Chicken or egg puzzle and applying intelligence

Im hungry...who wants fried chicken? or scrambled eggs? Ugh the problem continues...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

You may have inspired the answer! When you wake up in the morning, you have egg. For lunch or dinner, you have chicken. So based on The Law of Simplistic Extrapolation (Copyright 2006: Perdition). Eggs must have come before Chickens.

Sweet, and all along I just thought I was being a fatass. Glad to help!

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

As has been pointed out eggs were around a long time before chickens.But if you want a real chicken egg you have to have a chicken to lay it. Anything else would not be a chicken egg.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That was the entire point I was first asking about. Does "chicken egg" rely on what laid it, or what comes out of it. We seem to have a difference of opinion on this. If a chicken comes out of the egg, then there is a very reasonable argument for saying that's a chicken egg.

Yes, however, if you have a chicken, you can continuously use the eggs it lays to feed yourself, but if you eat the chicken, then no more eggs. Therefore, due to Deftil's Law of Negative Retroduction (Copyright: Like 3 or 4 seconds ago) chickens must have come before chicken eggs!

But how can it be a chicken egg if it did not come out of a chicken?It is a something else egg that contained a chicken.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

As was pointed out further up the thread, for the egg to contain a chicken, there must have been a mutation of some sort in the creature laying the egg. For the chicken in the egg to be properly cared for, and able to break free, the conditions inside the egg must be incredibly similar, if not exactly the same as what we call a chicken egg. If we genetically altered an embryo inside a chicken to make it carry and lay an egg for a duck, and from which a duck hatched, would you call that a chicken egg or a duck egg that just happened to come from a chicken?It is entirely reasonable for honest disagreement on this definition. But we need to recognize that however a person decides the definition will necessarily decide the answer to the question of what came first.

This is a question of how change or mutation comes about, for you say: According to you if I understand you correctly, there must have been a kind of a fowl that was changed into a chicken, which chicken then laid the first chicken egg which egg was then hatched by the first chicken-fowl herself into another now a second chicken like the first chicken-fowl.So, the chicken comes first which lays the first chicken egg which the first chicken hatches to be the second chicken.Now, what is the explanation for the change of the fowl from being a fowl generically into a chicken specifically.Yrreg

The mutation in question wouldn't have changed the protochicken into a chicken - the protochicken would have remained exactly the same. The mutation would have to take place in a germ-line cell - either in the egg itself or in the sperm of the rooster. In a way, you could argue that the mutation didn't happen in the protochicken as such, seeing as most of its cells won't contain it.This is all a bit irrelevant though, as there's no single mutation that anyone could point to which caused a chickeniforme to give birth to a chicken. When we come across questions like this that are impossible to clearly answer, it's a sign that the problem lies with our categories and definitions. The concept of a chicken as a discrete thing seperate from it's ancestors doesn't work with a gradual process of continuous change.