Itâs best if we combine fact with fiction? How does that help anyone? If anything it just causes silly âdebatesâ based on misunderstandings such as the chicken egg one in the OP
Creationists can go suck it. Their opinion deserves no attention beyond contempt. I'll consider their "theory" the day they can provide a modicum of a start of a shadow of evidence.
How the fuck does no-one know for sure? This thing is solved and not even difficult
The egg came first, obviously. Over the course of evolution of this animal, eventually one of them that hatched from an egg would more closely resemble a âchickenâ than the animal that birthed it
Youâre right, its a lot less interesting without an egg. I can only assume its an old philosophical question from a time before evolution was a widespread theory
Right, the classification of it being a chicken starts at the first occurrence (egg) of it being a chicken. Any previous occurrences means it wasnât a âchickenâ yet.
It's like choosing between plague and cholera: a solved problem. Do I want to die an almost certain, painful, disgusting death, potentially spreading the same fate to anyone living in close quarters with me or do I want to shit a lot and drink some electrolytes?
This is why I argue churches are businesses, thus we should be taxing them. Fuck them for clouding the minds of humanity everywhere with fairytales instead of filling them with science.
Doesn't that depend on whether you define a chicken egg to be an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg containing a chicken?
Edit: I don't exactly understand what's so contravertial here. There was a bird (not a chicken) that laid an egg which hatched into a chicken.
I'm saying that this egg may or may not be a chicken egg depending on what the adjective "chicken" before the word "egg" actually means.
Firstly, it can't simply mean "contains a chicken", because the chicken eggs you buy at a shop don't contain a chicken. So I'm asking a simple question to everyone saying I'm wrong: what is the definition of a chicken egg? Is it really so precise that there is no ambiguity?
The question is "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" not "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?. So im not sure that really matters.
But in that case it's not an interesting question, because it's not even close. Eggs have obviously been around for much longer than chickens, and that has nothing to do with the precise evolution of the domesticated chicken. It would be true for any animal alive today or in the last few hundred million years.
The original comment's reasoning is only necessary if you are answering the more interesting question of chicken vs chicken egg. Also, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that this is implied in the question. You can interpret it in bad faith if you want though.
It's still painfully obvious the chicken egg came first, the first chicken would have had to hatch from a chicken egg (mutant egg of chicken's ancestor)
If that's how you define a chicken egg, yes, it's obviously that way round.
But if instead I defined a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken (i.e. a "chicken's egg") then that first egg wasn't a chicken egg, it was a non-chicken egg that contained a chicken.
As an example, consider the eggs that we eat. They are unfertilised, so they do not contain the genetics needed to make a chicken. Yet we still call them chicken eggs, and I think that's because they were laid by a chicken.
An egg with a chicken in it is a chicken egg, an egg laid by a chicken is a chicken's egg. So asking "what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg" doesn't change the answer
But the thing that we most commonly call a chicken egg is unfertilised, so doesn't contain a chicken. Doesn't this contradict your definition of a chicken egg?
I find it best to respond to assholes like this with an answer that completely ignores the part of their response that makes them an ass in the first place. They don't like it.
So are the eggs that we eat for breakfast not chicken eggs? A chicken can never hatch from them.
I'm saying that it might be more consistent to define a chicken egg as an egg that is laid by (in other words, comes from) a chicken. Is there a reason that you are stating as a fact that this is not the case?
My comment was directed at u/StanleyDodds because they were being an ass. As much as I hate doing it, sometimes trolls have to be put in their place.
With this additional context, I invite you to read through the comments again. You'll find that we, not just I, ignored their douchery on purpose and nobody feels bad about it.
You're the douche here, really. You're not answering and can't stop being haughty.
His question makes sense; it's fundamental to the process of answering the original question. But you're going on with completely irrelevant attacks and you're basically acting like a troll yourself.
Well, if they like FE they can develop into VSCode to do some JS.
JK, that was kinda lame. Makes me wonder though. Does the chicken know itâs a chicken? If they look at a duck, would they think thatâs a âbeaky chickenâ (or whatever name theyâd have for themselves), or if they look at a human would they think thatâs a âtall, featherless chicken?â
I didnât mean for this illustration of an overly-complicated-without-needing-to-be response from the developer in panel 2 to turn into some form of profound discussion for the comic as a whole, nor for it to be answered literally, but well I guess I canât predict how people will take these comics or which would be successful if at all
Well a chicken is a chicken and remains a chicken. It does not need to know that itâs a chicken. Whereas an egg has the potential to become a chicken, therefore the chicken must exist before the egg. If it didnât the egg canât develop into a chicken, because it does not exist.
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?" isn't a question that expects a specific answer. It's supposed to make people think about causes and effects in cycles. It's not actually about chickens and chicken eggs, that's just an example.
The general case is:
If only X creates Y and only Y creates X, what came first, X or Y?
Thank you for the alternate take on this! I actually meant to expose how unnecessarily complicated some answers given by devs could be given the reply from the guy on panel 2, but didnât think it could spark a discussion of the magnitude it did
For creationists, the Bible puts forth an answer to this question in the very first chapter. It turns out, that for evolutionists, the basic answer is still the same.
The real answer is. "It depends on the definition of the egg" If you say a chicken egg is a egg layed by a chicken than the chicken was first. If you say a egg from which a chicken hatches it is the egg. Simple answer
13
u/Wolfeur Nov 28 '22
Like it's something that is "believed" and not a fact.
Also this looks like a worse version of the
['đĽ', 'đ'].sort()joke.