yes it would, because the egg PROTECTS what eventually becomes a chicken during development. it isn't a chicken right from the time of conception, it becomes a chicken during it's development WHILE INSIDE THE EGG

The conception means the species was predisposed to mutate... and therefore it was a chicken. That egg had NOTHING to do with deciding if the hatchling was a chicken or not... it just happened that way.

that also depends on which egg you refer to. if we're talking about the gamete instead, then it came well before the chicken

Ziggy writes:

"that also depends on which egg you refer to. if we're talking about the gamete instead, then it came well before the chicken"

Ok... WAIT a minute!!!

Now you getting into some real discussion here. The original question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is widely to be the question of the visible egg that a chicken acutally lays, and NOT the original egg created by the female.

But... let's look at this from your point of view... I STILL say that the gamete (the egg from the female) came before the chicken. I still say that chicken came first. The sperm from the male and the egg from the female are only components of the final product: the chicken. The gamete alone by itself would still be just that, an egg that wasn't in fact a chicken egg, but something else.

Going outside the box to distinguish between the actual egg a chicken lays, and the egg that created by the chicken? Nice try. lol

Well, I decided to make the argument that I wanted, rather than continue down that other path.

Anyway, dude, the egg is HALF of a cell and even though it is a component of what becomes a chicken, it is coming before the chicken. Mutations come during cell reproduction and more specifically, DNA transcription and other like processes. The egg comes before the chicken is even a developing chicken

So I will concede to you this:

The egg came before the half-chicken.

But the full chicken came before the egg.

Okay, let me put it to you this way. The chicken does not exist UNTIL the mutation that occurs during cell reproduction. The egg exists before the chicken even begins to form. Even at the time that both gametes meet, the chicken still doesn't exist. even after the first couple cell divisions, the chicken still doesn't exist; it is still becoming a dodophite. Finally, the mutation occurs and a chicken starts to form

Originally posted by ziggy

---

Okay, let me put it to you this way. The chicken does not exist UNTIL the mutation that occurs during cell reproduction. The egg exists before the chicken even begins to form. Even at the time that both gametes meet, the chicken still doesn't exist. even after the first couple cell divisions, the chicken still doesn't exist; it is still becoming a dodophite. Finally, the mutation occurs and a chicken starts to form

---

Wow very nicely said! I think that pretty much sums up this eggstremely eggy discussion lol.

unless pounddotblam believes in the concept of the "idea chicken" like plato

If fish were on this earth before chickens, then we can say that the egg (a fish egg) came before the chicken. So we leave off the modifier, and leave it at: the egg came before the chicken. In fact the egg proably came 100s of millions of years before the chicken.

But chicken came before the chicken egg.

Am I beating a dead horse? THis reminds of a lame joke:

So this guy is sitting in a bar watching a baseball game when a chicken with a basket of eggs sits down next to him and orders a beer. The guy does a double take, shakes and head, and goes back to watching his game.

A few minutes later a big hairy zak walks in the bar, sits down next to the chicken and orders a beer. The guy does another double take, watches this big zak drinking the beer with his hooves, and then slowly turns his head to watch the game again.

A few minutes later the ghost of Bruce Lee walks into the bar and sits down next to zak, and orders a beer. The guy, dumbfounded, can't take it anymore with this craziness. He motions to the bartender and says, "Hey, man... don't you think this is pretty amazing what is happening next to me?"

The bartender says, "Eggsyaklee."


(*sound of the music that plays when you lose on The Price is Right*)

Does that mean you just changed your argument to "the egg a chicken produces comes after the chicken"?

also, I wonder what it's like to actually beat a dead horse?

Yes. The egg that a chicken produces comes after the chicken because the egg that produced the first chicken did not come from a chicken. But since we are talking about a one time momentous occasion which was the egg that brought forth the first chicken was in fact not laid by a chicken but something else, the statemetn should be, "the egg that a chicken produces CAME after the chicken".

BOCK BOCK!!!

Actually "Bock Bock" might be a good onomatopoeia for the sound of beating a dead horse.

And for the record, my first spelling of onomatopoeia before I looked up on google was: onomonopeia.

To truly find out what came first, we'd have to look at the exact precise moment when the mutation happened.

Also, think of it this way. The chicken may have come first as the genetic code and such, but it is still not in "existence" it is developing, thus it is not a chicken yet. The egg protects the Chicken as it fully develops into one. Thus, the egg came first.

It seems like PDB's argument changed to "the egg produced by a chicken comes after the chicken" not "the egg that hatches/becomes a chicken comes after the chicken"

I hate to make one-worded posts.. But...


What?

A chicken that wasn't a chicken before the chicken was conceived prior to obviously indiscriminatly seeming like a pseudo-chicken is at the crux of the argument that a certain level of chickenness did in fact embody the whole egg.

.....
What?

I demand a visual graph/table/diagram of some sort.

It's very simple:

Take one chicken that the collective whole believed was a chicken when the first concept was not even existent in the sense that certain ideological concepts were going to be open for discussion in an age when knowledge was not denied in the sense that it was considered something that was not going to be a helpful or as useful to some individuals that may not had the notion of understanding that a chicken was not yet a chicken until the human decided as much when thinking back to the time when the original chicken that actually was conceived was for all intents and purposes still something that wasn't a chicken in the purest sense of the concept since it was the human that made that ultimate decision based on our rules of knowledge acquisition for years past and today.

THAT is simple? I got confused after the first 10 words

From what I understand your trying to say that it is easy to deny knowledge and truth in today's age as well as back then? And that no one truely knows how the chicken was created instead humans like to decide for themselves their "preceived" vision of what is really true and what is not even if it is wrong no one honestly knows? If that's not what you mean can you explain in elementry terms so we can understand