Very good analogy, and I see your point, but the distinction between chicken and not chicken is not synonomous with species A and species B. As you mention the closest solution was were the distinction comes when the chicken has evolved to a state where enough of it's characteristics are recognizably chickenlike, thus the egg would come first. I support this.
This is because although the chicken could mate with it's parents, we have drawn the line as it's parents not being recognizably chickens.
@TheAtheologian I understand what you're saying but the key phrase to pay attention to in your comment is, "...we have (to) drawn the line..."
My response is, no we don't. WE put things into categories and evolution does not. If nomenclature trumps the actual scientific theory of evolution what you're saying is true.
Personally I think that's a rather ridiculous idea since modern nomenclature is based on evolution hence the reason birds are now a group of Reptilia.
@themanofearth Well, I agree that evolution would trump this, but the thing is we still distinguish between species when viewing evolutionary history. In reality, there is no point where the fish stops being a fish, as every single offspring is still the same species as it's parent. So when we are drawing a line between species, then we would have to "make up" a point where the chicken starts being a chicken. And in which case the first is an egg to hatch the first being we would name a chicken.
@TheAtheologian I hate having to repeat myself but it seams that I'm doomed to do so because here we go again with "...we still distinguish between species..." and "...we would have to 'make up' a point..."
IF the naming of animals trumps the actual physical phenomena of evolution then you are correct. If it does not (which you have stated as much) then - by default - saying that the egg came first is wrong.
Check your self-contradiction & cognitive dissonance at the door please.
@themanofearth I hate to nag, but that's not the point I'm trying to argue. Yes evolution wins.
However, I think the question itself refers to the naming phenomena rather than the actual physical effect of evolution. It's about definitions, and when we define things (as the paradox itself is A causes B and B causes A, which came first).
So, in effect, the naming supercedes the evolution, because this is a question about the defined chicken.
@TheAtheologian I did and still do see the point you're attempting to argue but I think you're missing the point that I'm making completely. A does not cause B any more than B causes A, BECAUSE of the theory of evolution: The paradox does not exist for there to BE an answer.
IMO, the "egg" is a simplified answer to a very stupid question for those who cant take the fact that this chicken/egg question has no answer. way to make it a little more complicated!!!
@Piromonkey313 If you have $25 and about an hour you can make one. That's what I did. Sold it to charity a little while ago and haven't decided to make another one.
See my video:
God: That was Easy
for the first appearance of the button. I've been told it's a hoot. :-P
@thebattle4everything "...if you follow this logic back the smallest microorganism and the modern day chicken (each links in your chain) would both be considered chickens." How very astute of you except as I stated IN THE VIDEO we place things into categories artificially which is the reason that the "chicken and the egg" problem isn't a problem so... saying we could consider them both chickens... is kinda retarded.
@thebattle4everything You're either trolling or you should really pat attention to details. ALL of your objection here are straw men because you've completely ignored the context of the video itself in addressing the chicken and the egg "problem". The only definition of species that applies to this supposed conundrum is the one I've put forward unless you bring in other species that reproduce in different ways (e.g. humans, bacteria, fungi, etc.) which you have.
@thebattle4everything I see what you're saying but I wasn't applying it in that way. I wasn't using the chain as a metaphor for evolution I WAS actually using the chain itself (a physical chain) to ask how do you separate links in a chain and still call it a chain.
I'm not being disingenuous just not specific enough apparently. Do you have a tongue ring? Have you preformed cunnilingus on a woman with it? I'm going to assume not otherwise you called yourself "douchey" your first post.
@thebattle4everything It's funny that you think that THAT was what I was considering an insult, the fact that you're gay has little to do our conversation, if you were better at reading into the context of things you would have realized I never assumed you were straight and two chain links, linked together is something other than a chain because...?
@thebattle4everything You're the one with a video of half-naked, well muscled men so you tell me what should and should not be liked about that. As far as fellating you (what a big word by the way, good for you) the piercing makes for much better use in cunnilingus and if you'd ever been with a woman I'm sure you'd see how that could be the case. Your "one last thing," coming from you (smirk) as pitiful and meaningless as your snatching at making an insult in your first comment. X-D
@thebattle4everything Thanks for the compliment. As for the rest of it, (*smirk) having my tongue piercing called douchey, being called a bit of a twat and being told I'm not going to pull in many subs doesn't mean much coming from someone with one sub and one video from a WWE match posted with 90 views and 2 "likes".
I've seen I'm subed to both of the users you mention and they're good. Thanks for the recommendation.
I guess that if the atheist answers, "Well, dinosaurs can lay eggs too, and they came before chickens, so therefore the egg came first", then the theist will say "OK, which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" At THAT point, you show them this video and the video that he links to at the end.
Chickens lay amniotic eggs, just like most reptiles( mammals too have an amniotic sack). The amniotic sack allows an egg to survive out of water. Chickens evolved from some other egg laying bird. Eggs came from an ancient animal with specialized spores that were later utilized in sexual reproduction.
For even more fun go to this web site: gudmail.blogspot.com/2007/12/egg-evolution.html
There is an answer actually. I'm gonna put it as simple as I can. Before the chicken there was a dinosaur. But! The dinosaur came from an egg too. Still, the answer is the dinosaur because the first dinosaur(or whatever lead to dinosaurs)did not give birth to baby dinos from an egg, but then a mutation happened and one dinosaur gave birth to an egg. That was a positive mutation and the egg dino had a baby. His baby had a baby(so on).This is the short, simple description of evolution for dummies,
@HyperDarkness91 Same as the egg, a positive mutation, or, evolution. You might ask how did the first being on earth come.. And my answer is evolution again. The whole universe is evolution actually. Everything is moving, the universe is getting more advanced every second. Nobody knows why it is like this, but its just the way it is.
@HyperDarkness91 that's abiogenesis, and there's diferent theories. I think some massive dose of radiation bombarded the primordial soup. Plenty of radiation in space, probably an asteroid. Or a giant space egg.
Oh, I get it now! The reason it was so funny is because there is no answer! So, it's okay for you to say I have to deny human reasoning by believing in God. But I can't say you deny human reasoning by believing in evolution? So...your telling me neither the Chicken or the Egg came first? But you didn't say they came at the same time either so, neither came first, they just exist. Right? No beginning? Or are you saying you have no answer?
@Lastdarkwolf What? No. The question is wrong as a question. It's as if you asked "how many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?" and answered by saying "fish." the question has now answer because it's a retarded question.
@themanofearth Yes but that is your opinion. Lets pretend, for a moment that there is no God. We are just here. We were not created, we just evolved. For me to ask the "Chicken or Egg?" question and for you to label it a retarded question implies that I'm retarded for asking the question. So, are you saying that I'm a retard? Also, you didn't answer my other question. Do you believe I have to deny human reasoning to believe in God?
@Lastdarkwolf Again. No. Ignorance does not a retard make. The Chicken or the egg question makes no sense as an insolvable conundrum if the question is which came first chickenS or eggS. even a brain dead creationist knows what we will answer if that is the question. The definition of species is what they don't understand and That's what makes the question itself completely useless and funny.
@Lastdarkwolf "Do you believe I have to deny human reasoning to believe in God?" Well... I've not seen any evidence to make me believe in a god one way or the other (+ or - so i'm agnostic) and the ONLY argument that has any hope is the argument from ignorance that we don't know where the universe came from (i.e. the cosmological argument) and that's not an argument for the existence of God it's an argument for the existence of "god." i.e. Whatever began the universe is called god.
If you're gonna insult me in a video at least have the balls PM me about it. My answer still stands. Just saying it's stupid while having a stupid smug smile means shit. It just proves you're a childish dick and can't refute it. And your pseudo-philosophical non-answer was pretty lame to say the least. But whatever makes you feel important.
@SmoothInstigator I sent you the video the day I made it the instant it uploaded. along with the other users I mentioned in the video. I am correct according to the two evolutionary biologists I know. So...
@themanofearth (1) You didn't send me shit. And BTW... The question was about the chicken and the egg, not the chicken and the CHICKEN egg. So congrats on "tackling" an imaginary question. And what kinda people are in the habbit of "tackling" imaginary questions? Ah yes... Creationists.
@SmoothInstigator Ok... I'm gonna say this for the last time to the last person. The question "Which came first the Chicken or the egg?" in reference to the which came first the species we call chickens or the first egg of any species makes no sense as an unanswerable question to a person who accepts evolution even in the mind of a brain dead creationist. Even they know what the answer will be should they ask basically "Which came first chickens or eggs?" Therefor... (pause for revelation)
@SmoothInstigator The question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" only makes sense as a paradoxical unanswerable question if it is actually referencing the chicken egg in the question.
@SmoothInstigator As far as not sending you the video I've been proven wrong and I apologize. It was not my intention to not send you the video. I found the message I did send and I had typed your username in misspelled when I sent it to the other ppl I referenced in the video. Again I apologize for any wrong that you feel I've done you.
@themanofearth (2) And like I said before, saying something is stupid and then just look like a retard into the camera doesn't refute anything. But judging how humble you were towards Coughlan proves you're a fucking coward who only feels like a big man when he's dealing with a smaller channel. So you're still the child and I'm affraid that won't change. Have a nice life you fuckwit.
@SmoothInstigator As far as this comment is concerned. I didn't pick on you because you're a smaller channel. Quite the opposite. You were the largest subscribed channel I could find that might respond to a video that referenced them who had assessed the question incorrectly. I don't give a damn how many subs you have. I'll treat you with whatever respect I think you deserve and judging from your banter and level of discourse I've been extremely generous. Get back to me after your suspension.
It depends on the situation. Does he mean specifically a domestic chicken, a chicken's egg, a general egg, wild chickens, birds in general, animals in general, the egg of a live bearing animal, life in general? Then you have to decide whether or not he means the egg separate from the chick developing inside of it.
If it is unanswerable, it's because he's put absolutely no specificity in it at all. Generally speaking though, fish were laying eggs long before chickens ever eggsisted.
Good answer, I thought that "the egg." is a over simplified but decent answer, but you are right, you can't be a chicken and not a chicken at the same time.
In defense of any responses, the question is one that, at first appears to have an easy answer. The egg. No further thought neccesary. After all, the creationist argue that atheists can't give an answer, and with barely any effort, one can be provided. Therefore, most people don't bother with any more though, I didn't at first either.
Alternatively, one could take a more absolutist route, that would make the egg the answer, but that would be hard for me to defend in half a comment section.
I would defend my answer by pointing out that while it is impossible to define at what specific point in the lineage something became what we would consider a chicken, something we would clearly define as an egg already existed. So, even if we said "this specific organism was the first that met our definition of a chicken", it came from an egg. Of course, that organism would necessarily be the same species as its parent, which is why making such a distinction is moronic.
If I then move forwards towards the present I will reach a very real instant of time which sees the hatching of a chicken which is the first ancestor that is able to reproduce successfully with at least one modern chicken. This is what I call the first chicken and it emerged from the first chicken egg. The egg came first.
@thebitsinlittlepots The problem with that (and I've raised it with many others) is that you could call that "first" chicken a chicken but then the fact that it can breed with it's parents and produce fertile offspring makes it parents of the same species making those animals technically chickens. And so on, and so on, and so on. The egg did not come first and neither did the chicken unless you want to call the first living thing a chicken.
I could travel back in time in my imagination to a day on which no modern chicken is able to successfully reproduce with any of their ancestors that strut around in the world outside my time machine.
i would caution you to look a little closer at your definition of species. As one could accept your definition and come to your conclusion regarding the chicken/egg question, one could just as well accept another one.
We could establish by consensus or by democratic vote, which animal was the first chicken, and thus the egg would have came first.
Indeed regarding the word "species", since we don't really know what it means, questions such as that are irrelevant.
@De4sher Well "MY" definition of species that reproduce sexually IS the "democratic" (i.e. scientifically accepted) definition of species so... We DO know the word "species" means. It's only in the face of evolutionary theory that that definition breaks down. We only put species into the objectively defined groups that we do in order to differentiate between different animals/groups in the evolutionary tree easily. An organism's scientific name is more of a designation code than a proper name.
Of course, your definition is one of the most widely accepted by the science community, i trust you know its problems. Those consist mainly of the analysis of infertile individuals, and the posibility of 2 unrelated species to reproduce ( i don't know of any cases, but there of course may be). Also, there's the "superspecies" issue.
Your argument is extremely interesting, but then if you get an infertile chicken, what species would it belong to?
@De4sher That would depend on the reason for it's infertility. If it were infertile for the same reason that a Mule or a "Liger" we would simply call it an infertile hybrid. If it were infertile for the same reason that domesticated turkeys or some domesticated chickens are infertile we'd have to move to a modified definition of species because they wouldn't be able to reproduce sexually under natural conditions and if it were infertile from a mutation/deformation we would say just that.
If we regard a species by the boundaries of its reproductive environment (even looking back in time), then the chickens today definitely had at some point an ancestor which they couldn't reproduce with. It is at that point where you can say "the egg came first".
Of course, if you extend the species back as a link in a reproductive chain, then the concept of species itself becomes useless, because at no point could one find a creature that couldn't reproduce with its parents.
@De4sher I suppose however the definition of the "first" chicken remains fuzzy with that is with genetic variation being what it is you would literally have to find the "perfect" chicken i.e. "The essence of chickeness," in order to say that there was a first chicken and so the egg may or may not have come first because multiple generations of chickens exist at a single time who's to say that one chicken is more/less evolved than the other and could only breed with a single "first" chicken?
I guess that for every chicken you could find the "first ancestor chicken", which it could reproduce with, and thus the "first ancestor egg".
These reproducible ancestors of our today's chickens may or may not come from only one clearly identifiable specimen.
This ultimately however is too funny of an answer.
However when viewed from an individual animal's perspective, rather than that of the less clearly defined "species", the question is at least answerable.
Well considering that the egg itself is a cell, then the first egg comes from the first two cells to combine DNA (or possibly RNA) with each other and then split into two new cells.
themanofearth, I couldn't agree with you more. When watching your other video regarding the two Christian asshats putting forth the question, I couldn't help but facepalm and think to the fundies "You're not asking the right questions." It would be like asking "What is the melting point of 7?" The answer is not "We don't know" because the question in and of itself is flawed.
Of course its a bit retarded to ask questions like which come first - baby or the adult, but we do not have to assume that such question to mean something else.
I would think it's human nature to inutitively imagine that there must be a binary answer. I think you are a bit tough on free thinkers and creationists.
The question creates a what sounds like a true dichotomy. It's a mental trap that most of us fall into (myself included).
@awatson945 I agree that I was/am a bit tough on everyone but to be honest unless you verbally slap people sometimes the actual argument falls on deaf ears.
I don't want to truly upset anyone simply perturbe people enough to get them to shift their thinking.
What a stupid semantic argument. Eggs were around long before chickens, Other didn't say "chicken's egg" so you've added bullshit to make a pointless argument.
What is stupid about your argument is that you think people don't know there's a chain because they answered "the egg." All the evolutionary answers imply that chain.
You are just semantically wrong.
"The egg" means the concept of eggs generally, so eggs were first. That is the semantically correct answer.
@zarkoff45 ...Sorry, I'm having something of a deja vu moment here... Didn't I just respond to that idea with "So you didn't watch the entire video with my response to that semantics argument..."?
@zarkoff45 Ummm... I was quoting the previous comment I made almost 23 hours before making this one...
Look you're contending that the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" implies that the question is "Which came first chickenS or eggS?"
The reason that makes no sense is that the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" is poses as a conundrum. If the question were, "Which came first chickenS or eggS?" it wouldn't make ANY sense as a conundrum even to the creationist.
@zarkoff45 Well no. See again the reason a creationist would be so pleased with him/herself for knowing the answer to the question is BECAUSE it's posed as a conundrum and they can "solve it."
You're now confusing the ANSWER that a creationist would give to the question posed AS the vein/mode in which the question was asked.
"a creationist would be so pleased with him/herself for knowing the answer to the question is BECAUSE it's posed as a conundrum and they can 'solve it.'"
Yep, and they don't think an evolutionist can solve it, but we can. The egg came first.
You just mucked it up with pointless crap Other could never comprehend and claimed it was a conundrum when it is not.
You have made the point that creationist was trying to make. The word "egg" is ambiguous. Does it mean any egg or a specific kind of egg? By your definition of species, we are all the same species because every offspring would be potentially able to reproduce with one parent or the other since sex evolved.
The idea of species was conceived under the mindset that Biblical kinds were clearly separate. Species boundaries are actually rather fuzzy.
@8WholeThing Well I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. Creationists aren't trying to make the point that the word egg is ambiguous I don't think they realize that it is and when they reach the conclusion that we're all long lost cousins of every living thing on the planet they hit a firewall called religion and assume atheists are on the other side feeling some form of panic because they don't have the solid grounding of religion to prop them up when they hit the same wall.
I believe I made that point in my comment. Which came first the chicken or the "chicken" egg? The answer is neither, eggs came before what we regard as chickens because they have been part of a method of reproduction since some of the very earliest creatures to exist.
I don't think everyone was just jumping the opposite way to the christians just because they were christians. If you ask in a closed system (with a poofed in chicken or egg) no one could know but species change so we do.
I think there's confusion because the question should read, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg of a chicken?" Which would make MORE sense that it is neither because you can't have the egg of a chicken without there first being a chicken and you can't have the chicken without the egg of a chicken or whatever "fuzzy logic" subset it may have first been a part of.
@ContinuumXT They were following anyone with an answer. NO ONE I've seen yet thought about or had a handle on evolutionary theory enough to apply it to that question. It irked me...
Probably because i'm nucking futs. That's what I get for being raised on a farm by a teacher. :-P
@themanofearth Still a good video. I used to think I solved this mystery as well by saying that at one instance a non chicken made an egg that was chicken. So it's to have finally rethought, shifting the problem again to the definition.
Hehehe, everybody's nuts. You can only pretend to be normal. Some of us are even bat-shit crazy.
Yes!!! Alright! I was right. I said neither the chicken or the egg came first. Booyah. I are special cuz I just won on teh internetz.... well, at least I am happy that I could figure the answer out.
@askegg Fairness recognized. Did not want or mean to attack anyone at any point with this video. Only to tap some people (not you) in the back of the head to try to get them to think. :-P
Yup, like I said, depends on how you define chicken and egg. :P
One thing you aren't exactly right on. There was a "first chicken", just as there was a "first human". That is, the first mutations capable of reproducing viable offspring with what we would call chicken/human today. The fact that they would be almost identical to their relatives doesn't change the fact that there existed that animal somewhere in time.
In other words, it isn't a matter of finding "the start of the chain", but how far down the chain you have to go before you can no longer link directly back to the end.
Of course, if we really want to get silly, we'd have to define which chicken EXACTLY do we mean by "today's chicken".. not just which variant, but which individual bird.. lol
@pfarabee The only way to determine the first "human" is by taking a "modern" example of a human and going back in time and breeding with "humans" down the line until we don't get fertile offspring same with chickens. Even that doesn't answer the question (chicken vs egg) and I'm sorry calling ourselves the essence of human by which all humanness is measured even if we are human is kinda well... arrogant because what makes that "first" human any less human than his/her mother and/or father?
@themanofearth But it does answer the question, Adam, provided you define "chicken egg" That is to say, if you accept that it would be theoretically possible to take a modern example of "chicken" and go back down the line until you find the "first" bird capable of reproducing fertile offspring with it, then the egg that bird was hatched from is technically the first chicken egg, unless we exclude it because it wasn't technically laid by a chicken.
@pfarabee But I do agree with you, most people think that you have an ape man and then one day out pops a human. Doesn't work like that. The first creature that would be classifiable as human or chicken by such a "fertile offspring" test would be almost identical to their parents, save for whatever MINOR genetic difference made them able to reproduce with modern humans while their parents could not.
@pfarabee That's kinda my point though... We have to include it. Even by that method (time traveling chicken breeder) the "first" chicken would still be able to produce fertile offspring with it's parent making that "first" chicken's parents by definition; chickens and so on. It's not theoretically possible at this point anyway only conceptually. :-P
@themanofearth Fair enough point, but that's why we would have to define what we mean by chicken ahead of time. If we don't, we end up with something along the lines of "Which came first, the chicken or cellular mitosis"
After all, early asexually reproducing single celled organisms could be chickens if we accept the neverending sliding scale definition... of course that is probably a contributing factor to your bellowing laughter. :)
@pfarabee It definately is a MAJOR contributing factor. :-D What ever we define as a chicken is completely arbitrary and were we able to do the time travel experiment that definition would not hold up to that scrutiny. We can't apply X=Chicken =time travel=> X+Y=fertile offspring therefore X=Y=Chicken because even if Y1=parent of Y and Y1+X does not equal fertile offspring Y+Y1=fertile offspring which means Y=Y1. Therefore since Y=X=Chicken Y1=Y=X=chicken.
The chain is a pretty good way to put it, and the grayscale is even better. I thought of it in terms of the baby and old man- When exactly does the baby turn into an old man? It's a gradual, on-going process, and species work the same way. "Chicken" is a human definition of a general population. But even freethinkers are human, and tend to think in human categories like that, so don't be too hard on us.
@bamboo4tameshigiri Ah so you didn't pay attention to the video and are now proposing that the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" is actually, "Which came first chickenS or eggS?"
I watched the video. This is a question I've thought about for decades. The egg, clearly, came first. I fully understand your point about it being a transitional topic and how- within a given species -neither one came explicitly first. That said, TEAM EGG!
@themanofearth Well, in the strictest terms the ovum is a fundamental component of sexual reproduction. So the 'egg' in the strictest scientific definition is virtually as old as multicellular life. But the entire debate seems to have stumbled into some variation of the 'No True Scotsman' falsity.
@DarkMatter2525 Someone was trying to tell me about the early domestication of chickens and cattle the other day, but I told them I wasn't interested in their cock and bull story.
Cuz the egg is selfish and by the time the chicken is even warmed up, the egg has come, smoked a cigarette, rolled over, and gone to sleep, and the chicken remains unfulfilled. ;)
Very good analogy, and I see your point, but the distinction between chicken and not chicken is not synonomous with species A and species B. As you mention the closest solution was were the distinction comes when the chicken has evolved to a state where enough of it's characteristics are recognizably chickenlike, thus the egg would come first. I support this.
This is because although the chicken could mate with it's parents, we have drawn the line as it's parents not being recognizably chickens.
TheAtheologian 2 months ago
@TheAtheologian I understand what you're saying but the key phrase to pay attention to in your comment is, "...we have (to) drawn the line..."
My response is, no we don't. WE put things into categories and evolution does not. If nomenclature trumps the actual scientific theory of evolution what you're saying is true.
Personally I think that's a rather ridiculous idea since modern nomenclature is based on evolution hence the reason birds are now a group of Reptilia.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth Well, I agree that evolution would trump this, but the thing is we still distinguish between species when viewing evolutionary history. In reality, there is no point where the fish stops being a fish, as every single offspring is still the same species as it's parent. So when we are drawing a line between species, then we would have to "make up" a point where the chicken starts being a chicken. And in which case the first is an egg to hatch the first being we would name a chicken.
TheAtheologian 2 months ago
@TheAtheologian I hate having to repeat myself but it seams that I'm doomed to do so because here we go again with "...we still distinguish between species..." and "...we would have to 'make up' a point..."
IF the naming of animals trumps the actual physical phenomena of evolution then you are correct. If it does not (which you have stated as much) then - by default - saying that the egg came first is wrong.
Check your self-contradiction & cognitive dissonance at the door please.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth I hate to nag, but that's not the point I'm trying to argue. Yes evolution wins.
However, I think the question itself refers to the naming phenomena rather than the actual physical effect of evolution. It's about definitions, and when we define things (as the paradox itself is A causes B and B causes A, which came first).
So, in effect, the naming supercedes the evolution, because this is a question about the defined chicken.
TheAtheologian 2 months ago
@TheAtheologian I did and still do see the point you're attempting to argue but I think you're missing the point that I'm making completely. A does not cause B any more than B causes A, BECAUSE of the theory of evolution: The paradox does not exist for there to BE an answer.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth Well, thanks for the continued responses, but I still can't see exactly how you are right...
But I'll assume that's because I'm ill and incapable of continued thought or memory.
But thanks anyway, I assume I'll try to wrap my head around our differences in a more optimal situation :)
TheAtheologian 2 months ago
@TheAtheologian It's been my pleasure. Truly. Half the reason I maintain this channel is because of invigorating conversations like these.
themanofearth 2 months ago
IMO, the "egg" is a simplified answer to a very stupid question for those who cant take the fact that this chicken/egg question has no answer. way to make it a little more complicated!!!
Bigpussycat5 3 months ago
@Bigpussycat5 Your opinion is noted and wrong. If that was sarcasm, epic fail.
themanofearth 3 months ago
I want your easy button!!!
Piromonkey313 7 months ago
@Piromonkey313 If you have $25 and about an hour you can make one. That's what I did. Sold it to charity a little while ago and haven't decided to make another one.
See my video:
God: That was Easy
for the first appearance of the button. I've been told it's a hoot. :-P
themanofearth 7 months ago
@thebattle4everything LMFAO! "Ham wallet." That's a good one. X-D
themanofearth 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything "...if you follow this logic back the smallest microorganism and the modern day chicken (each links in your chain) would both be considered chickens." How very astute of you except as I stated IN THE VIDEO we place things into categories artificially which is the reason that the "chicken and the egg" problem isn't a problem so... saying we could consider them both chickens... is kinda retarded.
themanofearth 10 months ago
@thebattle4everything You're either trolling or you should really pat attention to details. ALL of your objection here are straw men because you've completely ignored the context of the video itself in addressing the chicken and the egg "problem". The only definition of species that applies to this supposed conundrum is the one I've put forward unless you bring in other species that reproduce in different ways (e.g. humans, bacteria, fungi, etc.) which you have.
themanofearth 10 months ago
@thebattle4everything I see what you're saying but I wasn't applying it in that way. I wasn't using the chain as a metaphor for evolution I WAS actually using the chain itself (a physical chain) to ask how do you separate links in a chain and still call it a chain.
I'm not being disingenuous just not specific enough apparently. Do you have a tongue ring? Have you preformed cunnilingus on a woman with it? I'm going to assume not otherwise you called yourself "douchey" your first post.
adolescent.
themanofearth 10 months ago
@thebattle4everything It's funny that you think that THAT was what I was considering an insult, the fact that you're gay has little to do our conversation, if you were better at reading into the context of things you would have realized I never assumed you were straight and two chain links, linked together is something other than a chain because...?
themanofearth 10 months ago
@thebattle4everything You're the one with a video of half-naked, well muscled men so you tell me what should and should not be liked about that. As far as fellating you (what a big word by the way, good for you) the piercing makes for much better use in cunnilingus and if you'd ever been with a woman I'm sure you'd see how that could be the case. Your "one last thing," coming from you (smirk) as pitiful and meaningless as your snatching at making an insult in your first comment. X-D
themanofearth 10 months ago
@thebattle4everything Thanks for the compliment. As for the rest of it, (*smirk) having my tongue piercing called douchey, being called a bit of a twat and being told I'm not going to pull in many subs doesn't mean much coming from someone with one sub and one video from a WWE match posted with 90 views and 2 "likes".
I've seen I'm subed to both of the users you mention and they're good. Thanks for the recommendation.
themanofearth 10 months ago
I guess that if the atheist answers, "Well, dinosaurs can lay eggs too, and they came before chickens, so therefore the egg came first", then the theist will say "OK, which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" At THAT point, you show them this video and the video that he links to at the end.
progrockcoffee 1 year ago
I heard the pencil sharpener was invented before the pencil.
Al1981X 1 year ago
Well, technically dinosaurs laid eggs millions of years before chickens did. I'd imagine fish eggs were the first eggs; or something like that.
Al1981X 1 year ago
The atheist's nightmate is of course the banana. Snap.
Nocturnalux 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here was my response....
Chickens lay amniotic eggs, just like most reptiles( mammals too have an amniotic sack). The amniotic sack allows an egg to survive out of water. Chickens evolved from some other egg laying bird. Eggs came from an ancient animal with specialized spores that were later utilized in sexual reproduction.
For even more fun go to this web site: gudmail.blogspot.com/2007/12/egg-evolution.html
ailm96094 1 year ago
There is an answer actually. I'm gonna put it as simple as I can. Before the chicken there was a dinosaur. But! The dinosaur came from an egg too. Still, the answer is the dinosaur because the first dinosaur(or whatever lead to dinosaurs)did not give birth to baby dinos from an egg, but then a mutation happened and one dinosaur gave birth to an egg. That was a positive mutation and the egg dino had a baby. His baby had a baby(so on).This is the short, simple description of evolution for dummies,
Zoric150 1 year ago
@Zoric150
Interesting, but I like to learn more from you, it looks like you can make answers to these questions short and simple, Thanks.
But how did the dinosaur come in the first place?
HyperDarkness91 1 year ago
@HyperDarkness91 Same as the egg, a positive mutation, or, evolution. You might ask how did the first being on earth come.. And my answer is evolution again. The whole universe is evolution actually. Everything is moving, the universe is getting more advanced every second. Nobody knows why it is like this, but its just the way it is.
Zoric150 1 year ago
@Zoric150
OK, thanks ^_^ !
Now can you please tell me how evolution started?
HyperDarkness91 1 year ago
@HyperDarkness91 that's abiogenesis, and there's diferent theories. I think some massive dose of radiation bombarded the primordial soup. Plenty of radiation in space, probably an asteroid. Or a giant space egg.
Al1981X 1 year ago
@Zoric150
Just How can evolution happen? While single glass of water cant be spilled over?
HyperDarkness91 1 year ago
Oh, I get it now! The reason it was so funny is because there is no answer! So, it's okay for you to say I have to deny human reasoning by believing in God. But I can't say you deny human reasoning by believing in evolution? So...your telling me neither the Chicken or the Egg came first? But you didn't say they came at the same time either so, neither came first, they just exist. Right? No beginning? Or are you saying you have no answer?
Lastdarkwolf 1 year ago
@Lastdarkwolf What? No. The question is wrong as a question. It's as if you asked "how many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?" and answered by saying "fish." the question has now answer because it's a retarded question.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Yes but that is your opinion. Lets pretend, for a moment that there is no God. We are just here. We were not created, we just evolved. For me to ask the "Chicken or Egg?" question and for you to label it a retarded question implies that I'm retarded for asking the question. So, are you saying that I'm a retard? Also, you didn't answer my other question. Do you believe I have to deny human reasoning to believe in God?
Lastdarkwolf 1 year ago
@Lastdarkwolf Again. No. Ignorance does not a retard make. The Chicken or the egg question makes no sense as an insolvable conundrum if the question is which came first chickenS or eggS. even a brain dead creationist knows what we will answer if that is the question. The definition of species is what they don't understand and That's what makes the question itself completely useless and funny.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@Lastdarkwolf "Do you believe I have to deny human reasoning to believe in God?" Well... I've not seen any evidence to make me believe in a god one way or the other (+ or - so i'm agnostic) and the ONLY argument that has any hope is the argument from ignorance that we don't know where the universe came from (i.e. the cosmological argument) and that's not an argument for the existence of God it's an argument for the existence of "god." i.e. Whatever began the universe is called god.
themanofearth 1 year ago
If you're gonna insult me in a video at least have the balls PM me about it. My answer still stands. Just saying it's stupid while having a stupid smug smile means shit. It just proves you're a childish dick and can't refute it. And your pseudo-philosophical non-answer was pretty lame to say the least. But whatever makes you feel important.
SmoothInstigator 1 year ago
@SmoothInstigator I sent you the video the day I made it the instant it uploaded. along with the other users I mentioned in the video. I am correct according to the two evolutionary biologists I know. So...
Yeah. Who's the child now?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth (1) You didn't send me shit. And BTW... The question was about the chicken and the egg, not the chicken and the CHICKEN egg. So congrats on "tackling" an imaginary question. And what kinda people are in the habbit of "tackling" imaginary questions? Ah yes... Creationists.
SmoothInstigator 1 year ago
@SmoothInstigator Ok... I'm gonna say this for the last time to the last person. The question "Which came first the Chicken or the egg?" in reference to the which came first the species we call chickens or the first egg of any species makes no sense as an unanswerable question to a person who accepts evolution even in the mind of a brain dead creationist. Even they know what the answer will be should they ask basically "Which came first chickens or eggs?" Therefor... (pause for revelation)
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth It was the chicken...or...at least the very, very early ancestor of the chicken...by a few billion years. ^_^
GodofCider 1 year ago
@SmoothInstigator The question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" only makes sense as a paradoxical unanswerable question if it is actually referencing the chicken egg in the question.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@SmoothInstigator As far as not sending you the video I've been proven wrong and I apologize. It was not my intention to not send you the video. I found the message I did send and I had typed your username in misspelled when I sent it to the other ppl I referenced in the video. Again I apologize for any wrong that you feel I've done you.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth (2) And like I said before, saying something is stupid and then just look like a retard into the camera doesn't refute anything. But judging how humble you were towards Coughlan proves you're a fucking coward who only feels like a big man when he's dealing with a smaller channel. So you're still the child and I'm affraid that won't change. Have a nice life you fuckwit.
SmoothInstigator 1 year ago
@SmoothInstigator As far as this comment is concerned. I didn't pick on you because you're a smaller channel. Quite the opposite. You were the largest subscribed channel I could find that might respond to a video that referenced them who had assessed the question incorrectly. I don't give a damn how many subs you have. I'll treat you with whatever respect I think you deserve and judging from your banter and level of discourse I've been extremely generous. Get back to me after your suspension.
themanofearth 1 year ago
It depends on the situation. Does he mean specifically a domestic chicken, a chicken's egg, a general egg, wild chickens, birds in general, animals in general, the egg of a live bearing animal, life in general? Then you have to decide whether or not he means the egg separate from the chick developing inside of it.
If it is unanswerable, it's because he's put absolutely no specificity in it at all. Generally speaking though, fish were laying eggs long before chickens ever eggsisted.
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
technically, the amniote would be first, & surely even primitive eggs from early reptiles would qualify as coming prior to modern avian chickens.
agentorange20 1 year ago
Good answer, I thought that "the egg." is a over simplified but decent answer, but you are right, you can't be a chicken and not a chicken at the same time.
DKshad0w 1 year ago
@immattoneil one of my favorite brews. :-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
In defense of any responses, the question is one that, at first appears to have an easy answer. The egg. No further thought neccesary. After all, the creationist argue that atheists can't give an answer, and with barely any effort, one can be provided. Therefore, most people don't bother with any more though, I didn't at first either.
Alternatively, one could take a more absolutist route, that would make the egg the answer, but that would be hard for me to defend in half a comment section.
Sines314 1 year ago
@Sines314 Fair enough...
I've relegated this problem to the category called, "too silly to really worry about at this point" :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
I would defend my answer by pointing out that while it is impossible to define at what specific point in the lineage something became what we would consider a chicken, something we would clearly define as an egg already existed. So, even if we said "this specific organism was the first that met our definition of a chicken", it came from an egg. Of course, that organism would necessarily be the same species as its parent, which is why making such a distinction is moronic.
generaleskimo 1 year ago
I posted the correct answer on his video in the comments: The egg, by 200 million years.
generaleskimo 1 year ago
I think anyone would need a beer for this one.
generaleskimo 1 year ago
Comment removed
thebitsinlittlepots 1 year ago
If I then move forwards towards the present I will reach a very real instant of time which sees the hatching of a chicken which is the first ancestor that is able to reproduce successfully with at least one modern chicken. This is what I call the first chicken and it emerged from the first chicken egg. The egg came first.
thebitsinlittlepots 1 year ago
@thebitsinlittlepots The problem with that (and I've raised it with many others) is that you could call that "first" chicken a chicken but then the fact that it can breed with it's parents and produce fertile offspring makes it parents of the same species making those animals technically chickens. And so on, and so on, and so on. The egg did not come first and neither did the chicken unless you want to call the first living thing a chicken.
themanofearth 1 year ago
I could travel back in time in my imagination to a day on which no modern chicken is able to successfully reproduce with any of their ancestors that strut around in the world outside my time machine.
thebitsinlittlepots 1 year ago
Hold on a moment!
i would caution you to look a little closer at your definition of species. As one could accept your definition and come to your conclusion regarding the chicken/egg question, one could just as well accept another one.
We could establish by consensus or by democratic vote, which animal was the first chicken, and thus the egg would have came first.
Indeed regarding the word "species", since we don't really know what it means, questions such as that are irrelevant.
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher Well "MY" definition of species that reproduce sexually IS the "democratic" (i.e. scientifically accepted) definition of species so... We DO know the word "species" means. It's only in the face of evolutionary theory that that definition breaks down. We only put species into the objectively defined groups that we do in order to differentiate between different animals/groups in the evolutionary tree easily. An organism's scientific name is more of a designation code than a proper name.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
Of course, your definition is one of the most widely accepted by the science community, i trust you know its problems. Those consist mainly of the analysis of infertile individuals, and the posibility of 2 unrelated species to reproduce ( i don't know of any cases, but there of course may be). Also, there's the "superspecies" issue.
Your argument is extremely interesting, but then if you get an infertile chicken, what species would it belong to?
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher That would depend on the reason for it's infertility. If it were infertile for the same reason that a Mule or a "Liger" we would simply call it an infertile hybrid. If it were infertile for the same reason that domesticated turkeys or some domesticated chickens are infertile we'd have to move to a modified definition of species because they wouldn't be able to reproduce sexually under natural conditions and if it were infertile from a mutation/deformation we would say just that.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
If we regard a species by the boundaries of its reproductive environment (even looking back in time), then the chickens today definitely had at some point an ancestor which they couldn't reproduce with. It is at that point where you can say "the egg came first".
Of course, if you extend the species back as a link in a reproductive chain, then the concept of species itself becomes useless, because at no point could one find a creature that couldn't reproduce with its parents.
De4sher 1 year ago
@themanofearth
Therefore the species can only be defined by its reproductive resources at present moment, or else it completely loses its meaning.
And it is for this reason that the egg came first ;)
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher I suppose however the definition of the "first" chicken remains fuzzy with that is with genetic variation being what it is you would literally have to find the "perfect" chicken i.e. "The essence of chickeness," in order to say that there was a first chicken and so the egg may or may not have come first because multiple generations of chickens exist at a single time who's to say that one chicken is more/less evolved than the other and could only breed with a single "first" chicken?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth
I guess that for every chicken you could find the "first ancestor chicken", which it could reproduce with, and thus the "first ancestor egg".
These reproducible ancestors of our today's chickens may or may not come from only one clearly identifiable specimen.
This ultimately however is too funny of an answer.
However when viewed from an individual animal's perspective, rather than that of the less clearly defined "species", the question is at least answerable.
De4sher 1 year ago
@De4sher Agreed.
themanofearth 1 year ago
Which is biggest? The chicken or the turkey?
thebitsinlittlepots 1 year ago
Comment removed
GegoXaren 1 year ago
The egg came first.
Dinosaurs laid eggs. Dinosaurs came before chickens
Xgya2000 1 year ago
I just love your videos
Xgya2000 1 year ago
"Dinosaurs came before chickens"
Yep.
And fish came before dinosaurs and our distant ancestors were egg laying fish also:
watch?v=uAZmLYWEPGk
zarkoff45 1 year ago
wow... good video..
rja125 1 year ago
good vid.
"is the same species" is not a transitive relationship, nor is it well treated as a property of an individual.
jokidder 1 year ago
What ever happened to the banana and peanut butter being the atheist's worst nightmare?!
BeekersSqueakers 1 year ago
1: I thought the chicken had to grow up to become a hen before it could lay eggs. And:
2: What species in history produced the first egg? (This being a serious question.)
skinnyjohnsen 1 year ago
Well considering that the egg itself is a cell, then the first egg comes from the first two cells to combine DNA (or possibly RNA) with each other and then split into two new cells.
BeekersSqueakers 1 year ago
brilliant video. 5*
jihadpizza 1 year ago
themanofearth, I couldn't agree with you more. When watching your other video regarding the two Christian asshats putting forth the question, I couldn't help but facepalm and think to the fundies "You're not asking the right questions." It would be like asking "What is the melting point of 7?" The answer is not "We don't know" because the question in and of itself is flawed.
MagnusIan 1 year ago
@MagnusIan That is a VERY good analogy. I may use it in the future.
themanofearth 1 year ago
I dont see anything wrong with that question.
Of course its a bit retarded to ask questions like which come first - baby or the adult, but we do not have to assume that such question to mean something else.
futureorreligion 1 year ago
I would think it's human nature to inutitively imagine that there must be a binary answer. I think you are a bit tough on free thinkers and creationists.
The question creates a what sounds like a true dichotomy. It's a mental trap that most of us fall into (myself included).
awatson945 1 year ago
@awatson945 I agree that I was/am a bit tough on everyone but to be honest unless you verbally slap people sometimes the actual argument falls on deaf ears.
I don't want to truly upset anyone simply perturbe people enough to get them to shift their thinking.
I love the gadfly annalogy in Plato's Apology.
themanofearth 1 year ago
What a stupid semantic argument. Eggs were around long before chickens, Other didn't say "chicken's egg" so you've added bullshit to make a pointless argument.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 So you didn't watch the entire video with my response to that semantics argument...
themanofearth 1 year ago
What is stupid about your argument is that you think people don't know there's a chain because they answered "the egg." All the evolutionary answers imply that chain.
You are just semantically wrong.
"The egg" means the concept of eggs generally, so eggs were first. That is the semantically correct answer.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 ...Sorry, I'm having something of a deja vu moment here... Didn't I just respond to that idea with "So you didn't watch the entire video with my response to that semantics argument..."?
themanofearth 1 year ago
What are you talking about? I don't even remember hearing you use the word semantic.
Note the time where you use it.
Perhaps there was a lapse in my attention?
What I see wrong is you accusing everyone who answered "the egg" as not seeing the shades of gray because one person flubbed that.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 Ummm... I was quoting the previous comment I made almost 23 hours before making this one...
Look you're contending that the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" implies that the question is "Which came first chickenS or eggS?"
The reason that makes no sense is that the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" is poses as a conundrum. If the question were, "Which came first chickenS or eggS?" it wouldn't make ANY sense as a conundrum even to the creationist.
themanofearth 1 year ago
"If the question were, "Which came first chickenS or eggS?" it wouldn't make ANY sense as a conundrum even to the creationist."
That's where you are wrong. They do think chickenS came first. To them God created the first chicken with no need for an egg.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
@zarkoff45 Well no. See again the reason a creationist would be so pleased with him/herself for knowing the answer to the question is BECAUSE it's posed as a conundrum and they can "solve it."
You're now confusing the ANSWER that a creationist would give to the question posed AS the vein/mode in which the question was asked.
themanofearth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"a creationist would be so pleased with him/herself for knowing the answer to the question is BECAUSE it's posed as a conundrum and they can 'solve it.'"
Yep, and they don't think an evolutionist can solve it, but we can. The egg came first.
You just mucked it up with pointless crap Other could never comprehend and claimed it was a conundrum when it is not.
zarkoff45 1 year ago
Please think of this comment as constructive criticism. I think askegg is pronounced A. Skegg.
cosmos11 1 year ago
:-) Fair enough. Tomato tomato at this point. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
You have made the point that creationist was trying to make. The word "egg" is ambiguous. Does it mean any egg or a specific kind of egg? By your definition of species, we are all the same species because every offspring would be potentially able to reproduce with one parent or the other since sex evolved.
The idea of species was conceived under the mindset that Biblical kinds were clearly separate. Species boundaries are actually rather fuzzy.
8WholeThing 1 year ago
@8WholeThing Well I'm not sure I agree with you on that one. Creationists aren't trying to make the point that the word egg is ambiguous I don't think they realize that it is and when they reach the conclusion that we're all long lost cousins of every living thing on the planet they hit a firewall called religion and assume atheists are on the other side feeling some form of panic because they don't have the solid grounding of religion to prop them up when they hit the same wall.
themanofearth 1 year ago
This was the best response out of all of them.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Good video
looneyboy221133 1 year ago
I believe I made that point in my comment. Which came first the chicken or the "chicken" egg? The answer is neither, eggs came before what we regard as chickens because they have been part of a method of reproduction since some of the very earliest creatures to exist.
I don't think everyone was just jumping the opposite way to the christians just because they were christians. If you ask in a closed system (with a poofed in chicken or egg) no one could know but species change so we do.
KaelHunter 1 year ago
Nuh uh, because you can have one link (or series I should say) come before another. The question would be analogous to "which link came first".
The egg came first, because chickens evolved from egg-laying animals. I bet Aran Ra would say the same thing.
poorkinghaggard 1 year ago
I think there's confusion because the question should read, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg of a chicken?" Which would make MORE sense that it is neither because you can't have the egg of a chicken without there first being a chicken and you can't have the chicken without the egg of a chicken or whatever "fuzzy logic" subset it may have first been a part of.
DonF72 1 year ago
So who we're the freethinkers following?
ContinuumXT 1 year ago
@ContinuumXT They were following anyone with an answer. NO ONE I've seen yet thought about or had a handle on evolutionary theory enough to apply it to that question. It irked me...
Probably because i'm nucking futs. That's what I get for being raised on a farm by a teacher. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Still a good video. I used to think I solved this mystery as well by saying that at one instance a non chicken made an egg that was chicken. So it's to have finally rethought, shifting the problem again to the definition.
Hehehe, everybody's nuts. You can only pretend to be normal. Some of us are even bat-shit crazy.
ContinuumXT 1 year ago
@ContinuumXT I can point to a few on this comment string starting with me. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
Nice video dude
Southwind505 1 year ago
Yes!!! Alright! I was right. I said neither the chicken or the egg came first. Booyah. I are special cuz I just won on teh internetz.... well, at least I am happy that I could figure the answer out.
scott5878 1 year ago
In my defence, I made that video years ago in response another thread. I posted it as a reply because it kind of fit.
Of course you are correct. The problem really is our classification systems.
askegg 1 year ago
@askegg Fairness recognized. Did not want or mean to attack anyone at any point with this video. Only to tap some people (not you) in the back of the head to try to get them to think. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
I still like my answer of Protobionts.
swaltificati 1 year ago
This entire thread is moot! it's obvious that the ROOSTER CAME FIRST!!! MWOOOOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
ThePassiveFist 1 year ago
@ThePassiveFist >>>(insert witty comment about cocks coming first)
scott5878 1 year ago
That was great except for the ShaneDK plug. that guy is a complete asswipe.
CorndogMaker 1 year ago
Why did the egg cross the road?
......because chickens hadn't evolved yet.
(althought who exactly built the road that the egg crossed has yet to be determined, i believe gorilla199 may have some vids about it tho)
philthy122 1 year ago
I like to see somebody who thinks properly along the line of evolution.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
So what if humans have a tendency to put things into nice neat categories. Personally I think that's quite an admirable trait.
And, if we're going to make this neat, we have to agree that it is the egg, because genetic variation occurs at conception.
Don't fight the human condition.
petfoodonly 1 year ago
Yup, like I said, depends on how you define chicken and egg. :P
One thing you aren't exactly right on. There was a "first chicken", just as there was a "first human". That is, the first mutations capable of reproducing viable offspring with what we would call chicken/human today. The fact that they would be almost identical to their relatives doesn't change the fact that there existed that animal somewhere in time.
pfarabee 1 year ago
In other words, it isn't a matter of finding "the start of the chain", but how far down the chain you have to go before you can no longer link directly back to the end.
Of course, if we really want to get silly, we'd have to define which chicken EXACTLY do we mean by "today's chicken".. not just which variant, but which individual bird.. lol
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee The only way to determine the first "human" is by taking a "modern" example of a human and going back in time and breeding with "humans" down the line until we don't get fertile offspring same with chickens. Even that doesn't answer the question (chicken vs egg) and I'm sorry calling ourselves the essence of human by which all humanness is measured even if we are human is kinda well... arrogant because what makes that "first" human any less human than his/her mother and/or father?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth But it does answer the question, Adam, provided you define "chicken egg" That is to say, if you accept that it would be theoretically possible to take a modern example of "chicken" and go back down the line until you find the "first" bird capable of reproducing fertile offspring with it, then the egg that bird was hatched from is technically the first chicken egg, unless we exclude it because it wasn't technically laid by a chicken.
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee But I do agree with you, most people think that you have an ape man and then one day out pops a human. Doesn't work like that. The first creature that would be classifiable as human or chicken by such a "fertile offspring" test would be almost identical to their parents, save for whatever MINOR genetic difference made them able to reproduce with modern humans while their parents could not.
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee That's kinda my point though... We have to include it. Even by that method (time traveling chicken breeder) the "first" chicken would still be able to produce fertile offspring with it's parent making that "first" chicken's parents by definition; chickens and so on. It's not theoretically possible at this point anyway only conceptually. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Fair enough point, but that's why we would have to define what we mean by chicken ahead of time. If we don't, we end up with something along the lines of "Which came first, the chicken or cellular mitosis"
After all, early asexually reproducing single celled organisms could be chickens if we accept the neverending sliding scale definition... of course that is probably a contributing factor to your bellowing laughter. :)
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee It definately is a MAJOR contributing factor. :-D What ever we define as a chicken is completely arbitrary and were we able to do the time travel experiment that definition would not hold up to that scrutiny. We can't apply X=Chicken =time travel=> X+Y=fertile offspring therefore X=Y=Chicken because even if Y1=parent of Y and Y1+X does not equal fertile offspring Y+Y1=fertile offspring which means Y=Y1. Therefore since Y=X=Chicken Y1=Y=X=chicken.
Fucked up algebra. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
Comment removed
wolfwing1 1 year ago
This discussion reminds me of believers in the olden days debating how many angels could fuck on a pin, or something.
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie LMAO!!!
themanofearth 1 year ago
The chain is a pretty good way to put it, and the grayscale is even better. I thought of it in terms of the baby and old man- When exactly does the baby turn into an old man? It's a gradual, on-going process, and species work the same way. "Chicken" is a human definition of a general population. But even freethinkers are human, and tend to think in human categories like that, so don't be too hard on us.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX Hey sometimes we all need a little tap on the back of the head. :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
@GoblinXXX I'm no different.
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth I always say that I am unique in my lack of differences from others. ;)
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
Dude, the egg came first. The egg developed from a single cell organism. The egg is just the product of early sexual reproduction.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri Are you serious?
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Absolutely. Eggs predate chickens by many millennia. Egg > chicken.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri Ah so you didn't pay attention to the video and are now proposing that the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" is actually, "Which came first chickenS or eggS?"
themanofearth 1 year ago
I watched the video. This is a question I've thought about for decades. The egg, clearly, came first. I fully understand your point about it being a transitional topic and how- within a given species -neither one came explicitly first. That said, TEAM EGG!
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri LMAO!!! :-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
@themanofearth Well, in the strictest terms the ovum is a fundamental component of sexual reproduction. So the 'egg' in the strictest scientific definition is virtually as old as multicellular life. But the entire debate seems to have stumbled into some variation of the 'No True Scotsman' falsity.
TheNewRenaissance 1 year ago
@TheNewRenaissance Very true.
themanofearth 1 year ago
"And then God created a hen for the rooster. The hen offered the rooster a piece of the forbidden corn."
Yeah, It's clear why they think there was a "first chicken".
DarkMatter2525 1 year ago 2
@DarkMatter2525 LMAO!
themanofearth 1 year ago
@DarkMatter2525 Someone was trying to tell me about the early domestication of chickens and cattle the other day, but I told them I wasn't interested in their cock and bull story.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
Thank you!!! sheesh...
(I noticed it too)
samuraispacemonkey 1 year ago
@samuraispacemonkey It blew my mind when the first person I saw say it said it and I asked him if he were serious...
I was honestly upset when so many people (lemmings) started going in that direction.
If you say you're a free thinker...
THINK! :-P
themanofearth 1 year ago
Oh, come now...the answer is CLEARLY the egg.
Cuz the egg is selfish and by the time the chicken is even warmed up, the egg has come, smoked a cigarette, rolled over, and gone to sleep, and the chicken remains unfulfilled. ;)
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance LMAO! BD I love you! X-D
themanofearth 1 year ago
*grin* It's my purpose in life to make everybody's day more surreal. :)
BionicDance 1 year ago
@BionicDance And I've not met anyone better at it! :-D
themanofearth 1 year ago