• bryndos@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    I think it you take any example of a chicken that is alive today and were able to trace back its ancestry far enough then you’d eventually find an ancestor that most reasonable people would agree is not a chicken. And probably many of those “non-chicken” ancestors did hatch out of “non-chicken” eggs. So I think that it is most likely that some “non-chicken” egg existed before, and forms part of the direct ancestry of, every chicken that has ever lived. If that’s what you’re asking.

    Many of the arguments to support ‘chicken’ being first seem to add the assumption that “egg” must mean “chicken-egg”. That assumption doesn’t seem reasonable to me, especially in the context of ancestry. Maybe it would be reasonable to creationists though - so frankly if someone does believe that I’d just walk away and let them “win”. I’d rather find a natural history museum and see if they have any proto-chicken exhibits than waste time with people like that.

    My answer is also based on extra assumptions too. I’ve slotted the indefinite article in to the gap “[a] chicken”, and worse replaced the definite article “the” with the indefinite “an” in reference to ‘the’ egg. People will argue about that, but the question is ambiguous, and needs to be more specific. ‘Which came first the troll or the bait?’