PDA

View Full Version : The hen or the egg?



FearOfTheDark
01-14-2003, 04:32 PM
What do you think:

Who was first, the hen or the egg?

fuh
01-14-2003, 04:50 PM
I think the dinosour came first! Hens evolved from dinosours, you know.
Catch ya later with more facts.

Travis Dane
01-14-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by fuh
I think the dinosour came first! Hens evolved from dinosours, you know.
Catch ya later with more facts.

Who came first, the egg or the dinosour?:p

-=SoKrA=-
01-14-2003, 05:01 PM
An egg, that egg came from a creature extremely close to what we know as hens but not so evolved. Therefore the egg has to be the answer becouse the creature that came before the egg wasn't a hen.
Am I repeating mysef? Anyway, hope this is clear even though it probably isn't.

BTW, what's an eggnogg?

bob20
01-14-2003, 05:16 PM
The egg came first. The chicken didn't just appear, it evolved from something else. The something else kept on reproducing, and eventually that something else's offspring was a chicken. The egg was created and then fertilized, thus making the chicken. The egg came first!

-=SoKrA=-
01-14-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by bob20
The egg came first. The chicken didn't just appear, it evolved from something else. The something else kept on reproducing, and eventually that something else's offspring was a chicken. The egg was created and then fertilized, thus making the chicken. The egg came first!
A lot better explained than me but yeah, same idea. Things don't just appear (that was cleared out a few hundred years ago actually) but descend from something else which might or might not be the same species.

abrege
01-14-2003, 05:36 PM
Probably the egg, but I'm suspecting that it was the eggnog all along.

ammar
01-14-2003, 05:52 PM
It's the Egg, I think?!

BMJ
01-14-2003, 06:25 PM
If you were religious, I would suspect you would say the Hen, because God created a mature world, not a mass of dirt with seeds and eggs on it...

but since I think that's bullplop, I'm rooting eggnog

MadHatter
01-14-2003, 07:31 PM
there's more votes for eggnog than everything else combined... you people are screwy :rolleyes: :p :D

oh well... eggnog seems the logical choice... sort of.

Aran
01-14-2003, 07:38 PM
God was first. duh!:eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :D

(no religious debate, please, i just felt this thread needed this :))

Aran
01-14-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Travis Dane
Who came first, the egg or the dinosour?:p

dinosaurs layed eggs, dummy! :)

kevinalm
01-14-2003, 11:02 PM
The trivial answer, the egg. (dinosaurs, fish, etc. that predate chickens.)

The more interesting answers illustrate an axiom of mine. All examples of a so-called paradox are due to a badly worded question.

If you say:
Which came first, the chicken or an egg laid by a chicken, the answer is chicken.

Which came first, the chicken or an egg that hatched into a chicken, the answer is egg.

The problem lies with the precise definition of the term chicken(or hen) and egg. Most instances of paradox, if not all, are really linguistic in nature.

Whenever I see a paradox question, I always ask myself what is wrong with the question. Probably not original, but I think it's usefull.

What is the plural of paradox, anyway? :)

zahid
01-14-2003, 11:07 PM
"Where did the contradiction of “which came into being first, a hen or a egg?” come from? When we subjectively only consider these two propositions of “the hen laid the egg” or “the hen was born from the egg” as two premises, the inference process from these two premises will completely be controlled by the only direction subjectively determined. That is to say, if we only think two propositions as promises, our thinking will have no other choice but fall into the cycle of “the hen laid the egg”, “the hen was born from the egg” and “the hen laid the egg”. If we only choose two propositions as premises subjectively, it determines that the contradiction of “which came into being first, a hen or a egg?” is a subjectively set contradiction other that a objective contradiction of “which came into being first, a hen or a egg? ”. This is a kind of determined subjectively set contradiction without selection. But when we subjectively only consider these two propositions as two premises, the process of inference will have no selection so this kind of contradictions can’t be got rid of or avoided.
"
http://www.philosophy-times.net/english/assistance.htm

kevinalm
01-15-2003, 12:27 AM
zahid.

I think that's what I said. Correct me if I'm wrong. At any rate, that is what I was getting at. Most paradox arise from errors in the way the question is posed. There are some that are due to limits in human knowlege, but oddly enough these are the minority, at least in my experience.

biosninja
01-15-2003, 03:25 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Travis Dane
Who came first, the egg or the dinosour?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



dinosaurs layed eggs, dummy!


Like -=SoKrA=- said "Things don't jus appear

Sang-drax
01-15-2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by kevinalm
What is the plural of paradox, anyway? :)
paradoxes (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradoxes)

hk_mp5kpdw
01-15-2003, 06:24 AM
My thoughts on this whole issue. Yes the chicken evolved from something that slowly approached on a genetic level what we now know to be the chicken. But, at this last step prior to the egg being known as a chicken egg, it was in fact the egg of the ancestor creature and not a chicken egg since it was created from this ancestor and not from a chicken in the genetic sense. Once the chicken hatched from this ancestor's egg, it was then able to reproduce using its own, i.e. chicken, eggs. So, my answer is that the chicken came first. Make sense to anybody else out there? I see no paradox here at all.

adrianxw
01-15-2003, 06:28 AM
>>>
it was in fact the egg of the ancestor creature and not a chicken egg since it was created from this ancestor and not from a chicken in the genetic sense.
<<<

No. The combunation of the genetic material of the two parents lead to the mutation that would be a chicken, thus the fertilised egg was an embryonic chicken, from which the first chicken hatched.

The fact that a non chicken laid the egg is irrelevent. The egg preceeded the chicken.

hk_mp5kpdw
01-15-2003, 06:40 AM
The fact that a non chicken laid the egg is irrelevent.
To me at least it's entirely relevant, its not a chicken egg. The chicken egg only comes into existence once that first chicken starts to breed. The thing inside the egg is a chicken, but the egg itself is not a chicken egg, it is the egg of whatever we want to call the creature that came before the chicken. That's just how I see it.

biosninja
01-15-2003, 08:11 AM
To me at least it's entirely relevant, its not a chicken egg. The chicken egg only comes into existence once that first chicken starts to breed. The thing inside the egg is a chicken, but the egg itself is not a chicken egg, it is the egg of whatever we want to call the creature that came before the chicken. That's just how I see it.

That's how I figgure it. It only makes sense you know.

-=SoKrA=-
01-15-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by hk_mp5kpdw
The thing inside the egg is a chicken, but the egg itself is not a chicken egg, it is the egg of whatever we want to call the creature that came before the chicken. That's just how I see it.
That would depend on what you consider a chicken egg. If you call chicken egg the egg that was lyed by a chicken or the egg whose creature that is inside is a chicken.
Personaly I consider a chicken egg any egg that contains a chicken inside.

BTW, is it just me or do my explanations seem very complicated? Oh, well. At least they give me good results in my exams...:)

Terrance11
01-15-2003, 12:26 PM
definately the egg.

Somehow, two different types of (species)- mated and laid an egg that produced the chicken (or in this case the hen).

The chicken didn't come from magically appearing out of nowhere.

Terrance11
01-15-2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Terrance11
definately the egg.

Somehow, two different types of (species)- mated and laid an egg that produced the chicken (or in this case the hen).

The chicken didn't come from magically appearing out of nowhere.

two different types of birds I mean, not species

adrianxw
01-15-2003, 12:40 PM
>>> two different types of birds I mean, not species

Does not "different types" = "species"?

The thing with most such hybrids is that if the resulting offspring is viable, it is usually sterile. Mules for example.

Every now and again, nature throws up a suprise though...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2399773.stm

Davros
01-15-2003, 12:42 PM
>What is the plural of paradox, anyway?

paradoxes

Shadow
01-15-2003, 02:00 PM
> BTW, what's an eggnogg?
Egg, mixed with milk, mostly.

A drink. A very fattening one too.

-=SoKrA=-
01-15-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Shadow
> BTW, what's an eggnogg?
Egg, mixed with milk, mostly.

A drink. A very fattening one too.
I think we can cross that option out then. Hmm... didn't my Spanish teacher (later science) have a similar recipe to clear the voice? It was something similar to that, or maybe just egg and sugar. Maybe just egg. Should try one of these days but I don't dare to drink that (can't be bothered either).
Just to keep with this thread's topic. I stick with my egg choice

kevinalm
01-15-2003, 03:18 PM
Eggnog

raw egg
milk
sugar
nutmeg

Some recipes add other spices but those are the basic ingredients. Sounds revolting but actually not bad. Tastes like a super rich milk shake. Got to be careful about salmenela though. You can usually get it pastuerized in the supermarket dairy case.

Travis Dane
01-16-2003, 11:37 AM
I think the chicken came first, created the same way as whe
where, from bacterias.

Unregd
01-16-2003, 11:58 AM
Hk_mp5kpdw, species designations are kind of arbitrary. You cannot make a cut-off point between the parents and children and say on one side they are ancestral species A and on the other descendant species B. Species distinguish themselves over several generations.

An analogy is that you cannot make a clean cut-off point between Vulgar Latin/Romance and Old French, Old Spanish, etc. It's another case of a slow build up of change over time.

Okay, now for my answer to the question: The chicken came at the same time as the chicken egg because the egg is a developing chicken!

-=SoKrA=-
01-16-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Unregd
The chicken came at the same time as the chicken egg because the egg is a developing chicken!
Not really, the egg is what sorrounds the chicken. That would be like saying 'the woumb is a developing child'. I see your point but the egg is actually created a few days before it's actually layd. The egg was created before it was fertilised. So egg.

adrianxw
01-16-2003, 01:38 PM
>>> the egg is what sorrounds the chicken.

Not really, the egg is an unfertilised female cell. It starts to become a chicken when it is fertilised by a male cell, when this happens, the female cell absorbs the head of the male cell and the resulting cell is now destined to be a chicken, this cell divides many times as it grows, and shortly before the develping embryo is "laid, it is encapsulated in the hard egg shell.

Thus, the egg shell surrounds the chicken. The egg and the developing chicken embryo are one and the same.

-=SoKrA=-
01-17-2003, 11:38 AM
Oh, I forgot the egg was a single cell. Anyhow, the unfertilised cell is still considered an egg. I was thinking about the developing chicken feeding on the egg and got all mixed up.

Fountain
01-17-2003, 12:08 PM
Is eggnog not alcoholic-like another name for advocat? Or something

GoodStuff
01-23-2003, 02:15 AM
It is obvious that an egg cannot hatch itself. It is equally obvious that a chicken needs an egg to hatch from.

Therefore, what happened can be one of two things:

A. A time machine in the future was used to place two fully mature chickens (male/female) into the past. From there came chickens and eggs. Its seems that they come from nowhere then. This idea may seem strange, but seen in the light of time traveling, is quite normal. Where the began before the time loop was established is immaterial, for once the time loop has been established, the time-space continium has altered to erase that start.

B. God created chickens and eggs simultaniously.

Therefore, by Occam's Razor, I declare B the simpler theorem. This does presuppose that the is a God, but I have seen His works personally, therefore I have no problem in beleiving in Him.

That's all folks !

Gustav

biosninja
01-23-2003, 02:19 AM
hold it there buddy

where did the chickens come from that they sent "Back in time" through the "time machine"?

They didn't just "appear"

GoodStuff
01-23-2003, 02:29 AM
It works like this.

Someone invents a time machine. Then he builds that time machine. Then he sends back the plans FOR the time machine BEFORE he invented it. Then he never has to invent the time machine. See ?

The same happens with the egg/chickens.

The chickens/eggs came from somewhere, doesn't matter where/how/when. Then, someone in the future sent them back in time. A time loop is created, and suddenly chickens and eggs don't NEED to come from somewhere. They come from the future. See ? Simple as that.

Gustav

biosninja
01-23-2003, 02:40 AM
The chickens/eggs came from somewhere, doesn't matter where/how/when

Bu it does matter!!!! Things just don't appear!!!:mad:

GoodStuff
01-23-2003, 02:49 AM
Things DO just appear. Especially if you have a time machine.

Things DISSAPEAR just as often. How many times have you lost small pens, trinkets, keys, that just had no POSSIBLE way to go anywhere? THEY all dissapear to the nearest Bermuda triangle. I'm convinced that if you created a small Bermuda triangle on your desk, for instance, that it would attract all the local time-space related dissapearances in the neighbourhood. You'd have so many pens and keys and stuff, you'd not know what to DO with them!

Now hush up. As I said, God made the chickens and the eggs. You can ask him one day when you meet him.

Gustav

biosninja
01-23-2003, 02:52 AM
Well, this is going nowere. Doen't look like either of our oppinions can be changed.

We'll just have to accept it.

THERE IS NO ANSWER!!

GoodStuff
01-23-2003, 03:09 AM
You have set forth no logical hypothesis of your own. Instead you have sniped uselessly at mine in a futile attempt to prove me wrong.

Get your own #@$@# hypothesis and leave mine alone!

I hereby declare myself right.

If you like, you are hereby declared right as well.

So there.

Gustav
(Muhahaha)