I don’t think It’s that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg
The DNA mutation doesn’t happen when the chicken hatches, it happens when the egg is made. So the egg already has the changes that turn it into a chicken egg.
So? This is irrelevant. The question is whether an egg should be “named” after what laid it (ie. A proto chicken egg, which contains a chicken) or if it should be named after what it contains (a chicken egg, laid by a proto chicken).
I see no reason why the default assumption is that it should be named after what it contains. What if the egg was not fertilised and just contains yolk? Should it then be called a yolk egg?
Ok, but does it matter what it’s called? If it contains a modern chicken, and it’s an egg, whether it’s a chicken egg, or a proto chicken egg is debatable. But the egg definitely came first
Not if we are specifically asking about whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first (which is what the original comment in this chain implied), because if proto-chickens lay proto-chicken eggs and a chicken was hatched out of one, then the chicken came before the chicken egg
Sure but that’s changing the question, the original question is “which came first, the chicken or the egg” not “the chicken or the chicken egg” so the answer to the question, as posed, is definitely: the egg
I don’t think It’s that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg
The DNA mutation doesn’t happen when the chicken hatches, it happens when the egg is made. So the egg already has the changes that turn it into a chicken egg.
So? This is irrelevant. The question is whether an egg should be “named” after what laid it (ie. A proto chicken egg, which contains a chicken) or if it should be named after what it contains (a chicken egg, laid by a proto chicken).
I see no reason why the default assumption is that it should be named after what it contains. What if the egg was not fertilised and just contains yolk? Should it then be called a yolk egg?
I always love to bring up that this boils down to an argument about definitions, given the assumption we’re talking about chicken eggs.
Ok, but does it matter what it’s called? If it contains a modern chicken, and it’s an egg, whether it’s a chicken egg, or a proto chicken egg is debatable. But the egg definitely came first
Not if we are specifically asking about whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first (which is what the original comment in this chain implied), because if proto-chickens lay proto-chicken eggs and a chicken was hatched out of one, then the chicken came before the chicken egg
Sure but that’s changing the question, the original question is “which came first, the chicken or the egg” not “the chicken or the chicken egg” so the answer to the question, as posed, is definitely: the egg
??? You yourself said “even if we are talking about chicken eggs, it is still the egg first” and I was making a point against that.