Talk:Chicken or the egg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Chicken or the egg: edit · history · watch · refresh

how does an egg turn into chicken?
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Archive

Previous discussions have been archived. See the navigation link to the right to revisit previous discussions. ~Kruck 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

"According to the theory 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 chicken egg, i.e., the egg came first."

am i the only one who notices how retarded that is? ok so the modern domestic chicken came from an egg laid by an earlier form of chicken. it's a semantics blunder i guess. but that argument doesn't state anything. the egg did not come first, the egg came from another creature that wasn't genetically identical to the modern domesticated chicken. so if you're willing to go the extra step and admit that, although not genetically identical, the "Red Junglefowl" is still pretty much a chicken, then you're back where you started.68.255.172.238 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of the evolution argument is that evolving birds only change their traits when their DNA mutates from its parents' gametes inside the egg. A bird that is born a Red Junglefowl will never become a chicken in its lifetime. Although the boundary between species may be hard to determine, it doesn't matter where the boundary is as long as you assume there is a boundary. The first chicken was born as a result of a genetic mutation, so the chicken egg came first. Personally, I don't think the analysis of the problem is important for this article anyway. "The chicken or the egg" is a colloquial expression of circular logic, not a scientific mystery. ~Kruck 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No matter how many mutations the offspring of a junglefowl had, it's a junglefowl, until selection killed or separated all the other genes.Europeans and Asians were always the same people until they were separated from regions. We didn't get chickens until we separated them from other junglefowls. --Kilva (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree and think this needs clarifying in the article. The article makes it sound like it is a mystery85.210.50.176 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the expression itself is a reflection of "a colloquial expression" of circular logic" and all that, it certainly ties into the scientific mystery of how the process of evolution actually works, i.e. the specific mechanism for how you get from not-chicken to chicken. Tchalvak (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid an edit by 196.8.104.37. Aside from being rife with grammatical errors, the whole addition was basically an anti-evolution tirade that would have better been left in the entry for Evolution itself. DarthWoo (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Junglefowl or the Egg

On the Evolution view of the Chicken of the Egg someone wrote: "However, 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. [11] The question now would be: Which came first, the Red Junglefowl or the egg?". The part that bothers me in that quote is the "The question now would be: Which came first, the Red Junglefowl or the egg" part. According to Miller's experiments on the origin of life the first life would have arisen from organic compounds so the question would not be whether the "Red Junglefowl or the egg" existed first but the question would go much deeper than that such as "Which event occured that made simple life forms evolve into what are now domestic chickens" or something along the lines of that. I'm not an expert at the subject but I'm basically saying that the "Red Junglefowl or the egg" question is irrelevant. So I'm editing it out.Master 1337 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never commented on a wili article before, but I felt I compelled after reading the appalling 'evolution' section in this piece. The author seems to be ranting about evolution in general, and clearly shows a lack of understanding of the general concepts of both evolution and grammar. There is an interesting evolutionary solution to this paradox, which seems to have been hijacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.237.243 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps

Perhaps it's only a dream, but could we find a more obnoxious 'diagram'?

PS: I realize this adds nothing, but subracts -- this entire arcticle is seemingly a big joke. It serves to exponentiate confusion.

You're right. I added that picture just because I thought the page looked empty, but an image of this type is not necessary on Wikipedia. The perfect chicken and egg image for the top of the page would just be clip art and wouldn't add significance to the article anyway. For now, I will remove the image. ~Kruck 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New syntax solution

In the question "Which came first 'the' chicken or 'the' egg" the answer must be the egg. The chicken would lay many eggs, none of which could be referred to as 'The' egg, however the egg it was born from is unique, and therefore is 'The' egg. mavhc 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything this is a syntax argument. However, I disagree. The scope of the question concerns one chicken and one egg. The other chickens and eggs in the world have no significance. It is perfectly correct and sensible to refer to "the chicken" and "the egg." Our opinions are of little significance, however. It is important for this article to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of adding no original research. Credible sources and critiques of positions on the dilemma are to be the sources of Wikipedia's facts. ~Kruck 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, our opinions certainly can matter, but only outside of the context of wikipedia itself, if we do the legwork of becoming source material on the topic.  :p Tchalvak (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Langan

Christopher Langan's publication(s) are a source, not a discussion topic under the Responses to the dilemma section. Does anyone disagree? I recommend removing the paragraph about him but citing him as a source. ~Kruck 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This passage was erroneously moved from the History section. Langan's was the first complete and correct published solution making the passage noteworthy in the history of the problem. I've moved the passage back to that section.


[edit] The Phoenix and the Flame

J.. Rowling: Which came first, the Phoenix or the Flame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) The circle of Phoenix and Flame has no beginning and no end, but goes on forever. Erudil 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the egg of course

in order to be a chicken, the animal must have chicken dna and not be an egg. in order to be a chicken egg, the egg must have chicken dna. dna does not change between chicken eggs and the chickens they hatch into - well not in the right way to make a non-chicken egg hatch a chicken. chicken eggs are earlier in the life-cycle.

the egg came first. 125.236.169.229 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because eggs come before chickens, the obvious choice is the egg, because it is the same animal, just earlier...but I'm not sure the following sentence is needed or is correct:
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).
Since species do not just radically change and become a new species in a single generation I don't think there would be a point when a parent was not a chicken, but the offspring was. If this offspring was the first chicken then what did it reproduce with? It must have reproduced with a non-chicken, meaning they were the same species. This article is not really about evolution anyway so it should just say what the above person said (egg). Constan69 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the previous statement was inaccurate, but it was certainly less clear than it could have been. What do you think of this?
As species change over time, in the process of evolution, the modern chicken descended from another closely related species of birds, likely the Red Junglefowl.[1] Since DNA can only be modified before birth, a mutation must have taken place within an egg such that a non-chicken mother laid the first chicken egg. This is scientific evidence that the egg came before the chicken.[2]
~Kruck (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Who says Wikipedia doesn't work. I checked the sentence's reference to the CNN article-- and found it did not mention the red junglefowl. So a looked up the red junglefowl article-- it has a lot of spelling and other errors, but links to a January 2008 reference about the chicken being a hybrid descendant of the red & grey junglefowls. A hybrid is a pretty conclusive scenario for the egg coming first. —Yamara ✉ 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, nice find. Thanks for the edits. ~Kruck (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It depends on your belief(s)

If you are a believer of evolution, you will believe the egg came before the chicken because a non-chicken creature laid a mutant (chicken) egg that will hatch into a chick/chicken. If you believe in god, you will most likely believe that the chicken and rooster where both created first and then the egg was laid. Though you may be someone who believes that god created evolution as the technique/method to create animals on this planet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not neccesarily. Even given the framework of a mutation within the egg, the fact remains that an egg-laying creature laid the egg. Which means that species of egg-laying creature probably derived from a mutation from yet another egg-laying creature, and so on. An egg containing an embryo of some long-distant species, in my view, didn't simply materialize; it is itself an evolutionary development. From that perspective, evolution could support a chicken/creature first argument with creationism supporting some sort of belief that a deity created the first egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.218.24 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"even given the framework of a mutation within the egg, the fact remains that an egg-laying creature laid the egg." But not a chicken! It would be another creature (name unknown) that laid a mutant (called a chicken/chick) - for evolution. (not saying that I am an evolutionist: as I believe in both god & evolution) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PatShaw Web page

On Sunday, January 01, 2006, 10:40:56 PM I created the following HTML document, chicken.htm (last updated on Wednesday, October 28, 1998, 7:39:50 PM), on my GTE user site named PatShaw using Microsoft Publisher 97. In the course of changing physical locations and GTE phone numbers and accounts over time the particular account no longer exists but records of its existence may be found through Verizon which I was told had created permanent records.

I was introduced to the question of the Chicken and the egg by a security guard in about 1981 at the airport post office parking area when I went to mail a letter. I have no idea how the question came up or why he posed the question but the effect on me was the challenge to find the answer. My effort resulted in the initial posting of my answer in January, 1996.

Please enjoy:

THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG

Which Came First?



While the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" frames the construct
of a dilemma it also frames the beliefs of anyone quick enough to respond.

To defend their respective beliefs evolutionists, creationists and protagonists have conjured up
answers which leave no neutral ground on which a neophyte might stand.

Unfortunately none believe that a chicken comes from the egg which it lays.

Because eggs in general are produced by a variety of fowl and other varmint
(including the evolutionist's "pre-chicken"), the evolutionist argues that the egg
is not dependent upon a chicken and conversely that a chicken gets here
by no other means - with a single exception, of course.
(see <a href="/patshaw/exception.htm" target="content">Exception Theory</a>)

The evolutionist believes that the original chicken came from a "pre-chicken" by means of
a mutated egg. Had the egg not been mutated it would have produced a "pre-chicken."
The mutation of the egg was independent of the "pre-chicken" and left the "pre-chicken" herself unchanged.

Other interesting points to ponder:

1) If we name the egg after the entity it produces then the name of the entity
comes before the name of the egg.
2) Before any egg is hatched we call it by the name of the entity that laid it.
2.1) If the egg is hatched by a different entity than the one that laid it
then we call that entity a surrogate. (Rhymes with Watergate.)
3) Although it is proper to wait until an egg is laid before calling it by the name of its occupant
we may call it by that name if we can determine who the occupant is before the egg is hatched.

For an evolutionist the egg comes before the chicken but for a creationist
(who believes that God created man before He created Women),
the egg has no chance of getting here first.

While the evolutionist's and the creationist's points of view are highly reflective
none can rival the view of the protagonist. For the protagonist only one answer can prevail:
Neither the chicken or the egg came first but rather it was the rooster.

The real dilemma? How to avoid answering this question altogether so as not to be labeled as either one.

Copyright 1996 © Patrick Eberhart


{\aleph_0}^{\aleph_0} (talk) (email) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is itself flawed. What if you have a Creationist that believes that the method/technique used (by the supreme being) for the creation of some of the animals (not all animals) was evolution? (as I do!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

--- This all makes my head spin. All I can remember is what my dad told me: "The Rooster came first." 66.74.15.239 (talk)Lurker —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] existed but not separated

A new species always didn't appear suddenly. When their quantity remains, the new species already existed. Until the natural or artificial selection, the new species didn't separated from the original species. Domestic chicken existed already, but separated when the natural selection. When people cultivated the chickens, they were separated. Thus, chicken comes before the egg. --Kilva (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mutation from birth, but selection from death.--Kilva (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)