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.