The chicken and egg problem
August 30, 2011 8:37 PM
I want to give a short entertainting speech on the question: "Which came first the chicken or the egg? " What cools riffs or answers have you come across on this classic puzzler? One liner answers are fine, but I'm also interested in lessons that can be learned from this question. I want to explore the associated issues and have some fun with it.
Oh, also, I don't know if you've ever eaten gator, but it tastes a lot like chicken. (Yeah, yeah--everything tastes like chicken. But alligator really tastes like chicken.) And obviously chicken tastes like chicken. Evolutionarily speaking, it goes alligators-->dinosaurs-->chickens. Dinosaurs must have tasted like chicken.
posted by phunniemee at 8:48 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by phunniemee at 8:48 PM on August 30, 2011
I heard something similar to what phunniemee said...
Organisms have been producing eggs millions of years longer than chickens have been in existence.
With this assumption in mind, you could then address the question of whether the first question means generic egg or chicken egg. The lesson from that is that a question has different answers depending on what is assumed.
posted by _DB_ at 8:49 PM on August 30, 2011
Organisms have been producing eggs millions of years longer than chickens have been in existence.
With this assumption in mind, you could then address the question of whether the first question means generic egg or chicken egg. The lesson from that is that a question has different answers depending on what is assumed.
posted by _DB_ at 8:49 PM on August 30, 2011
Marshall McLuhan has a line (possibly copped from elsewhere, not sure) about how "an chicken is just an egg's idea for making more eggs".
posted by silby at 8:50 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by silby at 8:50 PM on August 30, 2011
Eggs come with breakfast. Chicken with lunch. Thus the egg came before the chicken by about 4 hours.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:51 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by cjorgensen at 8:51 PM on August 30, 2011
Draw a distinction between things that are metaphorical chickens and metaphorical eggs: things that are changed actors and things that have been changed, but not obviously or actively so yet.
Also, there's the old joke about a chicken and an egg lying in bed together, sharing a cigarette. The chicken turns to the egg and says, "I guess that answers that question."
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:54 PM on August 30, 2011
Also, there's the old joke about a chicken and an egg lying in bed together, sharing a cigarette. The chicken turns to the egg and says, "I guess that answers that question."
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:54 PM on August 30, 2011
If "egg" means any kind of egg, then of course eggs came before chickens, as explained above.
If "egg" means "chicken egg," the egg still came first. Every chicken comes from a chicken egg. But given evolution, at some point in the distant past, a creature that was almost a chicken must have given birth to a chicken. You could call that thing that was born "the first chicken." So, the first chicken hatched out of a chicken egg, but had non-chicken parents.
posted by John Cohen at 8:55 PM on August 30, 2011
If "egg" means "chicken egg," the egg still came first. Every chicken comes from a chicken egg. But given evolution, at some point in the distant past, a creature that was almost a chicken must have given birth to a chicken. You could call that thing that was born "the first chicken." So, the first chicken hatched out of a chicken egg, but had non-chicken parents.
posted by John Cohen at 8:55 PM on August 30, 2011
So, the first chicken hatched out of a chicken egg, but had non-chicken parents.
Who were the non-chicken parents then?
I always considered the chicken had to come first because an egg needs a mama to keep it warm. . . and a baby chick needs a mama to keep it warm and to teach it things.
posted by Sassyfras at 9:02 PM on August 30, 2011
Who were the non-chicken parents then?
I always considered the chicken had to come first because an egg needs a mama to keep it warm. . . and a baby chick needs a mama to keep it warm and to teach it things.
posted by Sassyfras at 9:02 PM on August 30, 2011
The changes in evolution that led to a "chicken" were probably so gradual that it is impossible (or entirely arbitrary) to identify the "first chicken".
So I would say the chicken and the (chicken) egg evolved simultaneously.
posted by mikeand1 at 9:03 PM on August 30, 2011
So I would say the chicken and the (chicken) egg evolved simultaneously.
posted by mikeand1 at 9:03 PM on August 30, 2011
Who were the non-chicken parents then?
Something almost but not quite a chicken.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:03 PM on August 30, 2011
Something almost but not quite a chicken.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:03 PM on August 30, 2011
Who were the non-chicken parents then?
See the rest of my comment.
posted by John Cohen at 9:07 PM on August 30, 2011
See the rest of my comment.
posted by John Cohen at 9:07 PM on August 30, 2011
It's possible that the first chicken came from a non-chicken egg. Let me clarify, if we take it for granted, as many in this thread have done, that an almost-chicken was the parent of the first chicken it does not follow that the first chicken was hatched in a chicken egg.
If a chicken egg has chemical composition of Z and the almost-chicken laid eggs with a composition of almost-Z, then it's entirely possible that the first chicken was incubated in an almost-Z egg.
So the first chicken could indeed have come before the first chicken egg.
Of course, if you want to define eggs according to their function instead of their composition, then, for obvious reasons, the first chicken came from a chicken egg (that just happens to have an almost-Z composition, even the chicken's subsequent eggs had a Z composition).
posted by oddman at 9:15 PM on August 30, 2011
If a chicken egg has chemical composition of Z and the almost-chicken laid eggs with a composition of almost-Z, then it's entirely possible that the first chicken was incubated in an almost-Z egg.
So the first chicken could indeed have come before the first chicken egg.
Of course, if you want to define eggs according to their function instead of their composition, then, for obvious reasons, the first chicken came from a chicken egg (that just happens to have an almost-Z composition, even the chicken's subsequent eggs had a Z composition).
posted by oddman at 9:15 PM on August 30, 2011
Can't remember who said it but: The chicken came first because it's hard to picture God sitting on an egg.
posted by storybored at 9:18 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by storybored at 9:18 PM on August 30, 2011
Sticherbeast: "Something almost but not quite a chicken."
And I'll bet it tasted like chicken.
So, I think I once heard this — man, I shouldn't admit this — on Head of the Class, but I think some of the students were having this debate, and at the end of the episode, the teacher purported to resolve it by pointing out that a chicken is definitely a chicken, while an egg is only hypothetically a chicken, therefore the chicken had to come first (I guess because you never know what might come out of the egg, perhaps nothing). Now that I reconsider this thesis (not having thought about it in over 20 years), I don't see how this makes any sense, but there it is.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 9:19 PM on August 30, 2011
And I'll bet it tasted like chicken.
So, I think I once heard this — man, I shouldn't admit this — on Head of the Class, but I think some of the students were having this debate, and at the end of the episode, the teacher purported to resolve it by pointing out that a chicken is definitely a chicken, while an egg is only hypothetically a chicken, therefore the chicken had to come first (I guess because you never know what might come out of the egg, perhaps nothing). Now that I reconsider this thesis (not having thought about it in over 20 years), I don't see how this makes any sense, but there it is.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 9:19 PM on August 30, 2011
This timeless question reduces to another, equally important (some would even say more important), timeless question: How to get laid. We must do what we can to ensure ongoing research into this question.
posted by ceribus peribus at 9:22 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by ceribus peribus at 9:22 PM on August 30, 2011
Eggs certainly existed before there were chickens, but we can also assume an egg-producing creature must have existed before there were eggs.
posted by nobody at 9:23 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by nobody at 9:23 PM on August 30, 2011
my answer to this has always been, "the rooster"
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 PM on August 30, 2011
The chicken's DNA is set at conception, as evolutionary changes don't happen to a single creature, so almost-chicken parents had to lay an egg that hatched a chicken, which would make that a chicken egg.
posted by Relic at 10:00 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by Relic at 10:00 PM on August 30, 2011
On a more profound tip, I quote:
"Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I egged the chicken and then I ate its leg."
Egg Man from Paul's Boutique (and they're in Brooklyn)
posted by rube goldberg at 10:22 PM on August 30, 2011
"Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I egged the chicken and then I ate its leg."
Egg Man from Paul's Boutique (and they're in Brooklyn)
posted by rube goldberg at 10:22 PM on August 30, 2011
The egg always lets the chicken come first. It makes her more receptive to experimentation.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 10:58 PM on August 30, 2011
posted by obiwanwasabi at 10:58 PM on August 30, 2011
John Cohen: If "egg" means "chicken egg," the egg still came first. Every chicken comes from a chicken egg.
That depends on what you mean by chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches into a chicken (in which case, what is it that I cook into an omelet—obviously not a chicken egg, since it was never fertilized and is now cooked, and can thus never hatch into a chicken), or an egg laid by a chicken?
In any case, that's a distinction that's hard to make in an evolutionary context—there's no sharp dividing line between "not a chicken, but ancestor of a chicken" and "unlike it's parents, this one's a chicken". It's somewhat like looking at this red-blue gradient and trying to pick the exact point where it becomes blue.
posted by JiBB at 11:34 PM on August 30, 2011
That depends on what you mean by chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches into a chicken (in which case, what is it that I cook into an omelet—obviously not a chicken egg, since it was never fertilized and is now cooked, and can thus never hatch into a chicken), or an egg laid by a chicken?
In any case, that's a distinction that's hard to make in an evolutionary context—there's no sharp dividing line between "not a chicken, but ancestor of a chicken" and "unlike it's parents, this one's a chicken". It's somewhat like looking at this red-blue gradient and trying to pick the exact point where it becomes blue.
posted by JiBB at 11:34 PM on August 30, 2011
Should you choose to consult no less an authority than the OED, you will find that chicken comes before egg.
posted by islander at 12:29 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by islander at 12:29 AM on August 31, 2011
If you take a look at the question through the eyes of Aristotles' principles of Actuality over Potentiality you could say that the chicken, as an actual chicken (i.e. the chicken is "happening now"), must take precedence over the egg which, could be argued, only represents a potential chicken (i.e. the chicken "might chance to happen or not to happen"). So, the chicken comes first.
(not any sort of aristotle expert, so if i'm off base in using this for a joke, somebody please correct me)
posted by alchemist at 12:34 AM on August 31, 2011
(not any sort of aristotle expert, so if i'm off base in using this for a joke, somebody please correct me)
posted by alchemist at 12:34 AM on August 31, 2011
Should you choose to consult no less an authority than the OED, you will find that chicken comes before egg.
Then again, what does the OED know? It also puts the carriage before the horse.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 2:42 AM on August 31, 2011
Then again, what does the OED know? It also puts the carriage before the horse.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 2:42 AM on August 31, 2011
Should you choose to consult no less an authority than the OED, you will find that chicken comes before egg.
Clever. Related, from Merriam-Webster, we see that the first known use of the word "chicken" is in the 14th century, yet the first known use of "egg" is in the 13th.
posted by solotoro at 3:54 AM on August 31, 2011
Clever. Related, from Merriam-Webster, we see that the first known use of the word "chicken" is in the 14th century, yet the first known use of "egg" is in the 13th.
posted by solotoro at 3:54 AM on August 31, 2011
Flight of the Conchords
Bret: It's a chicken egg situation.posted by caek at 4:56 AM on August 31, 2011
Murray: Whadya ya mean, what does he mean, 'chicken'?
Jemaine: Well, you know, what came first, the chickin or the egg?
Murray: Nah, that's irrelevant isn't it.
Jemaine: [Background] Causality
Murray: It's stupid. The chicken obviously.
Bret: Will where did the chicken come from?
Murray: Well it came from the...
[pause]
Murray: ah...
Bret: You see, the egg...
Murray: YOU'RE the egg. You're a bid egg, all right? You've derailed this meeting with another obscure comment.
Dang it! http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/question85.htm
posted by ATX Peanut at 6:41 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by ATX Peanut at 6:41 AM on August 31, 2011
While it's clear that the answer to this riddle has to appeal to evolution, no-one has given the correct answer yet. The whole point of the riddle is that we are supposed to define 'eggs' as 'that-which-is-laid-by-chickens' and 'chickens' as 'that-which-comes-from-chicken-eggs'. This is how we intuitively define these things, and it is what sets up the problem of causal circularity.
Of course you can have an almost chicken produce a chicken (though speciation is a contested issue). But it won't solve your problem. Because you can either suppose that the almost-chicken produced the standard egg, which gave birth to the first real chicken. Or you can say that the almost chicken laid an almost-egg which produced the first real chicken. Either way, we could at least say there is a definite answer one way or the other, and hence it's not such a paradoxical phenomenon. But then we can easily extend the riddle more generally- which came first: Egg laying creatures, or creatures produced by eggs?
To answer this more general problem I think we can only say that in evolutionary history there was a proto creature that reproduced without such separate stages. Then, gradually the reproductive cycle split into two distinctive stages- the 'egg' stage and 'chicken' stage. So the best answer I believe is that somewhere in evolutionary history the 'chicken' and the 'egg' were actually the very same thing.
Even more generally, you can ask-which came first; birth, or being alive? The only way to be born is to be produced by something already living. But that takes you back to the beginnings of life overall. Again, we have to say that at a fundamental level, life and the process of reproduction are the very same thing.
posted by leibniz at 7:24 AM on August 31, 2011
Of course you can have an almost chicken produce a chicken (though speciation is a contested issue). But it won't solve your problem. Because you can either suppose that the almost-chicken produced the standard egg, which gave birth to the first real chicken. Or you can say that the almost chicken laid an almost-egg which produced the first real chicken. Either way, we could at least say there is a definite answer one way or the other, and hence it's not such a paradoxical phenomenon. But then we can easily extend the riddle more generally- which came first: Egg laying creatures, or creatures produced by eggs?
To answer this more general problem I think we can only say that in evolutionary history there was a proto creature that reproduced without such separate stages. Then, gradually the reproductive cycle split into two distinctive stages- the 'egg' stage and 'chicken' stage. So the best answer I believe is that somewhere in evolutionary history the 'chicken' and the 'egg' were actually the very same thing.
Even more generally, you can ask-which came first; birth, or being alive? The only way to be born is to be produced by something already living. But that takes you back to the beginnings of life overall. Again, we have to say that at a fundamental level, life and the process of reproduction are the very same thing.
posted by leibniz at 7:24 AM on August 31, 2011
Or you can say that the almost chicken laid an almost-egg which produced the first real chicken.
If you wish to be accurate, you can't say that. While it may be impossible to define a single generation in which you change from the chicken's immediate ancestor species to chicken, biologists would universally agree that an organism doesn't change species within its lifetime.
posted by grouse at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2011
If you wish to be accurate, you can't say that. While it may be impossible to define a single generation in which you change from the chicken's immediate ancestor species to chicken, biologists would universally agree that an organism doesn't change species within its lifetime.
posted by grouse at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2011
From a fundamental perspective, chickens would have arrived some time on The Fifth Day. If the chickens came pre-loaded with eggs then both chickens and eggs would have arrived simultaneously. If however your question refers to an egg that has been fertilized and laid, ready to produce another chicken, you'd have to allow some time for the hens and roosters to get to "know" each other and so on (only after having received to okay to be fruitful and multiply, of course) . The Sixth Day at the earliest for an independent egg, I'd say.
The reference material is unfortunately rather maddeningly vague when it comes to some of these details though.
posted by islander at 10:45 AM on August 31, 2011
The reference material is unfortunately rather maddeningly vague when it comes to some of these details though.
posted by islander at 10:45 AM on August 31, 2011
Marshall McLuhan has a line (possibly copped from elsewhere, not sure) about how "an chicken is just an egg's idea for making more eggs".
Often attributed to Samuel Butler, Life and Habit (1877). But here it is on Project Gutenberg, and the quote is
posted by stebulus at 3:36 PM on August 31, 2011
Often attributed to Samuel Butler, Life and Habit (1877). But here it is on Project Gutenberg, and the quote is
It has, I believe, been often remarked, that a hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg.So, Butler didn't consider himself the origin of the phrase.
posted by stebulus at 3:36 PM on August 31, 2011
Some answers (e.g., the one from "How Stuff Works") assume that "chicken" is a concept with clear and definite boundaries, so that things are either chickens or not chickens, and in particular, there was at some point a first chicken. Then they analyze the events around the first chicken. As several people above have pointed out, part of the issue is that this way of thinking doesn't handle gradual change well. A few standard items around this topic are the Sorites Paradox, The Ship of Theseus, and the philosophical notion of family resemblance.
posted by stebulus at 4:01 PM on August 31, 2011
posted by stebulus at 4:01 PM on August 31, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by phunniemee at 8:44 PM on August 30, 2011