Is it a chicken egg because a chicken crawled out of it?
Is it a chicken egg because a chicken laid it?
Depending on how you interpret the question, it can be slightly more interesting.
Or if you’re a young earth creationist, then god created the chicken wholesale at the time of all other creatures, therefore chickens were created before eggs.
In the mitosis process of the proto-chicken a small change occurred that resulted in an chicken embryo in the egg. So the proto-chicken laid the first chicken egg.
Yes, but is a chicken egg one that’s laid by a chicken, or one that hatches the chicken? The answer to that question affects the answer to which came first
There was never any point where a non-chicken laid an egg that hatched into a chicken. Evolution doesn’t care about our categories, just as the rainbow doesn’t care about our colour words!
Most eggs you buy in the store are unfertilized and therefore don’t really contain chicken. They are still called chicken eggs. Therefore what lays the egg determines what it is called.
In all the instances I’ve been able to think of off the top of my head: how the egg is named depends on whether it’s in a culinary/food-centric context.
When you’re referring to an egg in its natural state, the egg is named for the animal that produced it, like duck egg, goose egg, etc.
When referring to an egg that has been prepared, or something that is not an actual egg from an animal, you’d refer to it based on the preparation or what the fake egg is made of, like fried egg, boiled egg, faberge egg, or chocolate egg.
I would posit that the question can’t truly be answered in its current form; the question is assumed to be asking about a unaltered egg produced by a chicken, but does not explicitly state whether the egg was transformed in some way, and does not state that the egg being referred to is specifically from a chicken.
Yes I’m fun at parties and no I will not be taking questions at this time :)
I don’t see any necessary interpretation. Is the question “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?”? It’s always been “the chicken or the egg” wherever I’ve seen it. Maybe the “chicken egg” is implied somehow?
Either way, my interpretation is this one, I suppose:
It is a chicken egg because a chicken crawled out of it.
It’s implied that the egg in question is the chicken egg. Otherwise the answer is trivially obvious to anyone. Obviously non-chicken eggs came before chickens. Why would that be an interesting philosophical thought?
Tbh I’d answer the interpretation question with “both” anyway. If a chicken laid it, it’s a chicken egg, and if a chicken crawls out it’s also a chicken egg.
Like, if a chicken lays an egg it’s a chicken egg, but then if a turtle crawls out of that egg it ceases being a chicken egg and becomes an abomination and an affront against god a turtle egg that happened to have been laid by a chicken in some odd turn of events.
but then if a turtle crawls out of that egg it ceases being a chicken egg and becomes
I don’t think I support this definition. It’s too loose. You can’t have it both ways. It is what it is when it is formed. It doesn’t change after it has been laid. It’s genetically primed from the DNA of its parents. Not from what’s going on inside the egg.
Either way, I personally don’t subscribe to the whole “chicken egg” definition issue at all. An egg is just the shell. The important part is what’s inside it. And either way, both definitions can be easily answered by evolution, so it’s never a difficult question.
If the definition is of importance, just ask for that info, then answer accordingly. No big deal. 👍
If it’s only defined by what is inside, then all eggs are schrodinger’s eggs. They’re both simultaneously a chicken and not a chicken until we observe the contents. You can’t know what it is when it’s formed if, as is postulated above, “at some point the chicken’s predecessor laid an egg that became the chicken” is the truth, as at some point what laid the egg and the contents of the egg must differentiate even if slightly. Therefore all we can do is assume it is “what laid the egg” until “what comes out,” comes out, and proves us either correct or incorrect.
The contents of the egg will be what it will be regardless of whether or not we observe it. If it will be another chicken, it will be another chicken. If it will be the next species by some definition, that’s what it’ll be. But this is not determined when it hatches. That’s not how it works. It’s determined when the embryo is formed, way before hatching.
So this premise of observing and so on is not something I can keep discussing, I feel. It’s not relevant to the matter, because whatever comes out comes out regardless of our presence.
Sure, the contents “will be” what they “will be,” but we technically can’t know what they “will be” until they “are.”
Until it hatches and “is” the best we can do is assume it “will be” what its parents “are,” or our other option is to simply refer to it as “egg, species unknown” regardless of the egg’s progenitors, which probably looks less appealing on the carton.
Or if you’re a young earth creationist, then god created the chicken wholesale at the time of all other creatures, therefore chickens were created before eggs.
If I’m an omnipotent sky daddy I would not create all living beings as adults, instead I’ll create a sample that closely resembles how it should be. That means creating chickens, chicks and even eggs. I’m the same manner, some mammals would exist as pregnant.
If there were no eggs, how egg eating animals would survive the first few weeks? What about seed eating animals?
Which came first: a chicken egg, or a chicken.
Is it a chicken egg because a chicken crawled out of it?
Is it a chicken egg because a chicken laid it?
Depending on how you interpret the question, it can be slightly more interesting.
Or if you’re a young earth creationist, then god created the chicken wholesale at the time of all other creatures, therefore chickens were created before eggs.
chickens evolved to lay eggs within my lifetime. i pulled this clip off a home video of chickens giving birth when i was like 10
Did God create a chicken wholesale or did God create an egg that hatched into a chicken?
(God isn’t really, yadda yadda, but that’s not a fun answer)
In the mitosis process of the proto-chicken a small change occurred that resulted in an chicken embryo in the egg. So the proto-chicken laid the first chicken egg.
It’s not even an interpretation thing, that is what the question is actually asking. It’s implicitly understood to be about chicken eggs
Yes, but is a chicken egg one that’s laid by a chicken, or one that hatches the chicken? The answer to that question affects the answer to which came first
It’s one that hatches a chicken. An egg layed by a chicken is a chicken*'s* egg. If a chicken doesn’t come out of it, it ain’t a chicken egg.
There was never any point where a non-chicken laid an egg that hatched into a chicken. Evolution doesn’t care about our categories, just as the rainbow doesn’t care about our colour words!
It’s one that contains a chicken:
A chocolate egg is an egg that contains chocolate, not one that is laid by chocolate.
QED
Most eggs you buy in the store are unfertilized and therefore don’t really contain chicken. They are still called chicken eggs. Therefore what lays the egg determines what it is called.
In all the instances I’ve been able to think of off the top of my head: how the egg is named depends on whether it’s in a culinary/food-centric context.
When you’re referring to an egg in its natural state, the egg is named for the animal that produced it, like duck egg, goose egg, etc.
When referring to an egg that has been prepared, or something that is not an actual egg from an animal, you’d refer to it based on the preparation or what the fake egg is made of, like fried egg, boiled egg, faberge egg, or chocolate egg.
I would posit that the question can’t truly be answered in its current form; the question is assumed to be asking about a unaltered egg produced by a chicken, but does not explicitly state whether the egg was transformed in some way, and does not state that the egg being referred to is specifically from a chicken.
Yes I’m fun at parties and no I will not be taking questions at this time :)
Edit: Formatting
I don’t see any necessary interpretation. Is the question “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?”? It’s always been “the chicken or the egg” wherever I’ve seen it. Maybe the “chicken egg” is implied somehow?
Either way, my interpretation is this one, I suppose:
😊
It’s implied that the egg in question is the chicken egg. Otherwise the answer is trivially obvious to anyone. Obviously non-chicken eggs came before chickens. Why would that be an interesting philosophical thought?
But the answer is trivially obvious either way.
Trivial. The only issue is your definition of “chicken egg”, and the answer flips depending on that. Otherwise perfectly clear to me at least.
Tbh I’d answer the interpretation question with “both” anyway. If a chicken laid it, it’s a chicken egg, and if a chicken crawls out it’s also a chicken egg.
Like, if a chicken lays an egg it’s a chicken egg, but then if a turtle crawls out of that egg it ceases being a chicken egg and becomes
an abomination and an affront against goda turtle egg that happened to have been laid by a chicken in some odd turn of events.I don’t think I support this definition. It’s too loose. You can’t have it both ways. It is what it is when it is formed. It doesn’t change after it has been laid. It’s genetically primed from the DNA of its parents. Not from what’s going on inside the egg.
Either way, I personally don’t subscribe to the whole “chicken egg” definition issue at all. An egg is just the shell. The important part is what’s inside it. And either way, both definitions can be easily answered by evolution, so it’s never a difficult question.
If the definition is of importance, just ask for that info, then answer accordingly. No big deal. 👍
If it’s only defined by what is inside, then all eggs are schrodinger’s eggs. They’re both simultaneously a chicken and not a chicken until we observe the contents. You can’t know what it is when it’s formed if, as is postulated above, “at some point the chicken’s predecessor laid an egg that became the chicken” is the truth, as at some point what laid the egg and the contents of the egg must differentiate even if slightly. Therefore all we can do is assume it is “what laid the egg” until “what comes out,” comes out, and proves us either correct or incorrect.
I disagree with your premise one hundred percent.
The contents of the egg will be what it will be regardless of whether or not we observe it. If it will be another chicken, it will be another chicken. If it will be the next species by some definition, that’s what it’ll be. But this is not determined when it hatches. That’s not how it works. It’s determined when the embryo is formed, way before hatching.
So this premise of observing and so on is not something I can keep discussing, I feel. It’s not relevant to the matter, because whatever comes out comes out regardless of our presence.
Feel me?
Sure, the contents “will be” what they “will be,” but we technically can’t know what they “will be” until they “are.”
Until it hatches and “is” the best we can do is assume it “will be” what its parents “are,” or our other option is to simply refer to it as “egg, species unknown” regardless of the egg’s progenitors, which probably looks less appealing on the carton.
If I’m an omnipotent sky daddy I would not create all living beings as adults, instead I’ll create a sample that closely resembles how it should be. That means creating chickens, chicks and even eggs. I’m the same manner, some mammals would exist as pregnant.
If there were no eggs, how egg eating animals would survive the first few weeks? What about seed eating animals?
Checkmate Atheists