But then [as the op points out] the question re-arises when asking “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?” The first chicken would have been in an egg… do we call that egg a chicken egg? Is the egg defined by who laid it rather than what’s in it?
If the latter [what’s in it?], which forms first? The chicken, or the egg around it? The egg.
If the former [who laid it?], the chicken came before the chicken egg, that first chicken being in an egg named after whatever non-chicken laid it.
So which is the proper definition? I’m leaning to who laid it. The first chicken came out of a non-chicken egg. The chicken came first. And then went on to lay the first chicken egg.
That depends on how you define chicken egg. The egg that hatched to a chicken predates the chicken which predates the egg laid by a chicken. The first egg from which a chicken hatched was from a bird almost but not quite a chicken and you’d probably be completely incapable of drawing a line at which generation it is and successfully defending that decision
Been saying that for ages.
But then [as the op points out] the question re-arises when asking “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?” The first chicken would have been in an egg… do we call that egg a chicken egg? Is the egg defined by who laid it rather than what’s in it?
So which is the proper definition? I’m leaning to who laid it. The first chicken came out of a non-chicken egg. The chicken came first. And then went on to lay the first chicken egg.
That depends on how you define chicken egg. The egg that hatched to a chicken predates the chicken which predates the egg laid by a chicken. The first egg from which a chicken hatched was from a bird almost but not quite a chicken and you’d probably be completely incapable of drawing a line at which generation it is and successfully defending that decision
Yep. A good point I skirted past in my logic rundown for simplicity.