victorz comments on But the question is, is a chicken egg an egg containing a chicken or an egg which was laid by a chicken?

But the question is, is a chicken egg an egg containing a chicken or an egg which was laid by a chicken? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 7 months ago by SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com [M] to c/AntiMeme@sopuli.xyz

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

This has always been my argument to this silly question.

Either at some point the last species before the chickens laid an egg and the first chicken crawled out of that egg, or... the chickens used to give birth to live babies but suddenly stopped that and started laying eggs for some reason, which feels far less likely.

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 20 points 7 months ago (6 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Soulg@ani.social 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

It's not even an interpretation thing, that is what the question is actually asking. It's implicitly understood to be about chicken eggs

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

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!

parent

[–] idogoodjob@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

It's one that contains a chicken:

A chocolate egg is an egg that contains chocolate, not one that is laid by chocolate.

QED

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] yobasari@feddit.org 7 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ReplicantBatty@lemmy.one 2 points 7 months ago*

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

parent

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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.

parent

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

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.

😊

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] dontsayaword@piefed.social 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

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?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

But the answer is trivially obvious either way.

"Chicken egg" meaning "egg laid by a chicken": laid by a chicken that came directly from a previous, ancestral species' egg...
"Chicken egg" meaning "an egg containing a chicken": laid by that previous, ancestral species' egg. So one generation before the interpretation in 1).

Trivial. The only issue is your definition of "chicken egg", and the answer flips depending on that. Otherwise perfectly clear to me at least.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

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. 👍

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

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?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

Would you please able to, with less than paragraph-long sentences, explain how this type of thinking helps us or creates a problem for us when answering the question? I'm really struggling to see the relevance of this (what feels like a) philosophical derailment. 🙏

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

I thought you were done with this conversation.

In any case, the answer to your question would appear to be "because that's the thread we've commented on. We chose this life." Sorry to interrupt your prayer.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago*

Oh wow, you kinda turned a little bit passive aggressive here for no reason. Now we're definitely done. Happy new year, bud.

parent

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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.

parent

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

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?

Checkmate Atheists

parent

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

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

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

Or if you’re a young earth creationist, then god created the chicken wholesale

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)

parent

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

In my understanding this question is about the fundamentals of development of life in general, not specifically chicken. But yes, it seems rather trivial to anybody with sufficient education at our current state of scientific progress. Your former option applies specifically to chicken, and the latter applies to life in general, if we assume that division qualifies as giving birth to live babies.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

It definitely is a matter of the fundamentals of development of life and evolution, and the answer follows evolution, which explains it perfectly IMO, within a certain degree of miraculous uncertainty. 😅 Maybe chickens are aliens.

parent