DavidMcC wrote:In common parlance (from where the ""chicken and egg" phrase comes), Cito, evolutionary theory is irrelevant. What matters is that chickens hatch out of eggs, and the egg contains the same genes aas that chicken.
I'm beginning to think that you are just trying to drive me nuts with nit-picking and deliberate misinterpretations.

Whose problem is that, David? You can quit the rat race anytime. If we're just going to settle on common parlance, then it isn't a philosophical question at all. IF you reduce it to that kind of triviality, you might as well just flip a coin, heads it's chicken, tails it's egg. You say chickens hatch out of eggs, and I say chickens lay eggs. You didn't really want to reduce it to this level of banality, did you? Maybe you did.

Cito di Pense wrote:... You say chickens hatch out of eggs, and I say chickens lay eggs. You didn't really want to reduce it to this level of banality, did you? Maybe you did.

You are misrepresenting me, because you have not mentioned the genetic argument.

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:... You say chickens hatch out of eggs, and I say chickens lay eggs. You didn't really want to reduce it to this level of banality, did you? Maybe you did.

You are misrepresenting me, because you have not mentioned the genetic argument.

What genetic argument, David? The one stating that the chicken that lays an egg is responsible for the genetic material inside the egg? Was that it? Or did you want to loosen your grip yet further on the short end of the latest stupid stick you've latched onto?

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:... You say chickens hatch out of eggs, and I say chickens lay eggs. You didn't really want to reduce it to this level of banality, did you? Maybe you did.

You are misrepresenting me, because you have not mentioned the genetic argument.

What genetic argument, David? The one stating that the chicken that lays an egg is responsible for the genetic material inside the egg? Was that it? Or did you want to loosen your grip yet further on the short end of the latest stupid stick you've latched onto?

I suspect that this "what genetic argument" bit is just another attempt to try my patience, in the hope of getting me to lash out, so that I can be banned, right? Well, it won't work.

... I've come to the conclusion that this thread belongs in the Philosophy forum!

Animavore wrote:
I think the smallest amount of grains for a pile would have to be two

Would be bigger than that as a pile is an unspecified large quantity

surreptitious57 wrote:
David do not let Cito push your buttons just chill out and relax man

I'm not angry, just suspicious of Cito's motives for pursuing the issue. But thanks for your concern.

If someone can answer the question, "what is the smallest real number greater than 0?"

Then this question would be a piece of cake to answer.

Otherwise, I agree with Animavore, there is no non-arbitrary way to designate the "first" chicken, (nor first chicken egg).

scott1328 wrote:If someone can answer the question, "what is the smallest real number greater than 0?"

Then this question would be a piece of cake to answer.

Otherwise, I agree with Animavore, there is no non-arbitrary way to designate the "first" chicken, (nor first chicken egg).

I entirely agree, Scott, but that is not the question here, which is NOT which is the first chicken, but rather, does the eg precede the chicken, or vice versa? To me, there is a clear answer, and that is the result of the genetic identity between any chicken and the egg it came from. QED.

the term "genetic identity" doesn't make any sense in this context.

scott1328 wrote:the term "genetic identity" doesn't make any sense in this context.

Huh? Do you deny that the genes contained in a fertilised egg are identical to those in the chicken that hatches from it?

EDIT: Furthermore, do you accept that the genes in a fetilised egg are almost certain to be different from those in the hen that laid it?

I don't know why you mention genes at all.

Scott, you don't seem to have read this thread, judging by that comment.

I have read this thread from the beginning, and each of your comments have been more coherent than the next.

scott1328 wrote:I have read this thread from the beginning, and each of your comments have been more coherent than the next.

I blame the others!

For whatever arbitrary test of chickenhood you may devise, there would have been a popluation of chicken-like fowl that would have failed your test and that would also contain one or more individuals that laid eggs that hatched out individuals that would have passed your arbitrary test.

are those eggs chicken eggs? Did a non-chicken lay a chicken egg? Or are chicken eggs laid by chickens only?

If the egg is not fertilised then the chicken comes before the egg, since no chicken will come from the egg and only a single chicken was involved in the production.
If the egg is fertilised then the egg comes before the chicken, since the egg came from two chickens (a cock and a hen) and not "the" (single) chicken.

And once again, this is purely a matter of definitions. There is no empirical fact to be determined by scientists, only a matter to be decided by lexicographers.

scott1328 wrote:I have read this thread from the beginning, and each of your comments have been more coherent than the next.

This is a gem.