No it wouldn’t. If we’re going to talk about the creation of chickens as happening at a single instance of egg-laying, the two progenitors of said first chicken would be proto-chickens whose DNA combined in the fertilized egg to make, for the first time ever, a chicken. Yes, it’s a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken, but it’s also a proto-chicken’s egg because it wasn’t laid by a full chicken. It couldn’t have been, they didn’t exist yet.
There is no question as to the biology. The first egg that would hatch a chicken was laid by a proto-chicken. The genetic mutation that delineated chicken from proto-chicken first existed in that egg.
By your argument, the status of the egg is dependent on what it contains.
Suppose that proto-chicken pair laid an egg. And instead of it hatching into a chicken, I ate it. This egg never became a chicken; it was only an egg. It couldn’t be a chicken egg, because it never contained a chicken. It could only be a proto-chicken egg.
The egg that the chicken hatched from only became a chicken egg once there was a chicken inside it. The chicken egg, therefore, could not precede the chicken.
No, if a chicken could hatch out of it, regardless of whether or not it actually did, it’s a chicken egg. Nothing else could hatch out of it and it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.
it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.
Correct. But, it was an egg laid by a proto-chicken; it is a proto-chicken egg.
Our proto-chicken couple also laid an egg that would have become a “Shicken”, if I hadn’t eaten it first. But, because there was never a “Shicken”, there could never be a “Shicken” egg; the egg was only a proto-chicken egg.
No, the shicken egg was a shicken egg even prior to you eating it. The act of giving it a name is irrelevant. The proto-chicken could’ve lain a hundred eggs, each becoming a new “chicken”. If 99 of them die off and are never born then that does not mean they didn’t exist. It just means they did not exist in a way where we could’ve given them a name.
The distinction between “chicken” and “egg” is biologically irrelevant: they both refer to the same organism. The terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. The organism will progress the same way, regardless of what we decide to say about it.
The chicken/egg argument is purely one of semantics. “Giving it a name” isn’t just relevant to the discussion, it is the only factor relevant to the discussion.
The way you would have us describe the egg prevents us from accurately and consistently defining an egg. An egg laid by a chicken could mature into a new species, and by your arguments, should be described as an egg of that new species.
This creates a linguistic uncertainty in any case where the egg’s potential is not and cannot be known. Is there a Shicken egg among the dozen you bought? A Blargleblat egg? Do you have the eggs of a dozen new evolutions with a common chicken ancestor? You cannot say with certainty.
However, if we describe the egg as the product of the creature that laid it, we have no such uncertainty. If we describe it as the possession of the offspring within it, we have no such uncertainty. The uncertainty only arises when we try to define it by an unknowable condition that may or may not occur.
OK, think of it like this instead. Obviously fuck accuracy, for ease we’ll call them cavepeople. Two different cavepeople that are genetically distinct from humans have sex, resulting in a genetically human fetus. That doesn’t suddenly change the cavepeople into humans, they’re still genetically different. It’s a caveperson’s fetus, but it’s a human fetus. Same thing with the egg. Genetically, the thing inside is a chicken and, genetically, the things that made the egg are not.
But that same argument works the other way too, no? If you define a chicken egg as an egg that came from a chicken, then if you have a dozen of eggs you cannot know whether they’re chicken eggs or whatever eggs unless you know specifically a chicken laid them. Even if you take a dna test of it and it comes back as “a chicken”, you cannot know whether it is in fact a chicken egg.
In the other definition you are capable of determining whether the egg is in fact a chicken egg by its contents.
you define a chicken egg as an egg that came from a chicken, then if you have a dozen of eggs you cannot know whether they’re chicken eggs or whatever eggs unless you know specifically a chicken laid them
Correct, but that is information that can be known, whether it is actually known or not. When you eat a bird egg, you can know what bird it came from. You cannot know what bird it would have become, specifically because you prevented it from ever becoming that bird.
You could speculate that it could have become a new species, based on the genetics within the egg. But, even if you didn’t eat it, it could have failed to mature for any number of reasons. It might have become a new species of bird; it might have become a rotten egg.
The aphorism “Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched” specifically warns us against considering the future possibilities of the egg.
I just don’t get why you’re so hung up on the potentiality of an unhatched egg when that has nothing to do with the scenario. The egg in the scenario hatches and it has a chicken in it. That’s the whole point of the scenario.
No it wouldn’t. If we’re going to talk about the creation of chickens as happening at a single instance of egg-laying, the two progenitors of said first chicken would be proto-chickens whose DNA combined in the fertilized egg to make, for the first time ever, a chicken. Yes, it’s a chicken egg, because it contains a chicken, but it’s also a proto-chicken’s egg because it wasn’t laid by a full chicken. It couldn’t have been, they didn’t exist yet.
There is no question as to the biology. The first egg that would hatch a chicken was laid by a proto-chicken. The genetic mutation that delineated chicken from proto-chicken first existed in that egg.
By your argument, the status of the egg is dependent on what it contains.
Suppose that proto-chicken pair laid an egg. And instead of it hatching into a chicken, I ate it. This egg never became a chicken; it was only an egg. It couldn’t be a chicken egg, because it never contained a chicken. It could only be a proto-chicken egg.
The egg that the chicken hatched from only became a chicken egg once there was a chicken inside it. The chicken egg, therefore, could not precede the chicken.
I can’t believe I’m actually reading this thread.
Discourse as old as time, song as old as rhyme, chicken or the egg.
No, if a chicken could hatch out of it, regardless of whether or not it actually did, it’s a chicken egg. Nothing else could hatch out of it and it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.
Correct. But, it was an egg laid by a proto-chicken; it is a proto-chicken egg.
Our proto-chicken couple also laid an egg that would have become a “Shicken”, if I hadn’t eaten it first. But, because there was never a “Shicken”, there could never be a “Shicken” egg; the egg was only a proto-chicken egg.
No, the shicken egg was a shicken egg even prior to you eating it. The act of giving it a name is irrelevant. The proto-chicken could’ve lain a hundred eggs, each becoming a new “chicken”. If 99 of them die off and are never born then that does not mean they didn’t exist. It just means they did not exist in a way where we could’ve given them a name.
The distinction between “chicken” and “egg” is biologically irrelevant: they both refer to the same organism. The terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. The organism will progress the same way, regardless of what we decide to say about it.
The chicken/egg argument is purely one of semantics. “Giving it a name” isn’t just relevant to the discussion, it is the only factor relevant to the discussion.
The way you would have us describe the egg prevents us from accurately and consistently defining an egg. An egg laid by a chicken could mature into a new species, and by your arguments, should be described as an egg of that new species.
This creates a linguistic uncertainty in any case where the egg’s potential is not and cannot be known. Is there a Shicken egg among the dozen you bought? A Blargleblat egg? Do you have the eggs of a dozen new evolutions with a common chicken ancestor? You cannot say with certainty.
However, if we describe the egg as the product of the creature that laid it, we have no such uncertainty. If we describe it as the possession of the offspring within it, we have no such uncertainty. The uncertainty only arises when we try to define it by an unknowable condition that may or may not occur.
OK, think of it like this instead. Obviously fuck accuracy, for ease we’ll call them cavepeople. Two different cavepeople that are genetically distinct from humans have sex, resulting in a genetically human fetus. That doesn’t suddenly change the cavepeople into humans, they’re still genetically different. It’s a caveperson’s fetus, but it’s a human fetus. Same thing with the egg. Genetically, the thing inside is a chicken and, genetically, the things that made the egg are not.
But that same argument works the other way too, no? If you define a chicken egg as an egg that came from a chicken, then if you have a dozen of eggs you cannot know whether they’re chicken eggs or whatever eggs unless you know specifically a chicken laid them. Even if you take a dna test of it and it comes back as “a chicken”, you cannot know whether it is in fact a chicken egg.
In the other definition you are capable of determining whether the egg is in fact a chicken egg by its contents.
Correct, but that is information that can be known, whether it is actually known or not. When you eat a bird egg, you can know what bird it came from. You cannot know what bird it would have become, specifically because you prevented it from ever becoming that bird.
You could speculate that it could have become a new species, based on the genetics within the egg. But, even if you didn’t eat it, it could have failed to mature for any number of reasons. It might have become a new species of bird; it might have become a rotten egg.
The aphorism “Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched” specifically warns us against considering the future possibilities of the egg.
I just don’t get why you’re so hung up on the potentiality of an unhatched egg when that has nothing to do with the scenario. The egg in the scenario hatches and it has a chicken in it. That’s the whole point of the scenario.