• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t like this because it’s not addressing the actual saying. Obviously the saying is about chicken eggs specifically.

    But I’ve always felt obviously the egg came first. The first chicken was born in an egg, so the egg came first. That egg could have been produced from a creature with a mutation which caused it to produce the first chicken egg when it is not itself the exact same species.

    • Tor@poeng.link
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Obviously the saying is about chicken eggs specifically.

      That egg could have been produced from a creature with a mutation

      So… Not a chicken egg? 🤭

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The newly classified creature didn’t mutate as soon as it hatched, it was a chicken inside the egg the whole time.

        Is it the mom’s egg or the chicken’s egg I guess is the argument you are making. I call it the chicken’s egg. So the egg came first.

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ah, but when that line of tiny change is so arbitrary… Is it a true chicken until it grows up and fulfils its destiny? Is it a chicken based purely on its genetic code, so the egg whence it hatched is a chicken egg; or is it truly a chicken when it becomes a chicken… meh, I write this far and find I still agree with you: even in that case the egg it hatched from becomes a chicken egg by virtue of the chicken it grew into.

      • bob_lemon@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        In other words, the question becomes: “Is an egg defined by the creature that laid it, or the creature that will hatch from it?”

        • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Hatch or grow. Because once you’re asking those questions, is the first chick truly the first chicken?

          “Is a juvenile defined by what it currently is or what it will/might become?” And, “is chicken-ness an innate quality of the animal, or in relation to the animal fulfilling/presenting (or being able to fulfil) some chicken-ness?”

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The thing that defines chicken-ness is crossing the road. So if the egg rolled across the road before hatching does that mean the egg is a chicken egg?

            But of course the chicken must also see the other side of the road. Since it’s impossible for see outside of the egg before hatching it might be the egg lacks sufficient chicken-ness to be considered a chicken egg.

            But once the egg hatches the chicken will see the other side of the road. So if the egg crosses the road and the chicken that hatches from the egg sees the other side of the road, both the egg and chicken must both be considered to be sufficiently chickenly to complete the sequence required to establish the complete chicken.