4 ms·

Unless of course you are someone who argues, that a fertilized ovum is already a new life. In that case you need to start to argue about what makes an egg an e

by lavela 5y ago

Unless of course you are someone who argues, that a fertilized ovum is already a new life. In that case you need to start to argue about what makes an egg an egg, as the fertilization happens while the rest of the egg is forming(or so I just read). So depending on your egg definition, there might be a brief period where there is a chicken which will become an egg and then becomes a chicken again.

hooby 5y ago
Elementary, my dear Watson. While the question seems to strongly imply that "chicken" is meant to refer to the hatched animal (which is also the most commonly accepted interpretation) - it does not spell that out. Thus it's not perfectly clear which interpretations may be used. Now, if we do allow alternate interpretations of the premise, then the egg still came first. Because dinosaurs laid eggs - and that was a long time before the first chicken ovum ever got fertilized. But if we disallow alternate interpretations and clarify that within the context of this question "chicken" has to refer to the hatched animal - then your answer is simply no longer valid. Well, let's ignore all that. Let's define our premise such, that: A) fertilized ovums ARE chickens B) fertilized ovums are NOT eggs and answer the question based on those assumptions. The first problem with your argument is, that it's impossible to find a logical, internally consistent definition of "chicken", that does INCLUDE the fertilized ovum, while at the same time EXCLUDING the egg. There's no way, the ovum is a chicken - stops being a chicken while an egg - and becomes a chicken again. Every definition that does include the fertilized ovum will also include the egg. So, based on our assumptions A) and B), we can deduce: C) eggs ARE chickens But if eggs are chickens, then the question "the egg OR the chicken" no longer makes any sense - and no correct answer can exist. Therefore, your provided answer cannot possibly be correct either. Thus, within this set of assumptions A) and B) - the question becomes meaningless, and can't be answered either way. P.S.: you are aware, that the "ovum" is more commonly called "egg cell"? ;)

by lavela 5y ago

hooby 5y ago

Elementary, my dear Watson. While the question seems to strongly imply that "chicken" is meant to refer to the hatched animal (which is also the most commonly accepted interpretation) - it does not spell that out. Thus it's not perfectly clear which interpretations may be used. Now, if we do allow alternate interpretations of the premise, then the egg still came first. Because dinosaurs laid eggs - and that was a long time before the first chicken ovum ever got fertilized. But if we disallow alternate interpretations and clarify that within the context of this question "chicken" has to refer to the hatched animal - then your answer is simply no longer valid. Well, let's ignore all that. Let's define our premise such, that: A) fertilized ovums ARE chickens B) fertilized ovums are NOT eggs and answer the question based on those assumptions. The first problem with your argument is, that it's impossible to find a logical, internally consistent definition of "chicken", that does INCLUDE the fertilized ovum, while at the same time EXCLUDING the egg. There's no way, the ovum is a chicken - stops being a chicken while an egg - and becomes a chicken again. Every definition that does include the fertilized ovum will also include the egg. So, based on our assumptions A) and B), we can deduce: C) eggs ARE chickens But if eggs are chickens, then the question "the egg OR the chicken" no longer makes any sense - and no correct answer can exist. Therefore, your provided answer cannot possibly be correct either. Thus, within this set of assumptions A) and B) - the question becomes meaningless, and can't be answered either way. P.S.: you are aware, that the "ovum" is more commonly called "egg cell"? ;)