Talk:Chicken or the egg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive

Previous discussions have been archived. See the navigation link to the right to revisit previous discussions. ~Kruck 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

"According to the theory of evolution, the first modern chicken was the offspring of the last direct ancestor of domestic chickens to not share that classification (likely the Red Junglefowl). Therefore, a non-chicken did, in fact, lay the first chicken egg, i.e., the egg came first."

am i the only one who notices how retarded that is? ok so the modern domestic chicken came from an egg laid by an earlier form of chicken. it's a semantics blunder i guess. but that argument doesn't state anything. the egg did not come first, the egg came from another creature that wasn't genetically identical to the modern domesticated chicken. so if you're willing to go the extra step and admit that, although not genetically identical, the "Red Junglefowl" is still pretty much a chicken, then you're back where you started.68.255.172.238 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of the evolution argument is that evolving birds only change their traits when their DNA mutates from its parents' gametes inside the egg. A bird that is born a Red Junglefowl will never become a chicken in its lifetime. Although the boundary between species may be hard to determine, it doesn't matter where the boundary is as long as you assume there is a boundary. The first chicken was born as a result of a genetic mutation, so the chicken egg came first. Personally, I don't think the analysis of the problem is important for this article anyway. "The chicken or the egg" is a colloquial expression of circular logic, not a scientific mystery. ~Kruck 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many mutations the offspring of a junglefowl had, it's a junglefowl, until selection killed or separated all the other genes. Europeans and Asians were always the same people until they were separated from regions. We didn't get chickens until we separated them from other junglefowls. --Kilva (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and think this needs clarifying in the article. The article makes it sound like it is a mystery85.210.50.176 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the expression itself is a reflection of "a colloquial expression" of circular logic" and all that, it certainly ties into the scientific mystery of how the process of evolution actually works, i.e. the specific mechanism for how you get from not-chicken to chicken. Tchalvak (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this last phrase is biased, because it only works with the second definition of the chicken egg, which was "If only an egg that will hatch into a chicken can be considered a chicken egg". Using the third definition of the chicken egg, "If only an egg laid by a chicken can be considered a chicken egg", the egg laid by the non-chicken is not considered a chicken egg. 96.235.179.6 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I undid an edit by 196.8.104.37. Aside from being rife with grammatical errors, the whole addition was basically an anti-evolution tirade that would have better been left in the entry for Evolution itself. DarthWoo (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

forest AMM

Perhaps it's only a dream, but could we find a more obnoxious 'diagram'?

PS: I realize this adds nothing, but subracts -- this entire arcticle is seemingly a big joke. It serves to exponentiate confusion.

You're right. I added that picture just because I thought the page looked empty, but an image of this type is not necessary on Wikipedia. The perfect chicken and egg image for the top of the page would just be clip art and wouldn't add significance to the article anyway. For now, I will remove the image. ~Kruck 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the idea of "mutations" is long gone from evolution, Darwin did not know about DNA back then. Nowadays we talk of genetic variations, mistakes in the coding, etc. The whole paragraph is only good for the 1850's wikipedia. I would support any move to rewrite it in modern terms. I hear a scientist discovered the gene that makes the egg shell hard and determined which was first. I will look for a respectable article and add a link.83.40.10.67 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid comment removed "the distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid." Minds make distinctions, not history, so therefor a distinction can be made by any rational being at any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.52 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Critics of Evolution would do much better by suggesting that the theory of evolution does not have the same rigour that we see in the "hard" sciences because we have no practical repeatable experiment that can prove the theory wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.52 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the article has the claim: "the real importance of the question has faded since Darwin's On the Origin of Species and the accompanying Theory of Evolution, under which the egg must have come first [citation needed]..." Citation needed, indeed! I am removing the phrase "under which the egg must have come first" 72.182.33.219 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Eric

New syntax solution

In the question "Which came first 'the' chicken or 'the' egg" the answer must be the egg. The chicken would lay many eggs, none of which could be referred to as 'The' egg, however the egg it was born from is unique, and therefore is 'The' egg. mavhc 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything this is a syntax argument. However, I disagree. The scope of the question concerns one chicken and one egg. The other chickens and eggs in the world have no significance. It is perfectly correct and sensible to refer to "the chicken" and "the egg." Our opinions are of little significance, however. It is important for this article to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of adding no original research. Credible sources and critiques of positions on the dilemma are to be the sources of Wikipedia's facts. ~Kruck 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, our opinions certainly can matter, but only outside of the context of wikipedia itself, if we do the legwork of becoming source material on the topic. :p Tchalvak (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Langan

Christopher Langan's publication(s) are a source, not a discussion topic under the Responses to the dilemma section. Does anyone disagree? I recommend removing the paragraph about him but citing him as a source. ~Kruck 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• This passage was erroneously moved from the History section. Langan's was the first complete and correct published solution making the passage noteworthy in the history of the problem. I've moved the passage back to that section.

• I don't understand why Christopher Langan is considered a source at all here (or even Steven Hawking, for that matter). Wouldn't it make more sense to limit "credible sources" from modern times on this issue to biologists? Qed (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

PatShaw Web page

On Sunday, January 01, 2006, 10:40:56 PM I created the following HTML document, chicken.htm (last updated on Wednesday, October 28, 1998, 7:39:50 PM), on my GTE user site named PatShaw using Microsoft Publisher 97. In the course of changing physical locations and GTE phone numbers and accounts over time the particular account no longer exists but records of its existence may be found through Verizon which I was told had created permanent records.

I was introduced to the question of the Chicken and the egg by a security guard in about 1981 at the airport post office parking area when I went to mail a letter. I have no idea how the question came up or why he posed the question but the effect on me was the challenge to find the answer. My effort resulted in the initial posting of my answer in January, 1996.

Please enjoy:

• Copyright violating content removed by Cycle~ (talk)

${\aleph _{0}}^{\aleph _{0}}$ _{(talk) (email)} 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is itself flawed. What if you have a Creationist that believes that the method/technique used (by the supreme being) for the creation of some of the animals (not all animals) was evolution? (as I do!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This all makes my head spin. All I can remember is what my dad told me: "The Rooster came first." 66.74.15.239 (talk)Lurker —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This question can apply to where humans come from, we are born in a sack of salt water. But what came first the mother or the sack? Evolution shows a line going back to bacteria. At some point a new celled creature was evolved in another celled creature in the ocean.Then the cycle began over eons of time until the chicken evolved.The fish have eggs too and the whole question of their evolution is relevent here too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbitat (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

existed but not separated

A new species always didn't appear suddenly. When their quantity remains, the new species already existed. Until the natural or artificial selection, the new species didn't separated from the original species. Domestic chicken existed already, but separated when the natural selection. When people cultivated the chickens, they were separated. Thus, chicken comes before the egg. --Kilva (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mutation from birth, but selection from death.--Kilva (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil Sandage said, "You do understand you used the word 'Domestic' as in Domesticated, for an argument about origins?" N.S. /* Chicken or egg? */ ~ Fish, Insects, and technically even some Plants are born from eggs. ~ Egg came first. ~ Saying all 4 legged dinosaurs are birds is a false statement. Nothing emerged from the sea with just two read legs.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, the oldest fossil record says eggs were first, and the most popular living record also shows eggs exist in more variety than chickens.

If "egg" was more specific, or unique to the chicken, then there would be room for confusion. Because you would say Chicken Egg. However the logic argument is ("Chicken" OR "Egg"). Inclusive of those not missing their heads, the answer will always be egg. The Egg is also both more populace than the chicken, both before, and after, someone noticed the chicken's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.107.228 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about eating either of them, but it is peripherally about raising them; without agriculture, the problem would not have arisen, been noticed, or solved. --Yamara ✉ 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See also... Gödel's incompleteness theorems??

Under the See Also section, one of the items listed is 'Gödel's incompleteness theorems', described as 'mathematical proofs which show the existence of such paradoxes in every consistent logical system'. That's just plain wrong. Gödel's theorems have nothing to do with the kind of paradoxes presented in the article. Besides, they are not even true of 'every consistent logical system'. Perhaps a link to Tarski's theorem (undefinability of the truth predicate) or the liar paradox would be more appropriate. I strongly suggest the removal of the link to Gödel's theorems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.1.59 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference 2, 3 and 4 doesn't check out. Reference 2 is a link to a thesophical work that mentions Aritstotle for some other purpose, and it says nothing about chickens, and there is no quote from Aristotle either. The only valid quote ought to be from his own works.

Reference 3 does link to a work from Plutarch, but I find no reference to the words chicken or Sulla, maybe the reference only needs a pagelink.

Reference 4 links to a trivia book about chickens and not directly to the works of Macrobius, which it should.

Reference 5 is a broken link

Reference 6 does the job and links to an article about the "The Chicken and the Egg" problem

Clearly this article needs some cleaining up. I'm not sure how to proceed though, and wonder if anybody have some advice.

Yours truly Galagad (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

I trimmed this section down since most of the entries were exactly the same (up to isomorphism). I propose deleting the section altogether, as I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the article.Christopher Brooks (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean any disrespect by arguing this point but, can you out argue the previous piece of logic which clearly answers the riddle ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.72.96 (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics Analysis

The answer is: either way is true! The problem with this question is: what is the definition of a chicken or an egg. As science remains silence and noisy at the moment, it is only a human definition from linguistics prospective. Some people think a particular type of birds is tasty, therefore, they call them chickens; or they think these little round things are fine, therefore, eggs. If the theory of evolution is true, that this type of bird indeed evolve to be tasty at particular time, so to be specific, the bird 15% tasty, the round thing 20%, then the bird again 25%, and so on. At a particular moment, say 80%, human suddenly discovers the great taste that they have enjoyed for so long, and decides to give it a name. If we say the bird stage is like the left foot of a runner, the round thing the right, and the name of this specie the finishing line of the race, we can say either the left foot of the runner or the right, or even the head can touch the finishing line first and becomes a bird of great taste and controversy. Maybe at one moment, a small little bird has just hatched from the dark case, gets a cold, mutates, and grows up with better flavor, and is chosen to be honored with the name -- a delicious chicken. (Unsigned)

No, it's much simpler to answer linguistically by scrutinizing the definition of egg, not the definition of chicken. In particular, the answer depends on the answer to the following: Is the species of an egg defined as the species of the creature that hatches from it or as the species of the parent that laid it? Before looking at that, note that the egg in question must be either an egg that hatches into a chicken or an egg that's laid by a chicken, because if it can be another species--fish egg, reptile egg, etc.--that would make the question uninteresting since those species existed before chickens. (Fish eggs came long before chickens.) To clearly rule out the uninteresting species, let's clarify that the real question is, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" There are two definitions of chicken egg to consider: (1) If the species of an egg is defined as the species of the creature that hatches from it, then the first chicken egg was laid by a different species of bird; it hatched into the first chicken and thus, with this definition, the first chicken egg came before the first chicken. (2) If the species of an egg is defined as the species of the parent that laid it, then the egg from which the first chicken hatched was not a chicken egg because it was laid by a different species of bird; thus with this definition the first chicken came before the first chicken egg. In either case, the parent of the first chicken was presumably a bird that closely resembled a chicken, but not close enough that it should be considered a chicken. The first definition is linguistically superior because the second actually has two subcases, one for each of the two parents (rooster and hen), which makes the second definition unnecessarily arbitrary. Thus the best answer is that the chicken egg came before the chicken. SEppley (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with this

The recent discovery says the chicken came first due to the ovocledidin-17, but why didn't the ancestor of the chicken have ovocledisin-17 protein?Surely,there could have been a mutation in said ancestor to give it the ovocledidin-17?Streona (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens." While I have to agree that this statement is the most factually and scientifically accurate, how does this stand on the grounds of neutrality? Anyone (mostly) who believes in evolution would agree that this statement is overwhelming truthful, but what of the non-evolutionists that believe in theories such as creationism? The article does make mention of them, but the statement comes at such an early part in the article before any of that is even mentioned, and claims a sense of certainty. So should we amend this or no? -Cam^T|C 12:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason the page on the Earth doesn't say "however, heliocentric theory is only a theory and some people believe the world is flat and being carried by four giant tortoises". Some theories are so well-supported under the currently available evidence that in any application, they can be taken as fact. 86.166.214.245 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Definitive Answer...

This is easy! The Chicken was first. A chicken can bear an egg. But an egg cannot bear a chicken without fertilization. Dhawo66 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But where would that fertilizing rooster have come from? Chickens and roosters must hatch from eggs; abiogenesis is fiction. So there must have been some predecessor bird that laid the eggs that they hatched from.

That's why it has to be the egg first. Chickens eggs can only produce chickens, but at some point in time immemorial, another bird laid a chicken egg. That would be the evolutionary leap that gave the world the chicken. But that chicken still came from an egg. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Eggs were popular already at the time of dinousaurs, long before chickens came about. 130.235.3.230 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution and Theology

Just wondering, are these the right headings to use? The article seems to suggest that creationism is the theological answer in the same way that evolution is the scientific answer, when in fact many theists accept evolution. I suggest the titles are changed to evolution and creationism, or at least that the theology section mentions that creationism is not the only theistic interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.173.189 (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Could God perhaps have the answer to this pathetic discussions you highly educated people are fighting over???? God made all living things on earth, that included chickens!!! So the chicken came first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.89.227 (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyclical Time

Below some links which support the idea of cyclical view of time. That paragraph was deleted before, when it is fully supported by Dharmic religions. Under this view, there cannot be a "first" chicken or egg, for there is an eternal cyclical pattern with no beginning nor end. "Matter cannot be created neither destroyed, only transformed." (First law of thermodynamics) Cyclical time, follows that law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/time.htm

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

Riveros11 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I think this should be protected for only registered users, as this gets a lot of vandals. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic Analysis

There have been two previous answers on this discussion page which were centered on a linguistic approach. Neither has been very helpful. A quick response: on 'New syntax solution' : There's no emphasis on the word 'the', so 'the chicken' is not to refer to one chicken, but to the chicken as species. on 'Linguistics Analysis' : the naming of a species as 'chicken' is not based on taste. It is not about the historical act of naming the bird, since the bird has existed long before the word for the bird.

To analyse the question "Which came first; the chicken or the egg?" it must first be refined, cause the simple answer, based on science, would be: "The egg, since dinosaur eggs existed long before the chicken." The straightforeward refinement leads to this: "Which came first; the chicken or the chicken egg?"

Suppose a clear enough definition of 'chicken' is given, so that we could precisely say which chicken was the first.

The question now is: Is the first chicken egg, the egg out of which this chicken came, or the first egg that came out of this chicken? Does 'chicken' in 'chicken egg' refer to what the egg came out of, or to what comes out of the egg?

The answer is surprisingly simple: since not all chicken eggs hatch, or are even fertilized, it cannot refer to what comes out of the egg; 'chicken egg' doesn't mean 'egg from which chickens come', since there are eggs from which no chicken comes. So it must mean 'egg which comes from a chicken'.

Since 'chicken egg' means 'egg coming from a chicken' the chicken must have come first.

Still this proof is not rock solid since it is conceivable that there were chickens that didn't lay eggs, but gradually evolved to do so. This is, however, highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.197.236 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps too simple. By deciding that 'egg' has to mean something which can only come from a chicken, and not doing the same for 'chicken', you've really just broken the riddle with new meanings. The obvious intent of the statement is 'Xs which come from Ys or Ys which come from Xs', or any form in which the two have equivalent relationships. Thus to 'refine' it, as you say, in a way which actually preserves the meaning, you ought define the egg as something chickens hatch from, and the chicken as something that lays eggs, which is generally taken for granted. Unless you particularly like your definition of egg, in which case the corresponding definition of chicken is 'bird which comes from chicken egg'. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

History section

The last paragraph confuses me. Why would the question intend the egg to mean an egg in general, rather than a chicken egg specifically? It seems to me that that would defeat the purpose of the debate.RichardGHP (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"sensual reproduction"?

Subheading Science; "The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sensual reproduction." This statement seems to make little sense. I'm assuming somebody put that in there who didn't like such words as "sex" and "sexual". --98.232.209.203 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

Well Dinosaurs laid eggs long before chickens existed. Of course back when this question was posed that information was not common knowledge. Think we should include this in the page? Aperseghin (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And birds descended from reptiles. I've cracked it. Chortle. Lugnuts (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't need to include it here. The section on evolution just talks about at what point can you make the distinction between the parent and descendent as being a different species. Let's assume you call the parent a Zozo and the Zozo lays an egg (it has always layed an egg). Out of the egg comes a chicken. Now, is that egg a Zozo egg or a chicken egg? According to the section, it is a chicken egg and the egg came before the chicken. Personally, I think it is a pointless argument. Evolution states that there is a continuous progression. There is no Zozo or chickens at all. They are animals who are continuously changing over time. There is a "first" at each new generation. Vmelkon (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

naming

the chicken or the egg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.181.41 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Science section, the conclusion should be based on views of both sides

The last paragraph with the conclusion of the Science section:

"A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken—it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first."

The argument leading to this conclusion needs to be tested from the side of the egg:

From the egg's point of view, a chicken is a bird laying eggs that hatch chickens, therefore the so-called "proto-chicken" in the above citation is also a chicken. The argued genetic variation or mutation can just as well have occurred as part of the proto-chicken's emergence.

I propose that the cited conclusion is removed, or the extended argument given here is added to the Science section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasond75 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel it is a bit silly to have a 'scientific resolution' section that entirely misses the point of the question? The question is not specifically about 'the chicken' or 'the egg.' It is about the nature of causality, and how there can be a first cause when the nature of causality is circular. Even if the first egg was laid by a 'proto-chicken' the cycle still continues, it is just mutating along the way. So the scientific 'resolution' is still open all the way back to the Big Bang... 💥 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.198.44 (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Logical argument

I've applied an edit twice and had it removed twice, but I think it's completely valid. Here's the edit:

Logical

A single egg can produce a single chicken. A single chicken born of a single egg cannot produce a fertilized egg, as it has no mate. In this case, the lineage would end. The egg cannot have come first.

On the other hand, a single chicken (presumed to be a hen pregnant with a fertilized egg) can produce a rooster. This would allow for the creation of more chickens...

(In the lemma in which the single chicken is not pregnant with a fertilized egg, no further chickens are produced. Since chickens exist, this can't be the case).

Therefore, the chicken came first.

The first time it was removed, it was because the editor believed it was original research. It's not research at all, but a rational argument.

The second time is was removed, it was because the editor considered it original thought. I'd like to point out that the chicken-and-egg question has been around, according to Wikipedia, for around 2500 years. If my edit is actually an original argument, I think I ought to win a prize. It's not, of course - again, as a purely rational argument about a very simple question, it's far from original.

It is, however, not a previously published argument... not because it's new, or because it isn't valid - but because there is no "Journal of the Chicken and Egg Consortium" that would provide a vehicle for publication.

And one last thing... I didn't make up this argument, I heard it from someone else. When I heard it I thought it was extremely interesting, since I had never considered that there might actually be any kind of supportable answer to such a silly question. Removing this edit deprives readers of the knowledge that there is actually at least rational - not empirical - argument addressing this question.

I'm going to wait for a response to this talk section for a little while, then I'm going to repost my edit. If anyone wants to remove the edit again, please kindly explain your reasoning in reference to this talk entry.

207.223.39.228 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be entirely valid, but that is not justification enough for adding it to the article. So until you get it published somewhere it doesnt belong here. There are philosophical journals that might publish that kind of argument, and until they do it does not exist for wikipedia purposes. Please dont reinsert it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   Wait a minute, you said that it must be a chicken first with a fertilized egg. So who fertilized it? If another chicken did, then your 'first' chicken... is not the first.--173.20.223.216 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Where is the "Chicken" argument?

All the solutions to the dilemma given on the article page are for the egg being first. As the main "Chicken" argument is based in creationism, I can understand wanting to avoid highlighting fringe theories, but *within the scope of this article*, would not creationism have due weight as the main argument for "Chicken"? --96.52.203.161 (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure if that would be a solution or an unresolved conundrum, can you find a reliable published source making the argument you're thinking of? . . dave souza, talk 16:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Only creationist sources actually make the argument, and I was unable to find anything that wasn't creationist presenting the argument itself, so unless a creationist source can be considered reliable, possibly as an authority on itself, then no. --96.52.203.161 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing Talk:Chicken or the egg (new section)

(Kevinjamesjeffers (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC))Greetings. I am 66 years old and for some reason I've not been able to forget this question since I first heard it about 50 years ago. I have read all the theories and 'answers' but they are all way off the mark. I believe in proof is positive, everything else is speculation. I am not a scientist or 'scholar' but I do know the correct answer, and proof to back it up-not just ideas. You're welcome to contact me if you are interested. My answer to my favourite 'riddle' can not be faulted.

Which came first-the chicken or the egg?

Kevinjamesjeffers (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)I have for over 50 years been fascinated by the question of which came first-the chicken or the egg. Now i'mthe only person who knows the answer. What should I do with my answer that can no be refuted?

Make the chicken chase the egg. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

interwiki problem

I can't find how one can edit the interwiki-links without logging in here, so just reporting that the Hungarian link of this article points to a nonsensical page. 80.99.112.200 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits of this day

"However, it is also reasonable to suppose that the egg being referred to is a chicken egg. In that case, it has been argued, from the perspective of the Philosophy of Science, that the answer is unknowable. This result (published under the pseudonymous author name of Joseph Bonilla) appears to be correct although it has not yet been published in a peer review journal. (Christopher Langan has argued that it was the egg that came first under this interpretation, but that interpretation was merely published on his own site, and cannot be considered a peer reviewed publication.) It was subsequently announced that the author behind the paper was the computer scientist and strategy expert Anand Manikutty. The paper (published under the pseudonymous author name of Joseph Bonilla) supersedes the article by Christopher Langan and the comments by Stephen Hawking; thus, it represents an evolution of philosophical thought on this subject, and is the last word on this subject as of today."

This paragraph was removed today, placing it here, out of shear embarrassment for the encyclopedia. This said as a retired professor in the sciences, who has taken and collaborated in teaching courses on the philosophic aspects of science, including related to the origin of life, at premier research universities.

This article is, as stated in the placed tags, has philosophical, historical, and biologic content even poorer than a sixth form student essay, and certainly not approaching encyclopedic. Scholarly attention and quality secondary sources are desperately needed. The current article is paragraph after paragraph of unsourced material (see Scientific resolution and As philosophical dilemma sections). The historical section, while sourced, is only poorly sourced, significantly with primary sources from which editor opinions are being derived, and so this and other sections reflect WP:Original research.

Putting this bluntly: Readers do not care about the opinions of WP editors. Readers do not come here to see piecemeal assembled compilations of stray thoughts, brought to them by editors who are not experts on the subject at hand. They do care about, and come here to seek, the opinions of scholars, gathered from secondary sources whose author's expertise has selected content from primary sources in an informed way, to craft a complete and cohesive scholarly perspective on a subject. Provide the reader with what they want, and deserve, from an encyclopedia.

The paragraph appearing at opening of this Talk section could not wait until historical, philosophical, and specifically trained biological experts arrive. The rest of the article I leave to them. The article should probably be blanked. It is an embarrassment, as it stands, to the encyclopedia.

Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.154.39 (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article is terrible and that reducing it to a stub of a line or too would be preferable to allowing the current state to stand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aristotle

I dont think that the Aristotle quote is genuine. François Fénelon does not give any reference. You can find the quote in other books, but they dont give a reference either. I was searching in the works of Aristotle that could be the origin, but I found nothing. --Math (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Plutarch

"Soon after he proposed that perplexed question, that plague of the inquisitive, Which was first, the bird or the egg?" http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/plutarch-the-morals-vol-3

I could not add citation, because fucking Wikipedia was asking captcha forever.

Mr. Manikutty's result

Mr. Manikutty has produced a new result for the "Chicken or Egg" question. He has already had the paper reviewed, and the paper is in pre-print status. He has linked to a pre-print version of the paper. He and/or one of his associates edited this Wikipedia entry to reflect this new result.

-- note that all these comments are by the James Bonilla intellectual collective, unless otherwise stated --

Update: Houston, we have a problem. The problem is this. The James Bonilla collective made some changes. The problem is that their changes were deleted (or as they say in Wikipedia terms, "reverted back"). Since their changes were reverted back on Wikipedia (that is, they were deleted), and since the reference to Anand's paper has been deleted, Anand has asked the James Bonilla intellectual collective to take up this issue. At this point, the James Bonilla collective is quite surprised. They have a Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/chkoregggodmode. Please see the Twitter feed, which aims to show that this is not the way to attack/contradict the author of a paper, and seems to have done so quite adequately (Update of the update - dated Jan 17 2016: Indeed, it can now be said that the James Bonilla collective has done so quite adequately. Please note a couple of things. First, note that we are not encyclopaedia writers, and have never claimed to be. So, an adequate effort at highlighting the research is sufficient. Second, note that the people posting under the James Bonilla collective for this effort are not professors and, therefore, do not have the aim of primarily expanding the frontiers of knowledge (this primary aim of expanding the frontiers of knowledge is the primary goal of professors in the United States, but it may be more or less strict in other countries. In Australia, for instance professors also are expected to aim towards some vaguely worded thing called the "common good" or something of that nature). So we are well within our rights to act as a private entity furthering our own cause or causes, and not go through the entire journal publication process (which may take a year or two), that is, submit the paper, patiently wait for referee reports and then wait to make editorial changes, and then wait to make revise-and-resubmit changes, et ceteta. We want to get things done much more quickly. A case of enlightened self-interest, if you will, paired with a bias for action and efficiency. Some of the commenters seem to be complaining without meaningfully contributing. Please try to summarize your comments in 140 characters and/or Tweet your comments please. There is just too much back-and-forthing going on and the positive, constructive solution would be to try and be brief in comments. Responding to long Op Eds which go into what one expects, what one's background is, what one's expectations on encyclopedia articles are, what grade level one has taught, et cetera, are great as an academic exercise but hopefully all these thoughts can be captured in fewer words -- a note for the future for commenters. 140 characters is all you need. May the Force be with you!)

The following comments were made available to me (Ed Note: this is Anand's comment) by the James Bonilla collective:

(1) Christopher Langan does not even have a paper. All that was linked to was a HTML page. If Mr. Langan has been cited, how can Mr. Manikutty not be cited? (2) Mr. Manikutty has an actual paper. Why don't the editors read said paper? (3) Why are we linking to Christopher Langan at all when: (a) all he has is a high IQ. Anand Manikutty also has a very high IQ. (b) Langan does not have any published work. Anand Manikutty has tons of published work. Who would you believe - Anand Manikutty, who has published work in multiple areas, or Christopher Langan, who has no published work?

Regardless, none of this can be added without at least one reliable third party source to back it up. The reason your previous edits were reverted is because you only provided a citation that was from an obscure, questionable source. DarkKnight2149 02:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to DarkKnight: What is Langan's third party source? And James Bonilla IS a third party source. Now, we are confused. Who is and who is not a reliable third party source? As we mentioned in some of the comments, Anand Manikutty is discussing some issues on Indology with Prof. Wendy Doniger. Prof. Wendy Doniger is past President of AAR. Is she a sufficiently reliable third party source? Anand is planning to e-mail her about this issue.

Further response to DarkKnight: Btw, I don't know if you know this, but SSRN is a repository for papers. It is not "an obscure, questionable source", but I get your point. Anand will email Wendy Doniger. We will get back to you. In regards to this matter, Anand has simply said: "DarkKnight, I totally understand where you are coming from. Let me think about this."

If you are confused on the matter, Wikipedia's guidelines may help you when determining what sources can be used. Here are a few:

• WP:CS
• WP:RS
• WP:3PARTY
• WP:EDITWARRING
• WP:TP
• WP:V
• WP:VNT

DarkKnight2149 02:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Further response to DarkKnight: I am glad we had this chat. Anand has made the following further statements: "DarkKnight, your concerns are reasonable. James Bonilla is an intellectual collective that is, in some ways, affiliated with me, and is something I am affiliated with. That may not be reliable enough. Fair point. We will get back to you regarding a reliable third-party source." Sounds like even a blog post by an independent, third-party source, say, an academic, may be enough. Is this correct? We are thinking blog post by a tenured Professor -- something like that.

Blogs usually aren't considered reliable since almost anyone can start a blog. Since you seem to be new to Wikipedia, I'd recommend visiting Wikipedia's Teahouse. That's where new users can go to ask questions and get accustomed to the site. DarkKnight2149 03:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Further response to DarkKnight: yes, some of the members of the James Bonilla collective are new to Wikipedia. Thank you for the links and comments. These are very useful. Please note that all the comments in this section are by the James Bonilla collective. Yes, it is true that anyone can started a blog. But if a tenured Professor, such as Wendy Doniger or, as is more likely, someone else, is willing to stand by the paper, then that sounds like a reasonable third party source. Why would a tenured Professor put their reputation on the line? We do see what you mean, but the same criteria applied to Christopher Langan are not being applied here. You should do one of two things: (a) remove the Langan citation; or (b) add Mr. Manikutty's result as a provisional result. How is Langan's HTML page a reliable, third-party source?

You are correct that it is not reliable at all, which is why there was a "Better source needed template" right next to it. You have to understand that so many people edit Wikipedia and there are so many pages to watch that citations and uncited information sometimes slip through. This article in particular is not well written or cited at all. I recently had to go through and remove massive amounts of original resource and unsourced material myself. [1] [2] [3] DarkKnight2149 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Further response to DarkKnight:: Why even add it as a provisional result? Add it as a pre-print result and say that it is a paper that is in pre-print status. Btw, I don't know if you know, but Mr. Manikutty is the one who has the actual paper. Langan has nothing. Mr. Manikutty is the one who has contributed to a textbook that is considered a bit of a classic in the field of Strategic Management. Not Mr. Langan. We are saying that the SSRN paper together with a review by an academic who signs off on it and says- "yes, this paper's result is correct" should be sufficient to be considered a reliable, third-party source. The only reason we think that doing that loop should work is because the argument in the paper is pretty simple. When I have some time, I will post the entire argument. Even you would be able to see the logic and see why it is a new result. If you are worried about precedent, Wikipedia has plenty of pre-print papers that have been cited. This includes a very famous recent one for the solution of the ABC conjecture. The mathematician who claims to have proven it is Shinichi Mochizuki, but his paper is in arxiv, not in a journal.

Our policies require published sources. "Pre-print" means nothing to us. Anyone can have something in pre-print. Unless it is actually accepted and published it cannot be used. On a separate note, please sign your posts on talk pages by putting ~~~~ at the end of your posts. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Further response to DarkKnight:: Yes, I didn't know about that either, but most of it strikes me as common sense. I am but a young Padawan learner, your Highness! I have still much to learn. I see that you have removed the Christopher Langan reference. Balance has been restored to the Force. I must now make my way back to my galaxy. I need to make a stop on the gas planet Yorn Skot and then a stop on the ocean planet Kamino. I hate to leave things on a negative note, so to keep things positive, let me award you and DarkKnight two hundred Republic credits in addition to the 35 Republic cents. Good for a meal for two at Dexter Jettster's diner! Try the Dractuvian cave slugs - the best thing you can find on all of Dractu!!

Let's make this happen

Hey everyone, let's make the article revisions happen. It would be great if the revisions did happen, because as it currently stands, this article sucks. Not only is it biased, but the references are trash and it is out of date and confusing. I'll start by making the sections, and by contributing what I can, but I'm not all of you, so please add what you know in a way that is unbiased and without plagiarism. Thanks!

~Koidevelopment (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Anything that would improve this disastrous article would be greatly appreciated. I'm often busy, but I would make an effort to contribute whenever I can. DarkKnight2149 20:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Going to try to write this up later in the week, cant make any promises. 68.111.104.245 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a start in my sandbox.

I made a new article from scratch in my sandbox, some feedback would be great! I would like to make it the main article here since this one has so many issues. Zamorakphat (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'll check it out. The war on shrugs (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You are focusing too much on the phrase literally -- as in, the actual process of a chicken being birthed -- rather than its temporal implication. That is, the question is asking what should come first in a causal relationship: the event (chicken), or progress (egg)? Philosophy extrapolates this question to the beginning of time, too: was there a seed before the Big Bang (progress), or could it have started by itself (event)? I recommend rewriting the draft and doing more research if there are any relevant sources on the net. However, I reiterate that you should focus more on the origin of the phrase, its history, and its philosophical reasoning, rather than a literal chicken or egg. The war on shrugs (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Another user has also expressed an interest in re-writing this messy article, so I will notify them of this. It's great that users are willing to help improve it. If we all collaborate, I believe we can do just that. DarkKnight2149 03:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll do some more research after school today and re-write it. I really do appreciate it. Zamorakphat (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Indoctrination of left wing position in schools?

Should there be any mention that people who argue that the Egg came first, are indoctrinating a left wing position in schools? 182.255.99.214 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems to apply more to the subject of school teachings than the actual topic at hand (professional position in the "chicken or egg" paradox). DarkKnight2149 22:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The Egg

The Egg came first because Dinosaurs used to lay eggs. The context of the question doesn't limit to just "chicken eggs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.245.18 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Give your definition of "dinosaur", "to lay" and "egg". --2.245.124.254 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion misses the whole point

It's neither about if the chicken or the egg came first and nor about how life began. The linguistic analysis proposed above is a good start. It's all about what words really mean. Word meaning is just arbitrarily decided. Humans make these definitions. There is actually no issue at all. It's all made up by man because they can't agree on definitions. And a definition can never cover every aspect. Words are only abstractions and compromises for humans to refer to things. What the "refered" is, what traits are included is decided by scientists. And when something is found that doesn't conform to the current definition, the trait making it different is either included, thus broadening the definition, or another word is assigned to this concept. Problems arise when people start fighting this definition by mentioning some aspects never mentioned before. Of course, a current definition fails to handle it due the fact of it never been thought of. Discussing whether the bird is a chicken, the egg is already the chicken or the specific set of proteins makes it a chicken is only part of the process of refining the definition of a word. --2.245.124.254 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Chicken-or-egg" vs. "Catch-22"

I removed the section that claimed the two idioms are equivalent. It seems to me that although there may be some overlap in some examples of catch-22 (e.g., "no work unless you have an agent, no agent unless you've worked"), there are other examples that have nothing to do with chicken-or-egg. Take this example from the catch-22 wiki article: You can get out of military service if you're crazy, but if you want to get out of military service you aren't crazy. The wiki editor who reinserted the removed section claimed "google search" as a reference. I suggest that "google search" is not a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.207.48 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No egg or chicken is exactly the same

Feel free to comment on the following and add to the discussion :D

In my view the species chicken is a generalization of lookalikes but not exact copies. We could state that the first egg laid by a chicken gave a new type of chicken. Since this is impossible to keep track off, we decided to simplify the problem by still calling it a chicken but in reality the newly hatched 2nd generation chicken is slightly different and should officially be called chicken 2nd generation.

Following this line of reasoning, the egg that laid the first chicken came before the chicken 1st generation. The creature that laid the egg that produced the 1st generation chicken was not a chicken.

One can also conclude that only 1 true chicken existed in the entirety of existence. Same goes for the chicken egg, only the first generation chicken can lay a first generation chicken egg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticWizard1981 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)