Egg or Chicken

[Eoin Monaghan]

the age-old question, so, which came first ?

[Gary Male]

Not really suitable for games/puzzles, so moved to Off Topic

[Ben Hunter]

It's impossible to say because there's no suitable definition of a chicken that allows this question to be answered properly. Unless you're talking about eggs in general, in which case the answer is egg.

[Charlie Reams]

Assuming you mean chicken eggs and not general eggs, it's possible for a non-chicken to lay a chicken egg (by genetic mutation), but by definition it's not possible for a non-chicken egg to produce a chicken, so it must have been the egg.

[Julie T]

What Charlie said. Heck! We actually agreed on something!

[M. George Quinn]

There's a HEYlarious cartoon somewhere of a chicken and an egg in bed with an egg smoking a fag and a chicken looking unfulfilled. Do you see what they did there? As I mentioned; HEYlarious.

Assuming Darwinism, I reckon a long, long time ago (IAGFFA) that there was probably a chickenesque creature that didn't meet the criteria of a chicken but still laid what we would invariably describe as an egg, so I vote egg.

Can we vote on something more interesting now, like what tastes better on toast?

[Michael Wallace]

Can we vote on something more interesting now, like what tastes better on toast?

What are the options?

[Gavin Chipper]

Assuming you mean chicken eggs and not general eggs, it's possible for a non-chicken to lay a chicken egg (by genetic mutation), but by definition it's not possible for a non-chicken egg to produce a chicken, so it must have been the egg.

So is an x-egg by definition an egg that produces an x rather than one produced by an x? Unfertilised eggs of course don't produce chickens...

[Dinos Sfyris]

Of course it's an egg. ANDIESEGG to be precise.

[M. George Quinn]

Can we vote on something more interesting now, like what tastes better on toast?

What are the options?

I was going to stick with egg or chicken?

[M. George Quinn]

In what case I should've said which...

I'm changing my avatar I can't even take myself seriously.

[Jason Larsen]

The egg!

Why fix an old joke when it's not broken!

[Eoin Monaghan]

Not really suitable for games/puzzles, so moved to Off Topic

no probs

[Jason Larsen]

Of course that's ok with Gary!

[Joseph Bolas]

No matter which came first, both are lovely to eat , but I will say eggs.

[Neil Zussman]

Assuming you mean chicken eggs and not general eggs, it's possible for a non-chicken to lay a chicken egg (by genetic mutation), but by definition it's not possible for a non-chicken egg to produce a chicken, so it must have been the egg.

IAWTP.

However, this is a forum primarily about a word game. So I believe Eoin was tryng to trick us. I believe the 'correct' answer is: the Chicken. It comes first in the dictionary.

[Adam Dexter]

Of course it's an egg. ANDIESEGG to be precise.

You make me chuckle

[Gavin Chipper]

Assuming you mean chicken eggs and not general eggs, it's possible for a non-chicken to lay a chicken egg (by genetic mutation), but by definition it's not possible for a non-chicken egg to produce a chicken, so it must have been the egg.

So is an x-egg by definition an egg that produces an x rather than one produced by an x? Unfertilised eggs of course don't produce chickens...

The point being of course if you use the definitions that Charlie's implicitly using, a normal unfertilised egg that you eat wouldn't be called a chicken egg, because it doesn't produce a chicken.

[Charlie Reams]

Assuming you mean chicken eggs and not general eggs, it's possible for a non-chicken to lay a chicken egg (by genetic mutation), but by definition it's not possible for a non-chicken egg to produce a chicken, so it must have been the egg.

So is an x-egg by definition an egg that produces an x rather than one produced by an x? Unfertilised eggs of course don't produce chickens...

The point being of course if you use the definitions that Charlie's implicitly using, a normal unfertilised egg that you eat wouldn't be called a chicken egg, because it doesn't produce a chicken.

I said that a non-chicken egg can't produce a chicken. That doesn't mean a chicken egg must produce a chicken.

[Gavin Chipper]

I said that a non-chicken egg can't produce a chicken. That doesn't mean a chicken egg must produce a chicken.

I was half-expecting that answer. So basically what we're saying is that if an x produces an egg and that egg produces a y, it is a y egg. But if an x produces an egg which produces nothing itself, it is an x egg. I think it's a bit dubious myself. It should be a nothing egg rather than a chicken egg!

[Charlie Reams]

I said that a non-chicken egg can't produce a chicken. That doesn't mean a chicken egg must produce a chicken.

I was half-expecting that answer. So basically what we're saying is that if an x produces an egg and that egg produces a y, it is a y egg. But if an x produces an egg which produces nothing itself, it is an x egg. I think it's a bit dubious myself. It should be a nothing egg rather than a chicken egg!

No, I'm not saying that. It could be that there's some other feature of the egg which distinguishes it as a chicken egg (I have no idea what.)

Or we could put the definition the other way round and say that an x always produces an x-egg (by definition), but an x-egg may not produce an x, in which case obviously the chicken came first. I guess that's an easier way to handle things.

[Gavin Chipper]

I said that a non-chicken egg can't produce a chicken. That doesn't mean a chicken egg must produce a chicken.

I was half-expecting that answer. So basically what we're saying is that if an x produces an egg and that egg produces a y, it is a y egg. But if an x produces an egg which produces nothing itself, it is an x egg. I think it's a bit dubious myself. It should be a nothing egg rather than a chicken egg!

No, I'm not saying that. It could be that there's some other feature of the egg which distinguishes it as a chicken egg (I have no idea what.)

Or we could put the definition the other way round and say that an x always produces an x-egg (by definition), but an x-egg may not produce an x, in which case obviously the chicken came first. I guess that's an easier way to handle things.

As long as your eggs aren't all in one basket.

[Matt Morrison]

As long as your eggs aren't all in one basket.

What do you call the situation when a farmer could have anything from 52 to 54 eggs?
Three-range eggs.

[Jon O'Neill]

Chicken.

[Matt Morrison]

Chicken.

Genius.

[Gavin Chipper]

No, I'm not saying that. It could be that there's some other feature of the egg which distinguishes it as a chicken egg (I have no idea what.)

Or we could put the definition the other way round and say that an x always produces an x-egg (by definition), but an x-egg may not produce an x, in which case obviously the chicken came first. I guess that's an easier way to handle things.

That one might want to put the definition the other way round was sort of my point anyway.

[Charlie Reams]

No, I'm not saying that. It could be that there's some other feature of the egg which distinguishes it as a chicken egg (I have no idea what.)

Or we could put the definition the other way round and say that an x always produces an x-egg (by definition), but an x-egg may not produce an x, in which case obviously the chicken came first. I guess that's an easier way to handle things.

That one might want to put the definition the other way round was sort of my point anyway.

Yep, sure. Maybe the whole question is just supposed to spark a debate about definitions, which is pretty pointless but there we are. I originally thought that it was pretty arbitrary but you make a good case for it being that an egg laid by an x must be an x-egg.

[Gavin Chipper]

Yep, sure. Maybe the whole question is just supposed to spark a debate about definitions, which is pretty pointless but there we are. I originally thought that it was pretty arbitrary but you make a good case for it being that an egg laid by an x must be an x-egg.

I also considered it to be pretty arbitrary but since you went for one option I thought it would best to disagree.