Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

The egg is just an unborn chicken (same dna), it's like asking "Which came first, the embryo or the fully grown human?"

The chicken egg of course came first. I don't understand why this is considered a causality dilemma.

It's trivially the egg and only depends on where you draw the line between modern chicken or not modern chicken.

The egg, because eggs existed before there were chickens...

Something that was almost a chicken laid the first chicken egg.

Something that was almost a chicken laid the first chicken egg.

Interesting... I would consider a "chicken egg" to be an egg produced by a chicken (at least in my native language - is understanding in English any different?). I would not consider a "chicken egg" to be and egg that contains a chicken embryo. That is how I understand my language.

 

BTW, what would be an unfertilized egg laid down by a chicken - is it still called a "chicken egg" in English language?

If you take the definition of being a chicken (rather than some other earlier bird) as being having some critical combination of DNA then the chicken came first.

That DNA was present as soon as the gametes met, but the egg (in the sense of the shell, yolk and white) formed round that embryo.

 

Of course,if you take the "fertilised egg cell" as being the first chicken then the chicken and egg came into being at the same time.

 

It's trivially the egg and only depends on where you draw the line between modern chicken or not modern chicken.

It's not "trivially" anything, because it depends on what you call an egg as well as what you call a chicken.

It's not "trivially" anything, because it depends on what you call an egg as well as what you call a chicken.

 

The contents of the egg holds the potential for the new species, which at the point of being laid is not a chicken yet but will be.

My answer is based on the moment in speciation (a moment which doesn't really exist) where one species becomes another. An almost-chicken had to lay the first actual chicken egg.

My answer is based on the moment in speciation (a moment which doesn't really exist) where one species becomes another. An almost-chicken had to lay the first actual chicken egg.

Yes, in reality. It's not a black-and-white transition.

Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches into a chicken, or an egg that is laid by a chicken?

 

The definition you use gives you the answer.

The contents of the egg holds the potential for the new species, which at the point of being laid is not a chicken yet but will be.

As I said, it's not trivial.

If it was, it wouldn't be a prototype paradox.

I do not think trivial is the right word, but eggs existed before mammals or reptiles, the amniotic egg was first, before there were chickens or dinosaurs, or reptiles...

I do not think trivial is the right word, but eggs existed before mammals or reptiles, the amniotic egg was first, before there were chickens or dinosaurs, or reptiles...

 

I think trivial is the right word for the case you're making.

 

I was thinking the paradox refers to chickens and chicken eggs.

It's late. I'm tired. Forgive me.

 

If you crossed a chicken with a road, would you get a Rhode Island Red?

If you crossed a chicken with a road, would you get a Rhode Island Red?

 

Absolutely. And it would taste just like snake and frog's legs.

The contents of the egg holds the potential for the new species, which at the point of being laid is not a chicken yet but will be.

 

Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches into a chicken, or an egg that is laid by a chicken?

 

The definition you use gives you the answer.

 

If a chicken lays an egg in the forest and no one is there to hear it . . . . . . .

Edited December 5, 20169 yr by arc

If an almost-chicken laid an almost-chicken egg, and the mutation happened within the egg after it was laid, but before it hatched. Then it was an almost-chicken egg that turned into a chicken egg >> the chicken egg came first.

 

On the other hand if what was hatched was an almost-chicken that then mutated into a chicken >> the chicken came first.

If an almost-chicken laid an almost-chicken egg, and the mutation happened within the egg after it was laid, but before it hatched. Then it was an almost-chicken egg that turned into a chicken egg >> the chicken egg came first.

 

On the other hand if what was hatched was an almost-chicken that then mutated into a chicken >> the chicken came first.

AS Moon said: eggs even came before birds

AS Moon said: eggs even came before birds

 

Eggs didn't precede amoeba, bacteria, viruses, self replicating molecules.

 

Eggs didn't precede amoeba, bacteria, viruses, self replicating molecules.

I never implied that.

I never implied that.

I know, i just didn't get Moon's point.

 

What does eggs coming before birds have to do with chickens and chicken eggs?

 

IMO, the adjective describes what comes out, not who it belongs to.

 

A chicken egg hatches into a chicken.

A chicken's egg comes from a chicken.

 

If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness.

If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness.

Edited December 5, 20169 yr by AbstractDreamer

I know, i just didn't get Moon's point.

 

What does eggs coming before birds have to do with chickens and chicken eggs?

That eggs are the melting pots of new species. He was being more general.

Edited December 5, 20169 yr by StringJunky

If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness

If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness.

conversely

If a chicken egg, laid by a chicken, hatches into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness.

If a goat egg, laid by goat, hatches into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness.

Which one makes the most sense?

If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness

If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness.

conversely

If a chicken egg, laid by a chicken, hatches into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness.

If a goat egg, laid by goat, hatches into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness.

Which one makes the most sense?

Roosters don't lay eggs.

Roosters don't lay eggs.

 

Technically though, they came first.