Talk:Chicken or the egg

Archive

Previous discussions have been archived. See the navigation link to the right to revisit previous discussions. ~Kruck 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

"According to the theory of evolution, the first modern chicken was the offspring of the last direct ancestor of domestic chickens to not share that classification (likely the Red Junglefowl). Therefore, a non-chicken did, in fact, lay the first chicken egg, i.e., the egg came first."

am i the only one who notices how retarded that is? ok so the modern domestic chicken came from an egg laid by an earlier form of chicken. it's a semantics blunder i guess. but that argument doesn't state anything. the egg did not come first, the egg came from another creature that wasn't genetically identical to the modern domesticated chicken. so if you're willing to go the extra step and admit that, although not genetically identical, the "Red Junglefowl" is still pretty much a chicken, then you're back where you started.68.255.172.238 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of the evolution argument is that evolving birds only change their traits when their DNA mutates from its parents' gametes inside the egg. A bird that is born a Red Junglefowl will never become a chicken in its lifetime. Although the boundary between species may be hard to determine, it doesn't matter where the boundary is as long as you assume there is a boundary. The first chicken was born as a result of a genetic mutation, so the chicken egg came first. Personally, I don't think the analysis of the problem is important for this article anyway. "The chicken or the egg" is a colloquial expression of circular logic, not a scientific mystery. ~Kruck 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many mutations the offspring of a junglefowl had, it's a junglefowl, until selection killed or separated all the other genes.Europeans and Asians were always the same people until they were separated from regions. We didn't get chickens until we separated them from other junglefowls. --Kilva (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think this needs clarifying in the article. The article makes it sound like it is a mystery85.210.50.176 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the expression itself is a reflection of "a colloquial expression" of circular logic" and all that, it certainly ties into the scientific mystery of how the process of evolution actually works, i.e. the specific mechanism for how you get from not-chicken to chicken. Tchalvak (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this last phrase is biased, because it only works with the second definition of the chicken egg, which was "If only an egg that will hatch into a chicken can be considered a chicken egg". Using the third definition of the chicken egg, "If only an egg laid by a chicken can be considered a chicken egg", the egg laid by the non-chicken is not considered a chicken egg. 96.235.179.6 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I undid an edit by 196.8.104.37. Aside from being rife with grammatical errors, the whole addition was basically an anti-evolution tirade that would have better been left in the entry for Evolution itself. DarthWoo (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

forest AMM

Perhaps it's only a dream, but could we find a more obnoxious 'diagram'?

PS: I realize this adds nothing, but subracts -- this entire arcticle is seemingly a big joke. It serves to exponentiate confusion.

You're right. I added that picture just because I thought the page looked empty, but an image of this type is not necessary on Wikipedia. The perfect chicken and egg image for the top of the page would just be clip art and wouldn't add significance to the article anyway. For now, I will remove the image. ~Kruck 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the idea of "mutations" is long gone from evolution, Darwin did not know about DNA back then. Nowadays we talk of genetic variations, mistakes in the coding, etc. The whole paragraph is only good for the 1850's wikipedia. I would support any move to rewrite it in modern terms. I hear a scientist discovered the gene that makes the egg shell hard and determined which was first. I will look for a respectable article and add a link.83.40.10.67 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New syntax solution

In the question "Which came first 'the' chicken or 'the' egg" the answer must be the egg. The chicken would lay many eggs, none of which could be referred to as 'The' egg, however the egg it was born from is unique, and therefore is 'The' egg. mavhc 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything this is a syntax argument. However, I disagree. The scope of the question concerns one chicken and one egg. The other chickens and eggs in the world have no significance. It is perfectly correct and sensible to refer to "the chicken" and "the egg." Our opinions are of little significance, however. It is important for this article to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of adding no original research. Credible sources and critiques of positions on the dilemma are to be the sources of Wikipedia's facts. ~Kruck 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, our opinions certainly can matter, but only outside of the context of wikipedia itself, if we do the legwork of becoming source material on the topic. :p Tchalvak (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Langan

Christopher Langan's publication(s) are a source, not a discussion topic under the Responses to the dilemma section. Does anyone disagree? I recommend removing the paragraph about him but citing him as a source. ~Kruck 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• This passage was erroneously moved from the History section. Langan's was the first complete and correct published solution making the passage noteworthy in the history of the problem. I've moved the passage back to that section.

The Phoenix and the Flame

J.. Rowling: Which came first, the Phoenix or the Flame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) The circle of Phoenix and Flame has no beginning and no end, but goes on forever. Erudil 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PatShaw Web page

On Sunday, January 01, 2006, 10:40:56 PM I created the following HTML document, chicken.htm (last updated on Wednesday, October 28, 1998, 7:39:50 PM), on my GTE user site named PatShaw using Microsoft Publisher 97. In the course of changing physical locations and GTE phone numbers and accounts over time the particular account no longer exists but records of its existence may be found through Verizon which I was told had created permanent records.

I was introduced to the question of the Chicken and the egg by a security guard in about 1981 at the airport post office parking area when I went to mail a letter. I have no idea how the question came up or why he posed the question but the effect on me was the challenge to find the answer. My effort resulted in the initial posting of my answer in January, 1996.

Please enjoy:

• Copyright violating content removed by Cycle~ (talk)

${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is itself flawed. What if you have a Creationist that believes that the method/technique used (by the supreme being) for the creation of some of the animals (not all animals) was evolution? (as I do!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This all makes my head spin. All I can remember is what my dad told me: "The Rooster came first." 66.74.15.239 (talk)Lurker —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This question can apply to where humans come from, we are born in a sack of salt water. But what came first the mother or the sack? Evolution shows a line going back to bacteria. At some point a new celled creature was evolved in another celled creature in the ocean.Then the cycle began over eons of time until the chicken evolved.The fish have eggs too and the whole question of their evolution is relevent here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbitat (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

existed but not separated

A new species always didn't appear suddenly. When their quantity remains, the new species already existed. Until the natural or artificial selection, the new species didn't separated from the original species. Domestic chicken existed already, but separated when the natural selection. When people cultivated the chickens, they were separated. Thus, chicken comes before the egg. --Kilva (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mutation from birth, but selection from death.--Kilva (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about eating either of them, but it is peripherally about raising them; without agriculture, the problem would not have arisen, been noticed, or solved. --Yamara ✉ 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See also... Gödel's incompleteness theorems??

Under the See Also section, one of the items listed is 'Gödel's incompleteness theorems', described as 'mathematical proofs which show the existence of such paradoxes in every consistent logical system'. That's just plain wrong. Gödel's theorems have nothing to do with the kind of paradoxes presented in the article. Besides, they are not even true of 'every consistent logical system'. Perhaps a link to Tarski's theorem (undefinability of the truth predicate) or the liar paradox would be more appropriate. I strongly suggest the removal of the link to Gödel's theorems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.1.59 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference 2, 3 and 4 doesn't check out. Reference 2 is a link to a thesophical work that mentions Aritstotle for some other purpose, and it says nothing about chickens, and there is no quote from Aristotle either. The only valid quote ought to be from his own works.

Reference 3 does link to a work from Plutarch, but I find no reference to the words chicken or Sulla, maybe the reference only needs a pagelink.

Reference 4 links to a trivia book about chickens and not directly to the works of Macrobius, which it should.

Reference 5 is a broken link

Reference 6 does the job and links to an article about the "The Chicken and the Egg" problem

Clearly this article needs some cleaining up. I'm not sure how to proceed though, and wonder if anybody have some advice.

Yours truly Galagad (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

I trimmed this section down since most of the entries were exactly the same (up to isomorphism). I propose deleting the section altogether, as I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the article.Christopher Brooks (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect by arguing this point but, can you out argue the previous piece of logic which clearly answers the riddle ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.72.96 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

New discovery unveiled this puzzle?

Has this article been up to date? I understand scientists have almost unveiled this puzzle, see here, sounds already updated.--Email4mobile (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with this

The recent discovery says the chicken came first due to the ovocledidin-17, but why didn't the ancestor of the chicken have ovocledisin-17 protein?Surely,there could have been a mutation in said ancestor to give it the ovocledidin-17?Streona (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens." While I have to agree that this statement is the most factually and scientifically accurate, how does this stand on the grounds of neutrality? Anyone (mostly) who believes in evolution would agree that this statement is overwhelming truthful, but what of the non-evolutionists that believe in theories such as creationism? The article does make mention of them, but the statement comes at such an early part in the article before any of that is even mentioned, and claims a sense of certainty. So should we amend this or no? -Cam^T|C 12:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)