What do you really mean by "chicken" in "Which came first, the egg or the chicken?"? The exact "chicken" or the species that bore the first egg?
Topics
About: truth
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: The Egg Came First, if "Which Came First, the Egg or the Chicken?" Means Really What It Is Saying
- 2: It Should Have Been a Rather Common Knowledge Since a Long Time Ago
- 3: What if "Chicken" Really Means 'Creature'?
- 4: What if "Chicken" Really Means 'the First Species That Bore the First Egg'?
- 5: The Morals
Starting Context
- The reader knows the background of this site.
Target Context
- The reader will know that the egg came first for chickens, a creature should have come first for the entire life forms, and a creature should have come first for the species that first began to bear eggs.
Orientation
There is an article on becoming a benefactor of humanity by being a conduit of truths
Main Body
Stage DirectionHere is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.
1: The Egg Came First, if "Which Came First, the Egg or the Chicken?" Means Really What It Is Saying
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
There is a question, "Which came first, the egg or the chicken?".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The answer seems obvious, if the question means really what it is saying.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The question has been regarded to be a very difficult question on the Bias Planet.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
How so?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"Any egg should have been born from a chicken, which should have been hatched from an egg, which . . .. Oh, my! Which came first?"
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, is the question really talking about "chicken" as the specific species?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
What if it is?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"Any (chicken) egg should have been born from a chicken" is simply wrong, because the first chicken egg can have been (and most probably was) a cross of 2 different species.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Was the first egg not a mutation?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
'chicken' was not created in 1 leap by 1 crossing or 1 mutation, but in multiple leaps by multiple crossings and possibly some mutations, while the demarcation of 'chicken' is a matter of definition.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Anyway, the egg should have come first?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It should be so, because the genes are determined in the egg, and the creature has no option but to become as the genes dictate.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Did not a mutation happen to a creature?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A mutation may have happened to an elbow cell of a creature, but such a mutation should not have been propagated to descendants.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A mutation may have happened to the oviduct.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The mutation did not happen to the oviduct, but to a cell of the oviduct, and while it is doubtful that such a mutation to a single cell bore the first chicken egg, even if it did, I will not call the mother the first chicken, because the mother was not particularly a chicken except the single cell.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, the egg was the first of chickens, anyway.
2: It Should Have Been a Rather Common Knowledge Since a Long Time Ago
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I am rather amazed by the fact that the question has been deemed to be difficult.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I understand that some Biasians have been doing crossings since a long time ago, and probably, 'chicken' was created intentionally by some breeders (of many generations), who should have known that the egg comes first.
The situation is the same for plants: we get a seed as the first of a new species by pollinating a pistil of a species by some pollens of anther species; no new species grows from a seed of an existing species.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I cannot help but assume that the knowledge was rather common among some people, even before the knowledge of genetics.
3: What if "Chicken" Really Means 'Creature'?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"chicken" in the question does not really mean "chicken" but 'creature', I guess.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
If so, as far as we are based on the evolution, the question should be really "Was the first life form an egg or a creature?".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Also the answer to that question seems obvious, considering the fact that all the primitive species do not propagate by eggs. Obviously, 'egg' was a later invention as a way of propagation.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
As far as we are based on the evolution theory, it seems an agreed hypothesis that the first life form was a single cell life form, which we do not call egg, and the life form propagated by just dividing.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, the creature was the first.
4: What if "Chicken" Really Means 'the First Species That Bore the First Egg'?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
'chicken' may mean 'the first species that bore the first egg'.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Then, it was not really chicken, but a kind of fish or an even more primitive species.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Whatever the species was, there was the first mother that bore the first egg.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The issue is which of the mother and the egg should be called to be the beginning of the species.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
While it is a matter of definition, ultimately speaking, but it will be far more reasonable that the mother is called the beginning.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Why so?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Because the mother should have had some genes that made the species propagate by eggs, because why else did the mother bear the egg?: as we discussed before, a mutation to a cell of the mother is unlikely to have made the mother bear an egg, and even if it did, the mechanism had to be encoded into the egg as genes, which is quite unlikely unless the mother already had the genes.
The natural hypothesis is that the genes were generated in the mother when it was born, as an accident of the dividing operation, and so, the mother bore the egg which included the genes..
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The reason why the hypothesis that the genes appeared first in the egg is unlikely is that then, the mother just accidentally bore the egg and the egg just accidentally contained the new genes, which is a very unlikely accumulation of double accidents.
On the other hand, the hypothesis that the mother got the genes at born was a single accident.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, we are almost sure that the creature was first.
5: The Morals
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The reason why we have talked about the question is rather the morals which we can draw from it than the answer itself.
The first moral is that we have to be clear about any question: it is very futile to talk about a question that is not clear what it means.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Especially, every concept in the question has to be clear; what does "chicken" mean?, for example.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A very typical, but very prevalent type of futile arguments is that the 2 parties are talking about 2 different things, typically using the same term.
An obvious major cause is that most terms are defined very loosely on the Bias Planet.
Another obvious major cause is that most Earthians use (already loose) terms very loosely, while they even boast using terms intentionally out of scope, a method called simile.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The 2nd cause seems to be the root cause: they are fine with loose definitions because they use terms loosely anyway.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Biasians' justification seems to be that "People will understand things without the things' being so explicitly stated!", but that does not seem to be the case, as far as we judge from many cross-purpose arguments among Biasians we witness.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I guess that there are some cases in which "People will understand", but most Earthians do not seem to be able to adopt to the other cases.
In fact, I understand that it is natural: languages were created for daily usages which were (at least) mostly cases in which "People will understand", not for precise arguments, and being economical was a major priority: they did not want to have multiple terms if 1 term could be understood in multiple meanings depending on the contexts.
The problem is that that strategy does not work well when things get intricate
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The second moral is that we have to view things in a longer and wider perspective.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The assumption "Any chicken egg should have been born from a chicken." may seem to be true in a view in which chickens daily bear chicken eggs and chickens are daily hatched from chicken eggs, but the view is by a very narrow perspective from which the humans history or the life forms evolution is excluded.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The problem of "alternative truths" is that such "truths" are views in some narrow perspectives and opposing parties are just insisting their own views in their own narrow perspectives.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The real truth is only one, certainly is difficult for us to grasp it in its entirety, but what we should do is to endeavor to broaden our perspectives in order to grasp the truth in a more entire form, which is what we are advocating in some of our articles like this and this.
