From: utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!idis!mi-cec!dvk
Newsgroups: net.misc
Title: A Chicken/Egg problem
Article-I.D.: mi-cec.125
Posted: Thu Aug  5 12:48:21 1982
Received: Sun Aug  8 07:06:50 1982



Okay, here is some more stuff to clutter the wires with:

        "Which came first, the chicken or the egg."?

Now, seriously. Can you come up with a *proof*  that  either  one  or  the
other came first. I have a proof that the egg came first, and I am curious
if anyone can refute it and prove the opposite. It goes as follows:

Postulate: Evolution occurs as outlined by Darwin.

Definition: A chicken egg is one that *produces* as chicken, not one  that
is produced *by* a chicken.

Proof: If one assumes that "creation" did not include higher  life  forms,
but  instead  centered at the protoplasmic level, then all life forms have
evolved into what they appear to be today. Thus, for "man" as we  know  it
to  exist,  there  must have been a proto-man and a proto-woman that sired
the first "man". (The process is nowhere near as abrupt as this, but  this
will  suffice  for  purpose  of  example).  If one believes this, then two
proto-chickens must have mated  and  produced  the  first  chicken.  Since
chickens (and naturally, proto-chickens) lay eggs, the proto-chickens must
have layed an egg that hatched the chicken.  By definition above, this  is
a chicken egg, and thus the egg came first.

Now, if you change my definition of "chicken egg", you easily come up with
the alternate proof. (Big deal!) And if you say simply "the Bible says God
created all the animals on the earth, so the chicken came first", you also
get  Bingo.   Apologies  to  those  whom  this may offend,  but a book, no
matter what it is called, is just a book. I want proof.

So, without changing the definition of chicken egg,  can  anyone  come  up
with  the opposite  proof? You  may use any postulates you like, including
scrapping mine. But, "The Bible says so" just won't wash.