Talk:Chicken or the egg/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Can someone put the information on here that on April 12, they found that a T-rex's bone had similar protein sequences as a chicken bone.

This really doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. --Larry Sanger

I agree that it doesn't look like an encyclopedia article - but the content is certainly interesting and perhaps useful so I think it should stay (in one form or another). --User:SteveBaker.

The reason I put it on here was because I believe that it has become firmly incorporated into the English langauage. - Jamesbrowne

Well, the pseudo-problem, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is a common bit of folk wisdom (or whatever you want to call it). Maybe there should be an article about it. But the current article at The Chicken or the Egg just doesn't look like an encyclopedia article at all--that's my problem. I don't know quite what to do with it. --LMS

There is a joke answer to this famous question: "It's obvious which came first: the rooster." Nsayer 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe start an entry on Folk conundrum / Folk conundrums and make The Chicken or the Egg a sub-page?

Other examples: -fish or cut bait? -sh-- or get off the pot? -sh--, pi--, or go blind?

If there's a known history to it, I think that would definitely give it a push towards being page-worthy. I don't know that the less common interpretation is worth being mentioned, though. --Belltower

I think this belongs on one of the other Wiki Pages, such as WikiQuote, or if they ever make a childrens version of Wikipedia. It's fun to look over every now and then, but I don't think society would be at a loss if this wasn't published on here. --Ghostalker

Why i removed the tables

the poitn where not conceptually paralel enough to break wikipedia standard layout. If this came to print it would mess everything.--Zero00 23:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Am I wrong?

I think the article is great - whether or not it's written like an encyclopedia article or not, it still contains useful and interesting information so is fine with me.

I have a quesiton though -

lets assume that chickens did indeed evolve from red junglefowl. Lets also avoid defining 'a chicken' and 'an egg'. Can't we just say that there was a proto-chicken, an egg and then a chicken (in that order). You don't need to define a chicken as 'something that lays chicken eggs', or define a chicken egg as 'something from which a chicken hatches' - they don't seem to me to be well-defined enough definitions (which is why you get the catch-22 in the first place).

So I say the egg came first. Is there a killer mistake in my logic?

-- You just shift the question to proto-chicken/proto-egg. Did the proto-chicken lay a chicken egg or a proto-chicken egg?

Well, maybe

The difficulty lies not with "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" - but with The first sentence under the caption "Common viewpoint" which narrows the problem by saying:

  "The egg is assumed to be a chicken egg."

So now, we have: "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?" - now you DO have to carefully define what is meant by 'chicken' and 'chicken-egg'...which is why I wrote the "And Another" section which (I believe) resolves the problem even if "the egg" is required to be a chicken egg.

The article should be more encyclopedic

I actually really like this article, but agree that it should be fixed up... The article seems to repeat istelf in a couple places, and it really needs to be written in a more formal style, and with descriptive titles, rather than "and yet another theory". But I feel that the general content is good, and if some references and history of the phrase itself (that being what the article is about!) were added, this article could be quite nicely wikified. Oracleoftruth 15:36, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

List of points

I don't currently have time to completely update the article right now, but, in the interests of getting things more organized and giving others a chance to comment before I re-organize the actual article, I've come up with a better way of sorting and titling most of the points that are mentioned in the article...

-- With no definition, the egg came first - dinosuars laid eggs long before chickens existed.

-- To make the problem work, the "egg" must be considered to be a "chicken egg".

If you define a chicken egg as an egg that contains a chicken, the egg came first.

If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken, the chicken cames first.

-- The paradox can only exist if you define a chicken egg as and egg that both contains and was laid by a chicken.

-- However, in order for the paradox to arise, a "chicken" must also be defined.

The same idea can be applied to the chicken -

If you define a chicken as a creature which lays chicken eggs, the chicken cames first.

If you define a chicken as a creature which hatched from a chicken egg, the egg came first.

-- The paradox arises only if all four of the definitions are applied.

I don't think the article should include the thing about "the chicken came first - in this sentence" because I don't feel it to be a perticularly useful or interesting point...

Thoughts, anyone?Oracleoftruth 15:54, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Changed my stucture somewhat, added new ideas. I think that pretty much covers everything said in the article, only in clearer words... Unless anyone has any comments, I'll start re-organizing the article. Oracleoftruth 02:02, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Changed, reorganized, and maybe even encyclopedized.

So yeah, I went through and changed all that, perhaps it's "clean" now. As the one who did the latest editing, though, I don't presume to be able to judge that. Nevertheless, the usefulness of the article has, I think, been preserved, the whole thing has been organized, and the tone of the article has been made into less of a lengthy (if funny) speech and more of an explanation of the possibilities for logical interpretation and misenterpretation of the phrase. And hopefully it is still funny on its own merit.

And to think that I started out the night reading the article on intelligent design (the philosophy/theology, not a how-to).

Tchalvak

Ok, "encyclopedized" (which I don't even think is a word) was obviously an exaggeration on my part, but I really do think that: A: all these arguments have been made elsewhere before (in a tounge-in-cheek or joking manner, no doubt, but made nonetheless). and B: if we were to make referrences to where these argumented interpretations of the different logical conclusions to the chicken and egg problem occurred, this actually -would- be an encyclopedia article in the end.

Tchalvak 05:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Reedited based on probable wording problems of my own

After seeing the most recent edit of the introductory section, and comparing it with how I worded it originally, I see where the problem was- it was my ambiguous wording of how the discussion itself fits into Plutarch's work, and what I was trying to say about the origin of the problem probably being older even than the Moralia. This led to an inaccurate, but understandable, rewording by the previous contributor. Hopefully this is now more clear.

JosephConklin

Yeah, I see what you were trying to say with it now.

Tchalvak

One interpretation

If the egg is one that came from a chicken AND hatches a chicken, the chicken STILL came first because the egg that the first chicken hatched from was not laid by a chicken. the chicken wins. yay!

As long as we have a definition of a "chicken" that does not refer to a "chicken egg", what is above seems to be correct. I think it should be included in the article.

This section of the article talks about "self-reference" but never explains what definition of "chicken" it's using, so it doesn't make sense.

Required Logical Standpoint

All very well having all the current points but there is one you've missed.

It's an interdependant paradox, one that begs the question of if the anwser 'For either one to exist you must have both' is a valid anwser or if it mearly disregards the logic of the question being asked.

Comments on validity of view point required, which is why I havn't edited it into the article. (plus I can't spell)

What paradox? Presumedly, all objects were created at a certain time, if an object changes into a different object this must have happened at a certain time, and all objects can be classified as chicken (according to whichever definition you prefer), egg (according to whichever definition you prefer), or neither. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 05:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't too clear, we're talking more about object types than singular objects right? so for the type 'egg' you also need a type 'chicken' otherwise either type can't exist.

Improvements

Hey, the article looks a lot better now, yay. ^^ It's still missing references, does anyone know of any books, ect. that disscuss the issue?

--Oracleoftruth 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Easy

The egg came first. How do I know this? Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens were around :p

The egg came first

This question is really as to much... this is like asking why is 1 + 1 = 2 ???

There is no way the chicken came first! ... All Chickens come from Checken eggs(this can be proven by a study) Then were do checkin eggs come from... where ever you want. They can come from chicken, or cloning, or other anumals. How do you get a mule? Answer: a horse and a donky. So you can have some 2 animals mate and lay a egg which happens to become a new species when it learns it can reproduce with out problems.

A joke based on it.

Would including this joke be encyclopedic?

I walk in on a chicken and an egg who have just made love. As I hurry out I hear one say to the other "Well we certinly answered that old question!" Me lkjhgfdsa 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

that's good! maybe a bit rude to be contained in the article!

Solution

It seems a solution has been agreed. You can see the article here. -- ReyBrujo 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "solution"; this is a reiteration one of several old arguments. In essense, it states that the egg and the subsequent chicken have the same genes, and therefore are the same individual. So in the more-or-less gradual evolution of the species, the first individual that meets whatever criteria we may use to distinguish between a hen and its predecessors, would have started out as an egg. But what are these criteria? Is there one individual that was the first one? Does the egg itself satisfy such criteria, or is it the bird that does? I think the argument is nonsense, and probably tongue-in-cheek; the only correct "solution" is that there would be no hen eggs without chickens, and vice versa. PS. I have not read the article, just the ultra-brief summary in the news, so I may be doing it injustice.--Niels Ø 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the last sentence of the CNN article:

The debate, which may come as a relief to those with argumentative relatives, was organized by Disney to promote the release of the film "Chicken Little" on DVD.

The arguments presented in the article is all for the egg, without even a single one discussing the chicken.

Nevertheless, I disagree with Neils' rebuttal (above) though. Neils said: But what are these criteria? Is there one individual that was the first one?. Well, if there is no first chicken, that would logically imply chickens existed for all eternality and also that time stretches infinitely into the past. (Or as an alternative scenario, that as one approaches the beginning of time, the number of chickens increases w/o bound, so that the limit is infinity at beginning of time.) Perhaps something a creationist would agree to, but scientifically both are unsound. As for Neils' rebuttal that 'The only correct "solution" is that there would be no hen eggs without chickens and vice versa' (which doesn't appear to be logically coherent IMHO), that was explicitly explained in the CNN article:

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Of course, admittedly, by this definition the egg has to win, so the argument is somewhat circular.

Anyway, I think the "evolutionary chicken" section of the article already adequately covers the information presented in the CNN article.

24.16.39.33 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is Niels again. I'd like to clarify one thing: When I doubt that there ever was a "first chicken", it does not imply that there have been chickens forever. The species may be well defined today, but at the time where it split from red junglefowl, the lines between them would have been blurred. Any definition of "chicken" by which some individuals in a transistion phase are chicken, and others are not, will be quite arbitrary, and other equally sensible (and equally arbitrary) definitions would draw the line elsewhere. Belonging to a species is not a simple property of an individual; at least by one definition of species, it includes the ability to breed with other members of the same species, so there must be more than one individual before it makes sense. If there was a "first" chicken, I'm pretty sure it in fact was able to (and did!) breed with other individuals that were not chicken (as it was the first), producing offspring of which some (if not all) were chicken. Or something like that. Perhaps, it makes more sense to say that there was a first chicken population, rather than a first individual. My point is that discussing such scenarios is absurd, because changes are more or less gradual. It is an entirely academic discussion, and as such may be fun and entertaining, but not really important. One of the things that make it fun is that the case cannot be closed...--Niels Ø 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a link to Roy Sorensen's 1992 paper in the philosophy journal Mind. It contains precisely the same reasoning as the reasoning contained in the CNN article.

Another perspective

I believe, there is an important point which is being overlooked here, which is revealed by considering the seed-tree parallel. If we instead, ask ourselves the question, which came first, the tree or the seed, the answer is self evident. Clearly the potential of the tree is contained in the seed, and given the right conditions, it matures and grows into a tree and bears fruit. We might gather that the potential of the individual is therefore infinite, just as an enormous amount of energy is borne in a single individual atom. The argument is beside the point, in vain and totally fruitless.

86.42.91.143 12:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) sundaresh

Removed Mergewith

Removed suggestion for { {mergewith|Circular cause and consequence} }; no substantial progress in the discussion in four months, and it seems to stand on its own at least as well as an upturned egg. =) — Abb3w 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not circular logic

The 'chicken and egg' question is not one of circular logic. The question, as it is asked, is ambiguous. "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" does not define well enough what 'egg' means. If 'egg' refers to anything commonly referred to as an 'egg' (such as an unfertilized ovum, a reptile egg, etc) then the egg must come first as the chicken would have hatched from it. If this 'egg' must be a chicken's egg then even further description is needed. If a "chicken's egg" is defined as "an egg laid by a chicken" then, by definition the chicken must come first, but if the definition is "and egg from which a chicken will hatch" then the egg must have come first.

Now I know I should 'be bold' but I'd hate to just sweep away so much hard work. I purpose that something akin to my explanation above be put as the first explanation and the other points be put in a sub-section.

in lighter vein

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
What you ordered first came first.. altleast at restaurant ;) --Sartaj beary 00:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Langan solution

I have tagged some statements that need citations. If none are provided in a couple of days, I shall remove the offending paragraph to keep an otherwise decent article in good shape. Moreover, the PopSci article refered to appears to be a forgery: see this discussion. In all, I really do think that this paragraph is spurious, irrelevant and an exercise in vanity. What does everyone else think? Byrgenwulf 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The POPSCI article is a legitimate source. DrL 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted entire paragraph as vanity: it can be reinstated if proper references are found. The PopSci article is not a legitimate source, as its authenticity is disputed (follow the link above). Byrgenwulf 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT in dispute - "Blaine" made an error. Be responsible and don't perpetuate it. DrL 18:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added citations. The paragraph is not spurious (or offending!). It is, in fact, the first time the question was discussed and answered in this depth in the popular media (or anywhere else), so it is important for the background of this article. The Improper Hamptonian (IH) piece is quite long and almost identical to the piece on the Mega Foundation website and in The Art of Knowing (AOK). DrL 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Added link to the article on chicken or egg that appeared in one of the Mega Foundation journals and later was adapted for IH and included in "The Art of Knowing". It is a good article and people who are researching this question will definitely find this relevant. DrL 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I would say that that paragraph is vanity. If the article were to mention every single person who had ever discussed the chicken or egg problem in print, it would outstrip the 30-odd kb size recommendation by far. As such, I do not see why Langan deserves any more mention than anyone else. Since it appears that the people insisting on his presence here may very well be writing autohagiography, I suggest the paragraph is removed as WP:V. Consider this a "prod". Byrgenwulf 08:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article already contains the major discussions in print and it is not too long. The material is directly related to the topic. Please stop hounding Langan and questioning legitimate entries. DrL 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Isn't it obvious that the chicken came first?

Considering evolution, the chicken would have evolved from another species, meaning that it came from an egg. If 'egg' means chicken egg (which I'm sure it does), then the Chicken came first.

The syntax is an important aspect of the solution. Please sign your posts. DrL 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that this was an argument against athiesm - as one cannot exist without the other, so therefore neither can come into existance unless simultaneous. Which is impossible. Consequently, there is no possibility other than that a superior being (i.e. God) created one or the other. -Yoda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

c'mon. Nobody thought of it before?

what came first? the hen or the egg? The nest...

Is this a joke? The nest doesn't produce anything. Only living matter can procreate other living matter (except if you're an athiest). -Yoda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

what came first? the hen or the egg? the cock!

From a cellular biology point of view this question can be answered quite easily. The egg came first because any female sex cell is called an egg.

What!!!!! and where did the sperm to fertilisize the egg come from??????the chicken!!!!!!!!!!

move to more general, more encyclopedic title

Pleaser list at WP:RM. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've cleaned up the references to make the article appear more encyclopedic and removed the clean-up tag. If more cleanup is needed, please leave a note in this section. --Questia 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)