Chicken or the egg debate SOLVED?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Nerd Bomber, May 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nerd Bomber

    Nerd Bomber Consulting your needs

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Posts:
    5,690
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/index.html
     
  2. Thorns2010

    Thorns2010 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Posts:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    147
    Likes:
    +1
    Well duh! Anyone who subscribes to the notion of evolution could have told you that. I mean dinosaurs were around before chickens right? And they had eggs.

    I can't believe people (smart ones at that) wasted their time on this....
     
  3. Omnibus Prime

    Omnibus Prime I'm too old for this shit TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Posts:
    6,518
    Trophy Points:
    266
    Likes:
    +0
    I deduce that the animal that laid the very first egg ever, whatever species, came before said egg.

    Okay, so..where's my grant money?
     
  4. Vector Sigma

    Vector Sigma <b><i><font color=FFFF00>Crazy Colon Burner!!!!</b Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Posts:
    6,510
    Trophy Points:
    221
    Likes:
    +0
    I'd say they rather missed the point of the philosophical debate, but fair enough, its certainly an answer...
     
  5. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Yeah, I've been telling my students the answer to this for years. Not my fault the question doesn't specify "chicken egg."

    Moreover, if we are really going to split hairs and limit this to chicken eggs, then we need to define specifically what a chicken egg is. Is it an egg that contains a chicken, or one that is laid by a chicken? Once that definition is established, the question answers itself.
     
  6. Wreckgar

    Wreckgar Anthony Stark Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Posts:
    7,833
    Trophy Points:
    242
    Likes:
    +6
    Okay, maybe a chicken egg came before the chicken but what laid the chicken egg? This proves nothing. Some animal could have taken a crap in a pond of stewing genetic material, the crap hardened on the outside and something grew inside thus creating a chicken.
     
  7. SpazmasterX

    SpazmasterX My turn to protect you.

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Posts:
    1,589
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    This is exactly what I have been saying for years. The egg itself came before the chicken evolved into what it is. Why this took so long to figure it out is beyond me.
     
  8. Seth Buzzard

    Seth Buzzard R.I.P. Buzzbeak Content Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    15,169
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    282
    Likes:
    +4
    When I was vary young looking in dinosaur books (I was obsessed with them) and saw that dinosaurs came from eggs in my 5 year old mined the debate was solved. I remember adults asking me what came first thinking they where going to blow some kids mined and then becoming irritated I was so confident that it was the egg. I even recall one time my Dad getting a little pissed and limiting the question to chicken eggs.

    Even then I still said the egg because there couldn’t have been a chicken to lay an egg if it hadn’t come from one. My Dad being a creationist then brought God into it and I found myself in my first every religious debate before I even finished kindergarten.

    I remember the oddest crap for my youngest years.
     
  9. Fairy Princess

    Fairy Princess Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Posts:
    4,331
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Hell my Mom came before the egg....
     
  10. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    If the chicken egg is defined as an egg laid by a chicken, the chicken had to come first. That first chicken, being first, had no antecedent chicken, and thus did not come from a chicken-lain egg. Where the chicken comes from is then irrelevent to the debate at hand.

    However, if the egg is defined as an egg containing a chicken, one has two schools of thought. If you believe in evolution, the chicken came from a marginally different non-chicken ancestor (what makes something a chicken or non-chicken would be another debate - this question presupposes the existence of clearly definable chickens). That almost-chicken laid the first egg containing a chicken, and thus the first chicken egg came before the first chicken walked this earth.***

    If you believe in special creation, there can be no answer to this question as we have no way of knowing if God placed the first chicken here as a chicken, or in an egg. There is no way to know it without special revelation by God, or discover of an authenticated first hand account. Since neither is likely, the debate is moot.

    ***I should add that most of us engaged in this debate assume "chicken" to mean a baby chick or adult chicken walking about on it's own, wheras the term "egg" includes the prenatal chicken surrounded by a protective shell. If we actually look at chicken development, the zygote and embryo are created before the egg shell forms around them. If one considers that first zygote a chicken, then from an evolutionary point of view the chicken predates the egg by a few days.
     
  11. Chaos Muffin

    Chaos Muffin Misadventure Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Posts:
    28,751
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +4
    Agree
     
  12. Pidgeot018

    Pidgeot018 Pokécon

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Posts:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Likes:
    +0
    Now if they can nly figure out if a tree falling in the woods can make a sound if no one is around to hear it.
     
  13. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,700
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    How do you define sound?

    Nevermind. Dictionary.com has the following relevent definitions:

    1. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
    2. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
    3. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

    If we go with definition 3, then there is no sound. If we go with 1 and 2, since there is every reason to believe that the laws of physics are universal, then there is sound (assuming a normal tree falling at normal speeds on a normal surface), but there is no way to prove it.
     
  14. DrGrim

    DrGrim OBEY

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Posts:
    4,151
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Likes:
    +6
    Ebay:
    Finally something significant has been resolved. We are now one step closer to resolving the world's problems. Good to see research is being aimed in the right places.
     
  15. Dalarsco

    Dalarsco Kickback=ROCK

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    6,347
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    So, the worlds of science and philosphy have finally caught up to precosious, smart ass first graders.
     
  16. Streck

    Streck <B><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">QED</B></FONT> Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    9,991
    Trophy Points:
    221
    Likes:
    +0
    Sorry guys. This thread straddles the line, and I play it safe.

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page