Eat chicken first! ! ! Eggs first! ! ! Tell me more! ! ! (Don't give me a long speech)

There is an argument between chicken and egg. Chicken comes first.

From the perspective of biological evolution, of course, there are chickens before eggs. As we all know, organisms have evolved from low to high, from aquatic to terrestrial, and from simple to complex. Chickens belong to birds and evolved from reptiles, which evolved from fish, while fish originated from invertebrates. We know that lower organisms divide and reproduce on their own, while fish reptiles lay eggs, and when they evolve to a proper level, they produce the first egg. How to distinguish eggs from eggs? Quite simply, eggs are hard shells and eggs are soft shells. Therefore, we can understand that when an organism no longer differentiates to produce an egg, then this organism is the ancestor of this egg. Similarly, the first generation of chickens came from eggs and became the ancestors of eggs after laying eggs. So, the chicken comes before the egg.

Chicken comes first, egg comes first.

The above is very clear, but it is also extremely absurd. How to master the hardness of eggs? This change is not immediate, but gradual. My thickness of 0.0 1mm can be regarded as an egg, so why not 0.009mm? I think eggs come first. First of all, a species can only be called a chicken if it has evolved to have the characteristics of a complete chicken, then that egg is the ancestor of the chicken, and the guy who laid this egg is not a chicken because he is a little shorter than the chicken, so it can be concluded that the chicken came first.

Eggs come first, chickens come first.

It is true that things change from quantitative change to qualitative change, but science is science, and science also has its definition, such as pH, with 7 as the standard, small is acid, and excessive is alkali. This is well known. So an egg is an egg and an egg is an egg. As for what the other party said about the ancestors of chickens, it was ridiculous and generous. The question we are discussing is which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Of course, eggs are eggs. You're talking about that guy's egg, not that egg, which just confirms what I said: the chicken comes before the egg. This is a matter of common sense. Eggs are naturally born by chickens, and chickens themselves are gradually evolved from birds.

Again, chicken comes first, then eggs.

If the other person wants to say that, I can't help it, so I can say that I am not a person and I am changing every day. Does that mean that one day we will become inhuman? Because science has proved that many human organs are degenerating, such as our wisdom teeth, and now many human beings no longer grow wisdom teeth, then the original definition is that human beings have 32 teeth (of course, accidental injuries such as knocking out are not recorded). Does it mean that those 28 teeth are not human now? This is very funny and absurd. What is a chicken? What is an egg? This is the most basic knowledge. The chicken I mentioned earlier is a chicken with complete chicken characteristics, not a data. The other person wants to say that eggs are not eggs, which is very funny. The eggs that can hatch chickens are not chicken eggs or anything, but that guy's eggs. Interesting. Do you know how many eggs that guy laid? Does that mean the rest is the same? Can hatch chickens? No, only this one is, so this one is naturally a chicken's egg, and of course it is also that guy's egg, which is not contradictory. The so-called Longsheng Jiuzi is different. This is an egg. So, there are eggs first.

Two bargains have eggs first, three stands have chickens first.

It's good that the other party put forward such a concept. The dragon gave birth to nine sons, and the nine sons were different. But I suddenly found that the other party may have overlooked an extremely important issue, and the other party may have actually fallen into a thinking trap. I have to ask? Must the ancestors of chickens be laid by eggs? Isn't it something else? Although according to the law of biological evolution, we generally believe that as one of the representatives of birds, when a chicken becomes a chicken, its path is likely to be egg-laid, but we can never exclude others! But we can be sure that chickens can lay eggs. If the chicken was born by his path, there is no doubt that the chicken came first, but at the same time, I can boldly say that if the path is as we have been expecting, the chicken will come first and the egg will come again. What I want to ask is, did the dragon lay nine dragon eggs or other eggs? The same guy laid several eggs, such as quail, sparrow, peacock and chicken. It's hard to say who would naively say that he laid a quail egg, a peacock egg, a sparrow egg and an egg? At the same time, the other party is obviously confusing. According to the law of biological evolution, that guy should have been very close to a chicken. Even if his eggs can't hatch a chicken for a while, then a chicken must be born later. So I stick to my point of view, that guy laid an egg and hatched a chicken, which is the ancestor of the chicken. And that egg is not an egg, because hatching is not only the reason of the egg itself, but also a series of factors such as climate and environment. Only eggs laid after hatching can become eggs.

Chicken comes first, egg comes first.

What the other party said was very good, but in fact it was your Excellency who confused the audience, not me. First, in order to suppress me, the other party deliberately raised a question of suddenness. I can say that biological variation is not what you say, but a problem of quantitative change to mutation. Chickens evolved step by step, and there is no doubt that they came from eggs. I have repeated the reason many times, so I don't need to repeat it. China traditional dragon gave birth to nine sons, although different, but all belong to the dragon species. Anyway, the eggs laid by the same guy are different, and the things hatched will be a fraction. Do we have to divide eggs into male eggs, female eggs, black eggs and white eggs? This is unnecessary, purely redundant. Anyway, that guy laid an egg and hatched a chicken. Is it necessary for us to argue whether this egg is an egg or not? The so-called environmental factors over there are secondary. Can it be said that swans hatch at the water's edge? At most, it affects some trivial details, such as coat color and texture, so the fact that it is an egg cannot be denied. And the guy who laid the egg really can't be called a chicken, so do we still need to deny such an egg? Of course, the egg comes first, then the chicken! !

Final theory

In fact, this is a common sense mistake in our consciousness. For example, we named the egg laid by chicken A as egg A, which gave birth to chicken B, and chicken B gave birth to egg B. In fact, chicken A is different from chicken B, and so are eggs A and B. They are constantly changing, or evolution, but we habitually divide them into chickens and eggs and forget their differences.

References:

/question/5034 1725.html？ si= 1

Interviewee: Anonymous 8-7 13:39

Let me comment >>

Do you think the best answer is good? There are currently 1 comments.

100% ( 1)

0% (0)

Related content

We say yes; Chicken or egg first?

Chicken or egg first?

Chicken or egg first?

Is there a chicken or an egg first in the world?

Chicken or egg first (here comes the hero)

More related issues >>

There are six other answers.

Eat eggs first.

Responder: Mercury _ T- Magician Level 5 8-7 13:39

Chickens evolved from other creatures, which came first, chickens or eggs?

A: Please call me Xiao Ye-Manager Level 4 8-7 13:39.

Ask your father, Dick.

Interviewee: Qu Weixing-Magic Apprentice Level 1 8-7 13:48

Korean stick comes first.

Respondent: 3 14 159265 x- probationary period level 1 8- 15 2 1:06.

Expert:

Chicken or egg first? My answer is: the chicken comes before the egg. What is the solution? Listen to me slowly.

After staying in America for more than ten years, I returned to my native land. Most of my old friends are not in academia. It is said that I have been engaged in philosophy, and they will ask me some questions curiously. These questions may have satisfactory answers to them. "Chicken or egg" is one of the most common questions. Although this is not a typical problem discussed by modern philosophers, it is reasonable for people to think that philosophers should have a clear statement about it. However, I really haven't carefully checked whether other philosophers have systematically discussed this issue, because this is not a formal academic paper. I might as well try to express my own ideas without considering whether to repeat or ignore other people's views without knowing it.

"Chicken or egg"? When people ask this question, we must first understand what kind of answer the questioner expects. When someone asks you "which came first, the United States or Britain", a simple "Britain came first" will do, plus a few historical explanations at most. Obviously, the question of chicken and egg doesn't need such an answer. Whether your answer is chicken or egg, it's definitely far from what you really expect. Otherwise, the first ten words of the article will be enough. Because the questioner here has long believed that no matter which straightforward answer, it seems equally reasonable or unreasonable. In this case, he must ask questions. If he doesn't think there is no answer to this question, he just wants to know which answer is more reasonable and wants you to help him solve the mystery in his heart. Therefore, what should be clear here is "why the chicken came first" or "why the egg came first", not the straightforward "chicken came first" or "egg came first". So how do we answer the "why" here?

First of all, we should clarify the possible hidden ambiguity of the problem itself. "Chicken" can refer to all chickens or one chicken, and "egg" can refer to all eggs or one egg. If the "chicken" in the question refers to all chickens and the "egg" refers to all eggs, obviously we can't find the answer, because some chickens come before all eggs and some come after others. If the "chicken" and "egg" in the question refer to a "chicken" and an "egg", it is impossible to know which one came first and which one came later by thinking and reasoning, but we are required to make an empirical investigation to see which chicken hatched at what time and which egg came out on what day. If you think that the chicken is already in the eggshell and the egg is already in the hen's body, then the problem is more complicated, but in principle, such problems can only be handled on a case-by-case basis, and we can't give a general answer that comes first.

In fact, the above are all digressions. If you think about it a little, you will know that the "chicken" and "egg" in the question refer to the "first chicken" and "first egg". So the more complete statement of the question is: "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" If there is an answer, what is the basis of the answer? "

Now, the meaning of a "first" word determines the nature of the whole problem. If it refers to the chronological order, it is a matter of fact; if it refers to the logical order, it is a matter of concept. For example, if you ask me whether there was a car or wheels first, my answer is that there were actually wheels first, because in chronological order, you can't make a complete car without making wheels first. But conceptually, there are cars first, then wheels. Because logically speaking, only by understanding what a car is can we understand what a car wheel is. So in the question of chicken and egg, are we asking a factual question or a conceptual question?

If we understand it as a factual question, it seems that we can answer this question clearly as long as we imagine that our life span is very long, from ancient times without eggs and chickens to today, and we have no problem with our memory, and we have been constantly observing the relevant processes. Actually, the problem is much more complicated. If you look closely, you will find that there are many problems with this kind of thinking. There are only two possibilities for the process of chicken and egg from scratch. One possibility is that, as the theory of evolution says, animals evolved from lower organisms, and this evolution can be slow and gradual or sudden. The second possibility is direct creation, that is, before the first chicken or egg appears, it does not lead to the non-biological state to the intermediate state.

Let's discuss the gradual process of evolution first and see what happens. Because it is gradual, you won't see any obvious signs of species evolution between any day in the process and another day adjacent to it. In this way, no matter how long your life span is, from ancient times when there were no chickens or eggs to now, can you know whether there were chickens or eggs first? That's not necessarily true. Think about it, because without chickens and eggs, you haven't had a chance to form the concept of what is a chicken and what is an egg. In this case, even if you have been observing the whole process of evolution, you can't suddenly conclude that the first chicken or egg appeared at a certain time on a certain day, so this idea of on-the-spot judgment is not feasible. Then, we can change our minds. According to the definition of chicken and egg today or a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for judging what chicken and egg are, imagine whether there was an egg or a chicken in the evolution process. In fact, only in this way can it be feasible, because there was no definition of egg at that time, and the definition can only be used today. In other words, we should use the concept of today to understand the past. So, how do we define eggs and chickens today, or what is the most natural and reasonable standard? This definition may be complicated, but eggs must grow in chickens. Today, if a hen lays something that looks like an egg in other aspects but has no yolk, we can still call it an egg, but if a scientist makes something inseparable from an egg in the laboratory, we can also refuse to call it an egg. Therefore, according to this natural definition, there is no egg without chicken. In contrast, how is chicken defined? Whether a thing is a chicken depends on whether it is hatched from an egg. The answer is no, if someone uses some genetic engineering technology in the laboratory to bypass the egg stage and cultivate something that cannot be separated from ordinary chickens in all aspects, we have no reason to refuse to call it a chicken. In fact, the problem of fact has temporarily turned into a conceptual problem here: conceptually, there are chickens first, then eggs.

After the concept is clear, we still go back to the fact and continue to discuss the situation in the process of evolution. Here, we can try to use a word method that does not conform to the principle, but can also be understood from a certain angle. According to this method, as long as there is one thing in the world that is physically inseparable from our eggs today, no matter how it is produced, we call it an egg. That is to say, we use the connotation description of the physical properties of eggs today to refer to the consistency before the concept of eggs came into being, so that "eggs" can refer to eggs that are not laid by chickens. In this case, which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Suppose that after a long evolutionary process, before the first chicken appeared, the first thing physically the same as the present egg appeared, and we call it "egg" now. Further suppose that this egg is fertilized (a little strange, but if it is not fertilized, the first egg will never become a chicken), then this egg will soon become a chicken under objective conditions such as appropriate temperature: this is not evolution, it is a miracle! Because the physical similarity between eggs and chickens is very small, the former only carries the control program of the latter's development process from scratch, and then carries the necessary nutrients, so it is incredible to understand such a sequence with control program before physical process as a link of natural evolution. But if chickens were originally formed in the process of evolution, and chickens gradually evolved through natural selection to transmit their body information to future generations through spawning, it would be less puzzling. In this way, in fact, there are chickens before eggs.

Now consider the mutation in the process of evolution, that is, a bird (or anything that can lay eggs) laid a mutant egg a long time ago and hatched to have its first chicken. In this case, can an egg with genetic mutation be called the first egg before the first chicken? From the perspective of language use, there may be an acceptable reason to call it the egg first, so it seems that it is conceivable to have the egg first and then the chicken. However, in this way, the essence of the problem is covered up. If we use this concept, the initial question should be "which came first, the bird or the egg" and so on. People are not particularly interested in "chicken", but only interested in the relationship between egg-laying animals and this animal. The word chicken is used here, but it is more convenient to say. Therefore, the possibility of accepting this genetic mutation does not affect the essence of the conclusion we just got, just replacing the "chicken" with something else. If you say birds, the answer will become: "Birds first, then birds' eggs". In other words, the original question is equivalent to: "Which egg comes first, X or X?" Whether x is a chicken or something that lays eggs.

Now let's think about the possibility of non-evolutionary creation. Whether the creative power comes from God or something we don't know, things are much simpler. There are two kinds of eggs, fertilized and unfertilized. First of all, we should create an egg, which must be fertilized without the participation of rooster, and because there is no hen when creating this egg, we should create suitable conditions to hatch this egg. Then, we will repeat the whole process, create a second fertilized egg and hatch a heterosexual chicken. Then, let two chickens mate, and the hen lays eggs to hatch chicks, so that the reproductive cycle begins and continues. Such a creative process, though not absolutely impossible, is obviously clumsy and chaotic, with half the effort. However, being a chicken first will get twice the result with half the effort. At the beginning, two chickens, a rooster and a hen were created, and the creation was completed. After mating, they lay eggs, then hatch chicks, and they always walk back and forth happily ... which of these two creative processes happened can't be concluded by simple reasoning. However, obviously, the second process, that is, making the chicken and letting it lay eggs and have children, is much more reasonable. However, whether it is the first process or the second process, it is a practical process, and we can finally insist on the saying that the chicken comes before the egg. This is because, as mentioned above, the eggs in our definition today are not eggs that can hatch chickens, but eggs laid by chickens (at least eggs laid in chickens). These eggs are unfertilized, so chickens cannot hatch. In other words, eggs that can't hatch chicks or eggs are not laid by hens. No matter how similar they are to eggs, we still have reason to insist on not calling them eggs. Even if God made something like an egg first, we don't have to call it an egg. In this case, there are chickens before eggs.