h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Chicken and Egg - a rational answer - A2026072
Author: Gnomon - U151503

A short entry. Do you think there's enough in this for an entry?

Hello Gnomon.

Are you aware of F19585?thread=289879

Thanks, OH, I wasn't aware of that conversation. The people there make the same point as I make in the entry. I think it deserves an entry in the Edited Guide.

Hello Gnomon.

I think that a Guide entry on this would be worthwhile.

I am quite sure you wrote the entry yourself. I was rather interested to know what happens when there is existing material on h2g2, even if it is only in a conversation - prior art, so to speak. Do you just include a link to it - no the rules don't allow that - so want does one do?

If the conversation took place with the intention of creating a Guide entry, then it would be possible to quote chunks of the conversation in the entry.

One researcher said:

Blah blah blah

Another researcher responded:

Blah blah blah

In that case, I would make all the quoted researchers into joint authors of the entry.

In this case, the discussion took place without any intention of making an entry, I was not aware of it and independently came up with the same line of reasoning. I see no problem here with me putting the entry into Peer Review without any reference to the conversation.

Fine topic for an entry Gnonom, definately in the spirit of things- and I think it's plenty long enough for an entry.

Protochickens. ... You definitely take the THEORY of evolution side in this matter. I'm not saying it's wrong. Don't care where I came from, just where I'm going. ...But the situation is this. If man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Shouldn't they have all evolved as well? So in that sense, are there fossil records of these protochickens? Because if there aren't, then this is an opinion, in which case the other side of the idea should be presented.
I always hate bringing religion into anything, but the Bible talks about G(g)od creating trees and animals, and such, towards the end of creation. So since, while not specifically addressed with the exception of Adam and Eve, everything is assumed to have come into existence in full grown form. Fully grown trees, fully grown, say, chickens.
What came first? An opinion or a fact?

Gnomon's solution, the egg came first, is true but unhelpful. There were eggs before there were birds. But he assumes (by way of simplifying) that from recognisably non-chicken parents came a recognisably chicken offspring. The clue is in 'recognisably'. It's a matter of perception.

Species seem to become fixed relatively quickly (which is why we don't expect to find many transitional forms in the fossil record) but surely they don't get fixed in one generation. In fact it's only after many many generations of offspring that *are* just like their parents that we think of calling an animal or plant by its specific name (chicken, potato).

So for my money the chicken/egg dichotomy is "which came first, the egg or the egg-layer?" and the answer I would favour is "the egg and the egg-layer are one".

"If man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"
I really have to take issue with this s**t. I don't know how often I have heard this stupid argument propounded by the Hard of Thinking. There are still monkeys because there is an *evolutionary tree*, not a simple ladder, and at some point new species arose from the *common ancestor* shared by both man and monkey. Monkeys are still around because they are adapted to fit their ecological niche. We are still around because we have evolved to become highly adaptable and capable of adjusting our environment to suit our needs. There is also the mistaken assumption present that somehow we are more advanced than monkeys. We aren't, just more intelligent, that's all. It's pretty simple stuff, really, and I do wish that humanity's ability to spout on certain subjects had evolved in step with its ability to reason: then certain people would not open their mouths without thinking about the issues first.

Evolution is a theory all right, but it's a theory bolstered by unarguable evidence NOT a hypothesis. Theories have been shown not be be falsifiable. Hypotheses haven't. The Creation Story is just that, a story. No evidence, nothing to suggest it ever really happened. Drag religion into these arguments, please, because there's nothing I like to see more than the spectacle of straw men being rendered limb from limb.

Assuming my POV that Gnomon and Recumbentman have, as usual, got the right answer somewhere between them, I think it would kind of fun argue the theological idea as put forward by NuclearConfusion:

Even die-hard religionists accept the fact that the female of most species (including birds) are born (or created, if you will) with a full complement of gametes for future use. Now, if God was building a bird, he would presumably have to start from the middle, it being a bit tricky to build the insides after the outsides. Hence, God must have made the eggs before the chicken was completed, and Gnomon is still right. QED.

B

To give NuclearConfusion hir due, s/he did say "I always hate bringing religion into anything" so we should let it lie and not harp on it. The ways of God are beyond our comprehension at best.

But I wonder why the capitals for "THEORY of evolution"; when I write about evolutionary matters I invoke the theory of evolution, and when I write about musical matters I invoke the theory of music.

It is a bit of a redundant word these days, really.

Evolution is still only a theory, gravity is still only a theory, the big bang is still only a theory. Atoms are NOT theory any more now we have the technology to see them, but electrons still are, as is the vast majority of physics, come to think of it.

B

"Only a theory"?? What's mere about it? About any of them? (And what's non-theoretical about atoms?)

I can see evolution in action (as versions of my entries evolve), I can see gravity in action (everywhere), I suppose I see electrons in action in electricity (I take physicists' word for it that they have been credibly 'photographed').

Just what is the opposite counterpart of the word "theory", that is supposed to be more reliable? What can be more reliable than number theory?? For instance.

Number theory, in this context, is admittedly something of a misnomer. Although there are those who would argue that the existence of numbers has not been proved and they are merely an artificial concept invented to help us deal with the world around us. It depends how silly you want to get about it.

In the examples I quoted, although you see the consequence of the process (humans and monkeys; things falling to earth; lights coming on), the actual mechanism has never been proven. The existence of atoms has been proven, as they can be seen using a fine-resolution Scanning Tunnelling Microscope. However, they were only theoretical until that point; although all the evidence pointed towards the evidence being true, there was no actual proof. As far as scientists and mathematicians are concerned, at least, proof is the opposite identity.

B

Actually (a thought that occurred to me as I pressed the Post button), number theory isn't all that reliable. Nobody knows, for example, what any finite number divided by zero is, and number theory is of no assistance.

B

although the entry states a theory i agree with, i must say i do not consider this entry to be of EG standard, as the EG is for balanced entries, and this only provides one theory, one possible answer to the question. the entry is not balanced and isn't factual either as the isn't any evidence of this hypothesis. no information on discovered bones that show possible species that could have evolved into chickens. now quotes from scientist perspectives. all the entry contains is an idea, and entries on 1 simple idea aren't suitable for the EG.

spook

"no information on discovered bones that show possible species that could have evolved into chickens"

Utterly wrong, I'm afraid:

http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/NDG/BRKRedJF.html

Slightly off-topic, I also found this, which is utterly hilarious:

http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume4/v4i4/chicken.htm

B

i didn't say there wasn't an Master B, i said that the entry didn't give any information about any, which it should if it is to go in the EG.

spook

The question of balance is used by creationists in the US to insist on an alternative account of the origin of species being taught alongside the Darwinian one.

Similarly, in the North of Ireland, some people cite the need for balance, to demand the use of the Irish language as well as English for government business. Other people cite the need for balance, to demand the use of Ulster Scotch as well as Irish and English.

I don't believe in balance of this kind. I do not see why a scientific theory should be balanced by an uscientific one, and I support entries that make a single point credibly and forcefully.

this entry shows no scientific proof or evidence, only a theory.

spook