Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
GoodFriend
Lumberjack
easy, the chicken evolved from some other bird, and eventually, one of them eggs just happened to be a chicken, and they took over the world
yeah?
what are your own thoughts fdd?
yeah?
what are your own thoughts fdd?
space_weaseal
Well-Known Member
I dont know but it does make you think....
I found this
[edit] Evolution
As species change over time, in the process of evolution, the first modern chicken was the offspring of the last direct ancestor of domestic chickens to not share that classification (likely the Red Junglefowl). Therefore, a non-chicken did, in fact, lay the first egg. [12]
However, the problem may not even be relevant from this perspective, as evolution is a slow and gradual process. The birds and their eggs evolved from an ancestor species into the species we have today over millennia, a time frame that vastly obscures the reproductive cycle between chicken and egg. At no point was a "chicken egg" created from a distinct "non-chicken" species.
This lack of distinction characterizes the blurry boundaries scientists erect between species and sub-species, whose differences are only apparent when referencing mutually isolated points along the time line (or between concurrently diverging species of a common ancestor) that show significantly dissimilar genetic information. Tiny genetic perturbations are being made each generation, and it should be clarified that these differences are between the generations themselves; the egg and the chicken it becomes are identical. Therefore, one may say for semantical purposes that the egg possesses the new genetic information before the chicken, simply because the egg precedes the chicken. But again, what makes this egg the first "chicken-to-be", and not its parents?
What was referred to as a chicken two thousand years ago is not exactly what a chicken is today, and the human classification of a species must evolve with the species until it becomes necessary to begin a new classification. If a specific generation possesses the genetic signature of what humans would technically classify as a chicken for the first time, then the egg has come first. However, this would be a vain effort, as the requirements would be arbitrary, and would be no different than declaring the next generation of domestic chicken the beginnings of a new species.
The nature of species classification is inherently macroscopic in time and is not compatible with the distinction between an organism and its offspring. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is ill defined, with no logical answer.
One could leapfrog from chicken all the way back to the beginnings of life in search of an origin, but eventually what constitutes an egg becomes unclear, as life originally reproduced through metabolic division. Whatever the case, the classical question becomes complicated, and serves to show that such a narrow, black-and-white attitude is not useful in philosophical analysis of life.
If thats not confussing as hell, "this is".
[edit] Definitions
In this case, the egg is assumed to be a chicken's egg. This is an obvious assumption since the question itself implies a link between the two.
If one assumes the egg to be a chicken egg then one must define what a chicken egg is:
I found this
[edit] Evolution
As species change over time, in the process of evolution, the first modern chicken was the offspring of the last direct ancestor of domestic chickens to not share that classification (likely the Red Junglefowl). Therefore, a non-chicken did, in fact, lay the first egg. [12]
However, the problem may not even be relevant from this perspective, as evolution is a slow and gradual process. The birds and their eggs evolved from an ancestor species into the species we have today over millennia, a time frame that vastly obscures the reproductive cycle between chicken and egg. At no point was a "chicken egg" created from a distinct "non-chicken" species.
This lack of distinction characterizes the blurry boundaries scientists erect between species and sub-species, whose differences are only apparent when referencing mutually isolated points along the time line (or between concurrently diverging species of a common ancestor) that show significantly dissimilar genetic information. Tiny genetic perturbations are being made each generation, and it should be clarified that these differences are between the generations themselves; the egg and the chicken it becomes are identical. Therefore, one may say for semantical purposes that the egg possesses the new genetic information before the chicken, simply because the egg precedes the chicken. But again, what makes this egg the first "chicken-to-be", and not its parents?
What was referred to as a chicken two thousand years ago is not exactly what a chicken is today, and the human classification of a species must evolve with the species until it becomes necessary to begin a new classification. If a specific generation possesses the genetic signature of what humans would technically classify as a chicken for the first time, then the egg has come first. However, this would be a vain effort, as the requirements would be arbitrary, and would be no different than declaring the next generation of domestic chicken the beginnings of a new species.
The nature of species classification is inherently macroscopic in time and is not compatible with the distinction between an organism and its offspring. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is ill defined, with no logical answer.
One could leapfrog from chicken all the way back to the beginnings of life in search of an origin, but eventually what constitutes an egg becomes unclear, as life originally reproduced through metabolic division. Whatever the case, the classical question becomes complicated, and serves to show that such a narrow, black-and-white attitude is not useful in philosophical analysis of life.
If thats not confussing as hell, "this is".
[edit] Definitions
In this case, the egg is assumed to be a chicken's egg. This is an obvious assumption since the question itself implies a link between the two.
If one assumes the egg to be a chicken egg then one must define what a chicken egg is:
- If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken
- If: A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken lays
- If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken and was laid by a chicken
- If: The question didn't specify that the egg had to be a chicken egg
- If: The chicken came first because it had to hatch the egg
dumbassdrummer
Active Member
The question, while witty, is too vague. "Chicken" brings up some difficulties, most notably, what would distinguish the earliest chickens from their evolutionary predecessor? Evolution is generally a slow process - very slow, occurring over tens of thousands of years at the swiftest pace. In any case, I'd argue egg - if the chicken is (genetically) indistinguishable at it's earliest stages from the evolutionary predecessor, you probably would not announce that the chicken species has really emerged.
preoQpydDlusion
Well-Known Member
the egg is a chicken
there was no beginning and there is no in-between
everythings the same
there was no beginning and there is no in-between
everythings the same
dumbassdrummer
Active Member
I think a clarified version of the question would go something like:
Which came first:
a) adult chicken
b) chicken egg
A clarification that only seems to reinforce that the egg came first, unless an adult chicken could somehow develop from something other than a chicken egg.
Which came first:
a) adult chicken
b) chicken egg
A clarification that only seems to reinforce that the egg came first, unless an adult chicken could somehow develop from something other than a chicken egg.
dumbassdrummer
Active Member
Thank you, and dont worry about it, I get a few of those every time I join a forum with this name.
dumbassdrummer
Active Member
Rather, the chicken and the egg are concepts we apply to particular arrangements of energy and matter for two reasons: 1) convenience 2) to denote particular relationships between the two arrangements of matter and energy.
notsoslimjim
Active Member
I would have to go with the egg.... i agree with the idea that some relative of the bird laid an egg that had genetic mutations that caused it to become what we now know to be the Chicken....
peace
peace
ramblerpimp209
Well-Known Member
When did the nuggets get here?
midgradeindasouth
Well-Known Member
If there is a god then the chicken came first.
The egg needs the chicken to nurse it and sit on it for warmth.
Let there be chickens.
Cluck cluck scracth
Ca kaw
The egg needs the chicken to nurse it and sit on it for warmth.
Let there be chickens.
Cluck cluck scracth
Ca kaw
space_weaseal
Well-Known Member
Matter and energy wont make you a chicken sandwitch, "Unless its a matter of killing a chicken and putting energy into making a sandwitch"
Sorry had to do it ..Its been a long day..
dumbassdrummer
Active Member
"and now the conclusion: the chicken and the egg are the same thing!"
No, not really. They are two different "things" (chicken and egg), similar in that they are composed of the same "thing" (energy/matter) but due to the varying composition we can accurately call them two different things.
Unless you're working off a monistic view of the universe, in which case I should say they are two different representations of the same thing, but, really, at this point, we are just struggling with the semantics of metaphysics, a struggle that has lead some philosophers to deny that metaphysical inquiries have any value past the practice of logical thought.
"If there is a god then the chicken came first.
The egg needs the chicken to nurse it and sit on it for warmth."
Not necessarily. First, the egg only requires protection and warmth, something that could be provided by a chicken-like, but not necessarily chicken, creature. Further, if there is a God, the evolutionary process is not automatically disregarded as God and evolution do not necessarily conflict (only some understandings of God conflict with evolution, silly understandings that defy logic).
No, not really. They are two different "things" (chicken and egg), similar in that they are composed of the same "thing" (energy/matter) but due to the varying composition we can accurately call them two different things.
Unless you're working off a monistic view of the universe, in which case I should say they are two different representations of the same thing, but, really, at this point, we are just struggling with the semantics of metaphysics, a struggle that has lead some philosophers to deny that metaphysical inquiries have any value past the practice of logical thought.
"If there is a god then the chicken came first.
The egg needs the chicken to nurse it and sit on it for warmth."
Not necessarily. First, the egg only requires protection and warmth, something that could be provided by a chicken-like, but not necessarily chicken, creature. Further, if there is a God, the evolutionary process is not automatically disregarded as God and evolution do not necessarily conflict (only some understandings of God conflict with evolution, silly understandings that defy logic).
thats exagtly it 2 manifestations of the same thing, and considering that most "real" science evolved from metaphisics...However, didnt Einstine already prouved that energy and matter are one and the same? I mean you can easily transform one into another, much like the chicken and the egg...