@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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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!!!
@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
@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 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 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 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 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 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
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
@Bigpussycat5 Your opinion is noted and wrong. If that was sarcasm, epic fail.
themanofearth 3 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