Theory Of Everything - The Chicken And The Egg Which First?)

The Chicken and the Egg.

Which came first?

If you would like to discuss any of my videos please join me on my new theory of everything (TOE) forums:

http://www.protheory.com (My Website)

http://www.fprotheory.com (My New Forum)


Please don't think me arrogant, I'm just a normal thinker that had an idea one day which turned into Positive Reacting Opposites (Pro Theory).

Please check out my channel and my website if you'd like to get a broader view of me and what I think. I'm a positive and friendly person but at the same time I've got to get some closure on this idea and this is my dilemma. I'm hoping that these videos will help me to explain.

I know it probably seems like a ridiculous idea at first glance, saying three things simultaneously, but when you look deeper into things you will see that it's not quite as ridiculous as it seems. My new forum is a mirror of my website open for complete discussion. YouTube comments and messages don't quite do as good a job as a proper discussion forum. I look forward to hearing from you :)

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• the
• chicken
• and
• egg
• paradox

[protheory]

I know the genetics argument already but thanks for your comment. What I mean is that this is meant to be seen as a paradox, rather than a genetic question. Nonetheless it's interesting to discuss. Peace. Pro.

[56dlp]

I see....so without genetics it would be impossible to rationalize a solution....unless you use Protheory....which considers all possible solutions and concludes that a simultaneous event took place....where the chicken and the egg arrived at the same time....which does not answer the original question...."Which came first?"....but who cares....interresting idea

[protheory]

Yup, something like that. If we're talking on genetics then fair enough, a different answer is needed than the ones I'm giving. I've always seen this question as an opener for debate as you can't 'prove' it either way as it were. For what it's worth I'm up for a discussion on anything really, genetics included, it's all good imo

[protheory]

In fact yes you're correct, without genetics, (i.e. in paradoxical context) it's impossible to rationalise 100% chicken or egg as an answer. Pro theory offers simultaneous events in an attempt to (sort of) rationalise the question, or at least rationalise the theoretical outcome(s) of the question.

[protheory]

Hi pdoeman, thanks for the comment mate. It's just a weird idea I had once and I just couldn't let it go. I've got a forum if you're interested :)

[protheory]

The best way to make yourself laugh is to imagine yourself laughing for absolutely no reason at all, just imagine yourself laughing...

[chrisdarroch]

Chris Langan; famous for his extraordinarily high IQ gives this answer to WHAT CAME FIRST. Contrary to popular belief, this age-old dilemma actually has a very straightforward solution.

[chrisdarroch]

First, you must specify what kind of egg you mean. If you mean any kind of egg, then the egg came first (because chickens were preceded on the evolutionary timeline by, for example, egg-laying fish, insects and dinosaurs). If, on the other hand, you mean a chicken egg, then you must specify whether this means (a) an egg laid by a chicken, (b) an egg containing a chicken, or (c) an egg laid by and containing a chicken.

[chrisdarroch]

In cases (a) and (c), the answer is by definition the chicken (if the answer were the egg, then the egg could not have been laid by a chicken).

In case (b), the usual and most interesting interpretation, the answer is the egg. This is because interspecies mutations separating a new species from its parent species occur in reproductive rather than somatic DNA, i.e. in germ cells rather than body cells.

[chrisdarroch]

(Germ cells include the sperm and egg cells produced in the reproductive tracts of male and female animals respectively.) Since germ cells are merely produced, but not somatically expressed, by the parents of the organism(s) whose biological information they encode, their expression begins in the egg containing the offspring. So the egg contains a chicken, but was not laid by a chicken. (See how easy that was?)

[WopWops]

Chicken

With in a chickens life time its more exposed to life changes than the egg, so as evolution goes the chicken develops more chicken traits which is passed onto the egg...my point is they may evolve into chickens with four legs and the only way to do that is exposure to the environment overtime.

[Simwillb]

You could also ask what came first Egg-istance....(sorry for the pun :P) or a void of emptyness?, but you'll get a leapfroging argument. Fore existance to be there would have to be at one point nothing....fore there to be nothing something must exist, OTHERWISE....nothing would have always been, if you get what i mean. To have something from nothing and vice-verca. but then im MAD :D PEACE, LOVE and some other human emotion.

[duckp86]

The answer to this question basically can be compared to another major question: Is there a god or not?

If you believe in creationism, then it is the chicken.

If you believe in Evolution, its the egg.

You can't answer that question without answering the first.