This cladogram is outdated about turtles, which are no longer considered the most phylogenetically basal reptiles.
deleted by creator
Last I heard they might be closer to crocs and birds than to zards and snakes
Maybe they meant chicken eggs but I guess the chicken egg is still first in that case
Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, “which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?” And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:
If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother’s ovum, the father’s sperm, or the fertilised zygote.
As an alternative, though it’s a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: “which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?” That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it’s really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It’s a way of making an analogy for a “causation dilemma” and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It’s also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.
I haven’t understood how this question seems difficult to so many. Not trying to put anyone down, but chicks hatch from eggs. In order for a chicken to be classified as a chicken (as we know it to be), it would have hatched out of an egg.
When they say egg they mean chicken egg, not any kind of egg. It’s not completely clear if the first chicken came up from what you’d call your usual chicken egg.
Is it a chicken egg if it came from a chicken, or contains a chicken?
I would think that a chicken egg is a chicken egg if it can’t be distinguished from our current chicken eggs, which could be yet another option to consider and might take out the chicken of the discussion.
Regardless, the solutions seem clear if we consider either of your two options.
To expand on this: mutations between generations happen exactly there, between generations. So the parents of the “first” chicken (if you draw the line somewhere on the evolutionary scale) were not chicken; the egg however was a chicken egg, as it contained a chicken.
Exactly. Well put.
And who laid that egg? Certainly not me. The implication is that it’s about a chicken egg and it’s not difficult, it just doesn’t have a determinative answer because chicken is a spectrum. What even is the first chicken? There ain’t just a thing, that’s not how evolution works. It’s a gradual change from once species to another like language change. Who was the first speaker of modern English and how could they understand their middle English speaking parents?
That’s why the chicken and egg thing is used as an allergy for questions that do not have a straightforward answer. Who started the fight? “Certainly not me, I made a joke and you took it seriously and then you insulted me” “I didn’t hit you hard but you did”
deleted by creator
Over time, a population of proto-chickens lay eggs with unique genetic variations that randomly direct the population towards laying eggs that result in modern chickens. The egg comes first, and it’s a whole bunch of them
And now everybody together… C O E V O L U T I O N
Are chickens even real?
Yes, unless declared integer.
Or are they local?
That’s some good jpeg
delicious, sweet jpeg
Delicious artifacts uhmm
Tongue test, tried and true. I prefer the teeth tap personally, more efficient.
egg laying animals came long before chickens, why was that ever hard to figure out for anyone?
Well some of us are not only ignorant but had our critical thinking skills to varying levels stunted by shitty education. To me the answer didn’t necessarily matter as long as people agree both exist, but I’m glad to now have an answer grounded in science rather than relying on philosophical musing
but had our critical thinking skills to varying levels stunted by shitty education.
I’ve also noticed that everyone I went to school with who got good grades is a dunce. But everyone who got shitty grades with me was much easier to talk to.
I never have to explain in verbose detail what I mean by every fragment of a sentence to someone who got shitty grades in school. I had a principal at one school I went to who was an idiot.
Every time another group of students stole my hat and there was a coordinated effort to keep it away from me, I had no choice but to go to the principal, because the teachers wouldn’t help me either.
Every single time this happened, the principal, with zero self awareness would say “what do you mean ____ stole your hat? did you give it to him?” Then I had to explain in vivid detail each thing that happened for 15 minutes, like I was programming a robot-arm in a factory to this idiot with no ability to listen and think.
George Carlin used to rant about how schools teach kids to just barely be smart enough to pull levers and push buttons, but never to critically think about things or to solve problems they don’t have a pre-planned solution for. and that’s why I hated going to school, as high functioning autistic man, when I was in school, they always wanted me to fit into a cookie-cutter path they set for me, but I never went along with it.
This one boomer I know refuses to ever use anything except for the official tool you’re supposed to use for each thing. So I ask him, “well if this other pair of plyers does the job, why can’t I just use this one if I can make it work.?” “IT’S NOT MEANT FOR THAT!” with no good reason for not wanting me to help him by using that other pair of plyers that I can make work.
I quit high school about half way through my 10th grade year one day when literally everyone in the school yelled at me when I tried to talk about literally anything. I just got my stuff out of my locker and walked home.
The snake and lizard branch is wrong. I care very much about the accuracy of memes, and I have to point out that many lizards are more closely related to snakes than they are to other lizards.
Genetically, maybe, but you have to remember intermarriage and cultural separation within the lizard-snake community.
The compression artifacts (from converting B/W line art to jpg) being printed on the page have given me a new pet peeve
Jpg for photos, png for everything else.
It’s an easy rule of thumb, it hurts that 20 years of repeating it seems to have had zero effect.
Maybe this helps: Jpg fucks up your image, and png doesn’t.
Or: jpg is lossy, png is lossless.
Or: It’s better to save photos as png than cartoons as jpg.
Seriously, I hope some of this breaks through because deep fried images are so fucking unnecessary.
I hear WebP can often offer much better compression than PNG in lossless mode so that could be an alternative.
Could be. I’m not as familiar with that format – a major strength of png is that anything can open and view it properly. It’s been a standard for decades, so it has universal compatibility.
e: I’m not going to look into that specific format (I stopped caring about the inner workings of file formats like 15 years ago when I stopped getting paid to care), but I think I could bet you that webp is a document hierarchy wrapper on png, jpg, gif, mpeg, etc, ad inf.
I had to exit this comment and look again because I couldn’t remember if you’d said webm or webx or webp or whatever. The last I knew, that’s not a file format but a codepage (nowadays, that’s usually a cheap wrapper over code they found and repackaged).
That’s massively simplified, but if you’re asking that in this thread, I’m worried people are being sold a difference that doesn’t exist.
Are there any downsides to saving photos as pngs?
Slightly larger file size, which mattered in like 2002, but it’s only a few mb, which doesn’t matter at all now.
e: if you’re a professional photographer and saving stupidly high resolution images by the thousands, you’ll want to use jpg, but in that case, you’ll understand why.
John Warnock is rolling in his grave right now.
Now imagine these corrupted images being engraved into stone or steel by machine. Turned into literal artifacts for future generations to ponder over.
“The intentional grey diamonds, you see this was a highly advanced society capable of high definition videos and images, represents a loving fealty to that which is complete or known. The imperfections in the art represent an acknowledgement of their societal short falls. This will be on the exam by the way.”
"There is much debate about how aware the primitive minds were of the degradation of their information. Did they believe older things looked worse when they were photographed or did they understand it was their photographs themselves that got worse over time?
Even more surprising is that their oldest media wasn’t even able to maintain any information at all about colour."
“In fact, here is one now:“
I don’t like this because it’s not addressing the actual saying. Obviously the saying is about chicken eggs specifically.
But I’ve always felt obviously the egg came first. The first chicken was born in an egg, so the egg came first. That egg could have been produced from a creature with a mutation which caused it to produce the first chicken egg when it is not itself the exact same species.
deleted by creator
The newly classified creature didn’t mutate as soon as it hatched, it was a chicken inside the egg the whole time.
Is it the mom’s egg or the chicken’s egg I guess is the argument you are making. I call it the chicken’s egg. So the egg came first.
I believe this is correct as I read in a book somewhere that it was a kind of proto-chicken if you will, that laid an egg of which came a the first chicken.
The more interesting question is how long did it take for the first BBQ Chicken.
Real question is which came first, BBQ chicken or the Eggs Benedict?
That is an interesting one.
I did a quick search using Arc and it says eggs Benedict was 1860s and BBQ. Chicken is unknown.
But I think it’s not about chicken at all. People just don’t know which creature on earth laid the first egg, so the chicken is just a stand-in. As chicken are the species we most associate with eggs for obvious reasons. What came first: the first egg or the first egg-laying creature? Has to be the egg-laying creature, but then how did that get born?
Ah, but when that line of tiny change is so arbitrary… Is it a true chicken until it grows up and fulfils its destiny? Is it a chicken based purely on its genetic code, so the egg whence it hatched is a chicken egg; or is it truly a chicken when it becomes a chicken… meh, I write this far and find I still agree with you: even in that case the egg it hatched from becomes a chicken egg by virtue of the chicken it grew into.
In other words, the question becomes: “Is an egg defined by the creature that laid it, or the creature that will hatch from it?”
This shit is getting deep
Hatch or grow. Because once you’re asking those questions, is the first chick truly the first chicken?
“Is a juvenile defined by what it currently is or what it will/might become?” And, “is chicken-ness an innate quality of the animal, or in relation to the animal fulfilling/presenting (or being able to fulfil) some chicken-ness?”
The thing that defines chicken-ness is crossing the road. So if the egg rolled across the road before hatching does that mean the egg is a chicken egg?
But of course the chicken must also see the other side of the road. Since it’s impossible for see outside of the egg before hatching it might be the egg lacks sufficient chicken-ness to be considered a chicken egg.
But once the egg hatches the chicken will see the other side of the road. So if the egg crosses the road and the chicken that hatches from the egg sees the other side of the road, both the egg and chicken must both be considered to be sufficiently chickenly to complete the sequence required to establish the complete chicken.
It’s somehiw obvious now, but the question appeared 25 centuries ago when it wasn’t even remotely clear what was the answer.
The chicken vs egg question has never been about chronology or science.
It’s been about religion vs science.
Science says the egg came first: something nearly imperceptibly not quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched a chicken. That’s how evolution works, with the egg coming first.
Religion says a god poofed a chicken into existence. The chicken came first, and only ever laid pure chicken eggs. The eggs will forever hatch a chicken and nothing but a chicken.
That’s the chicken vs egg thing. It’s not a puzzle at all, it’s just science vs religion.
e: simplified. I’m too wordy by default.
deleted by creator
You can interpret it that way now but that’s not the original meanig.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
I understand and respect where you are coming from but i prefer not to rewrite history while arguing about ideas.
Yes, thank you, you’re exactly right. The person you’re responding to is correct that it’s come to have science vs religion overtones, but that’s not what the expression meant to people for ages and ages.
a metaphoric adjective describing situations where it is not clear which of two events should be considered the cause and which should be considered the effect
I guess the overtones are a product of their times. Currently, it seems to be: is science/religion the “cause” or “effect”.
I always staked claim that it was a “scientific vs philosophical” question; but I never considered how timeline could change the overtones or underlying thinking of “The chicken and the egg” concept. Neat
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said ‘never’. It was a paradox in ancient history, but at least in my lifetime, I’ve read it as basically solved. That may be a relatively recent stance (since 100-200 years ago), but it doesn’t seem useful to continue presenting it as a paradox at this point.
I think there are two valid scientific/philosophical answers without taking religion into it, based on one question:
Are we specifically talking a chicken egg, or the concept of an egg?
In the former case, eggshells contain compounds that cannot exist in nature, and must come from a creature. a chicken egg cannot exist without a chicken before it, thus the chicken came first.
In the latter case, various evolutionary splits happened between animals evolving egg developing capability and some animals evolving into chickens. From this we can say that the egg came before the chicken.
Worst case, this solved exactly nothing. Best case, it can be an exercise in reasoning.
This is by far the most correct answer to the chicken and egg question.
Not really, it still doesn’t answer the question as the main thing is still unclear.
Is the first chicken egg the one the chicken hatched from or the first egg a chicken laid.
Both can be argued as correct.
Not-quite-a-chicken laid an egg containing a definitely-chicken. Actual chicken egg was first.
We are so zoomed in evolution at this point that the arbitrary distinction between what is a chicken and what not doesn’t make any sense anymore. Evolution does some jumps, but it is still hard to actually draw the line where a nearly-chicken has not been a chicken yet. Maybe someone could fill in my mental gap in here for me, but hasn’t Richard Dawkins given the example of some animal (possibly a rabbit?) that is traced back in evolution and since you cannot draw the line when it hasn’t been that animal it is rabbits all the way down?
Yeah, the fossil record and dna analysis is such a gradient, any lines we draw are arbitrary. To be fair, those lines were always for our own convenience, in much the same way it’s useful for print designers to specify Pantone 032, but if most people look at the full colour chart they couldn’t even tell you where ‘red’ becomes ‘orange’.
It’s definitely rabbits (or turtles) all the way down.
We’re prokaryotes, and vertebrates, and mammals, and from there some people get bent. Are we apes? Genus homo? Where must we draw the line to ensure we’re not actually animals like other living things and were divinely inspired special creations?
I like simplicity. Life is a beautiful prismatic projection and it doesn’t matter that much what our Pantone swatch turns out to be.
(Sorry, /mini rant)
Well, I actually completely agree with you and thought your initial comment to be quite interesting. I’ve never viewed this thought experiment as to be science vs religion.
My point in my previous comment was exactly that, all our lines and categories are arbitrary. They’re really useful to us, but in the end still arbitrary. I enjoy categorizing stuff and so I like taxonomy a lot. But I always have to keep in mind that the categories I choose are ultimately human made and can never represent the full spectrum of nature.
Pantone 032 feels to aggressive to me, can I have another color? :P
I like 14-4317 TCX. 😎👌
What came first? Chicken or egg?
It doesn’t say if the question is about “chicken egg” but only egg
Otherwise the question would be:
What came first? Chicken or chicken egg?
literally no one in the world means that when they talk about chicken vs egg. what a weird way to look at the world.
also citation needed on religion saying god proofed chicken into existence without the egg.
It made Fox News in 2015.
A biology paper that same year.
Religious people seem to care.
Biologists have been talking about it.
I didn’t pull this out of my arse.
And re: that citation you asked for:
God created mature birds with the ability to reproduce. So the bird was first, ready to lay eggs.
first of all kudos on the citations; thank you for your effort.
I don’t think these prove that the question is about religion vs science. the question is philosophical, and the fact that some religious people have a take on it that doesn’t agree with what would be the scientific/technical answer doesn’t make it about religion vs science.
if a tree falls and no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? that would also have a scientific answer, and depending on the religion, you may have a religious argument that disagrees with the scientific answer. the question would remain a philosophical one, and not one of science vs religion.
I wasn’t trying to prove the question is about religion vs science; I was responding to the previous comment that said:
literally no one in the world means that
My links show lots of people in the world say that. Not everyone, but enough that it does come up sometimes.
There are multiple facets and perspectives in every philosophical question.
I’ve always interpreted it as which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
But I’d just like to point out not all religions have that view of creationism vs evolution, and even within Christianity it’s really only your super conservative, and very loud, fundamentalists. Catholicism doesn’t have an official stance on evolution, iirc, the Episcopal church in the USA is fully supportive of evolution, as are most mainline Christians. Not to detract from your point or anything, I just don’t like seeing all religious people, or all Christians, lumped together with some of the worst examples of religiosity that the US has to offer.
I’ve always interpreted it as which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
I agree. And this boils down to how you define ‘chicken egg’. If the definition is “egg laid by a chicken”, then the chicken had to have come first. If it’s “egg that hatches a chick” (which will grow into a chicken), then the egg must have come first. But this ignores the pretty huge problem of picking a precise point on the evolutionary timeline where a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken. There isn’t going to be such a clearly-defined point.
Yeah, but it’s at least an interesting pointless unsolvable conundrum, whereas the other interpretations aren’t even interesting. Lol.
Religion is usually bad, so I don’t have an issue lumping them all together.
C’mon man Sikhs are fucking chilled out
Not necessarily… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Indira_Gandhi
Whats a little light assassination between friends?!
deleted by creator
I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant.
This has vibes of “and why was she raped? it was her fault.”
To be fair though I haven’t even clicked the link and I know nothing about this. For all I know, maybe this person was literally Hitler and assassination was the only way to stop them. But even then, we can conclusively say that this was not chill.
deleted by creator
Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.
Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it’s core teachings, as far as I know.
A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the “dress-code” with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc…
I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.
A lot of what you say can be applied to other, non-religious cultures, not least that of the west, albeit in different measure. Any society will develop an overarching system of rules and standards; it’s necessary to avoid anarchy, which is more inimical to the broader progress of mankind. People naturally band together, it’s an evolutionary trait, so regardless of what intangible strictures those tribes are subject to, there will always be friction between and indeed amongst them. Voltaire said “If God did not exist it would be necessary to create him.” and he was dead right, he just didn’t mean ‘God’ in the strictly theistic sense.
Ultimately, people are people, meaning they need reeling in or things go to shit. Perhaps there exists an ideal set of circumstances under which civilised man can live peacefully without noticeably impinging on his moral objectivity, but let’s not hold our breath. As long as there are groups, there will be some cunts who tighten the shackles for everyone, whether it be by breaking the rules, or making the rules.
So yes, all religions are bad, but in the spirit of catching all, I’d go broader.
Jesus is the Ted McGinley of family gatherings.
I very much like that I have a clear cut answer for this now.
I guess the tree branch needs to start somewhere, but why leave out amphibians?
Thats on the branch labeled traitors that leads to paying bills.
I don’t get it. Care to explain?
