question, which came first, chicken or egg, is clearly answered... first chicken, came from the first egg, which was laid by a proto chicken... there is nothing to say that that first chicken was not later fertilised by a proto-chicken and laid a mix of true chicken and proto chicken eggs... indeed, this is almost certainly what happened...

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

Hnefi said:
Why would that be a problem? Sure, it could happen, but if protochicken can have early chicken offspring, we would expect early chickens to be able to have protochicken offspring as well. Evolution is not a ladder to climb, remember? Temporary state reversals are inherent in all stochastic processes.

what he said

[serious] · Feb 14, 2008

I think it would be more accurate to assign the egg to that which laid it instead of what hatches it. It is the laying party that forms the egg not the embryo that is encased by it. Thus, the first chicken hatched from a protochicken egg and depending on the sex of that chicken it may or may not have laid the first chicken egg. The first chicken could have been generations before the first chicken egg!

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

dantose said:
I think it would be more accurate to assign the egg to that which laid it instead of what hatches it. It is the laying party that forms the egg not the embryo that is encased by it. Thus, the first chicken hatched from a protochicken egg and depending on the sex of that chicken it may or may not have laid the first chicken egg. The first chicken could have been generations before the first chicken egg!

no, because the proto chicken carries the mutation in its germ line that leads to it laying the first chicken egg

Bushido216 · Feb 14, 2008

talkingmonkey said:
And also the joke: "A chicken and an egg were lying in bed, when the chicken turned to the egg and said "Well..I guess that solves that question"

Reps, haha.

Bushido216 · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
no, because the proto chicken carries the mutation in its germ line that leads to it laying the first chicken egg

I have this sneaking suspicion that the gloves are coming off.

Which Came First the Chicken or the Egg?

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

Mocker and Scoffer

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads