3 ms·

I have always felt that the Chicken/Egg question was obvious. We have to assume there is a line between "creature that is almost exactly like a chicken" and "a

I have always felt that the Chicken/Egg question was obvious. We have to assume there is a line between "creature that is almost exactly like a chicken" and "a chicken." A proto-chicken laid an egg. That egg after fertilization contained a mutation that pushed the proto-chicken INTO chicken territory. Thus, the (chicken) egg came first because a chicken cannot exist without mutating as a part of reproduction.

kk6mrp 5y ago
If you believe in creation/intelligent design then you might feel different about that.
- Seb-C 5y ago
  Except that chickens (as well as most cattle and pets) have been created by mankind over thousands of years of genetic selection.
- honkycat 5y ago
  Evolution is proven to exist outside of a benevolent creator, whereas there is zero basis for intelligent design. In fact, I posit that evolution isn't really incompatible with christianity. The exception is for an absurdist literal interpretation of a single simile translated multiple times, from a non-original copy of the bible of which the original was written down from oral tradition several hundred years after the stories first originated. Christians still enjoy their pork though. And shellfish. Strange how nobody seems to cherry-pick that passage anymore... almost like it is more about anti-intellectualism than it is about following a code of ethics.
thenoblesunfish 5y ago
100% agree. I was surprised that the population of people who would take such a quiz are actually 50/50 on this! I agree that the best basis for chickenhood is the genetic one you present, which implies that the egg came first. Further, I think that the second-best argument is that the first chicken was the first animal to be called "chicken" by someone. In that case, that first chicken came from an egg, which was laid by something which was never called a chicken, hence not a chicken. The egg still came first. Writing this now, it occurs that perhaps almost any satisfying definition of chicken implies that the egg came first. If you can define what a chicken is and you assume that chickens have not always existed, then it follows that there must have been a first chicken. If you assume that the first chicken hatched from an egg (if not, your definition of chicken is quite broad!), and that at the time it hatched, it was a chicken, then the egg came first. As above, there are reasonable ways for a non-chicken to lay an egg which hatches a chicken. I don't see any good ways around "egg came first" other than a definition of chicken that allows a non-chicken to become a chicken after it hatches. You could argue that the first chicken became one the first time someone called it that. Okay, but that seems pretty slippery, because if, today, a chicken is born in the woods and no human is aware of it, it's actually not a chicken, merely a bird that might one day become a chicken.

kk6mrp 5y ago

If you believe in creation/intelligent design then you might feel different about that.

Seb-C 5y ago
Except that chickens (as well as most cattle and pets) have been created by mankind over thousands of years of genetic selection.
honkycat 5y ago
Evolution is proven to exist outside of a benevolent creator, whereas there is zero basis for intelligent design. In fact, I posit that evolution isn't really incompatible with christianity. The exception is for an absurdist literal interpretation of a single simile translated multiple times, from a non-original copy of the bible of which the original was written down from oral tradition several hundred years after the stories first originated. Christians still enjoy their pork though. And shellfish. Strange how nobody seems to cherry-pick that passage anymore... almost like it is more about anti-intellectualism than it is about following a code of ethics.

thenoblesunfish 5y ago

100% agree. I was surprised that the population of people who would take such a quiz are actually 50/50 on this! I agree that the best basis for chickenhood is the genetic one you present, which implies that the egg came first. Further, I think that the second-best argument is that the first chicken was the first animal to be called "chicken" by someone. In that case, that first chicken came from an egg, which was laid by something which was never called a chicken, hence not a chicken. The egg still came first. Writing this now, it occurs that perhaps almost any satisfying definition of chicken implies that the egg came first. If you can define what a chicken is and you assume that chickens have not always existed, then it follows that there must have been a first chicken. If you assume that the first chicken hatched from an egg (if not, your definition of chicken is quite broad!), and that at the time it hatched, it was a chicken, then the egg came first. As above, there are reasonable ways for a non-chicken to lay an egg which hatches a chicken. I don't see any good ways around "egg came first" other than a definition of chicken that allows a non-chicken to become a chicken after it hatches. You could argue that the first chicken became one the first time someone called it that. Okay, but that seems pretty slippery, because if, today, a chicken is born in the woods and no human is aware of it, it's actually not a chicken, merely a bird that might one day become a chicken.