1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:47 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:That's false. If you in fact define "chicken egg" literally as "an egg containing a chicken," then the chicken must have come first, or at least at the same time as the chicken egg, because you cannot have a chicken egg without a chicken inside it.

Grocery store eggs are still generally accepted as "chicken eggs", despite never containing a chicken. There's no reason "chicken egg" should necessarily be defined as "egg containing a chicken", and for the purposes of the question...that's not the definition that is used. It's also not a controversial claim that a fertilized egg cell is not considered an actual viable member of the species when first fertilized (and an egg is generally fully formed within the day fertilization occurs).

(Hell, if you follow that linguistic route, the chicken's egg cell certainly came first.)
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:01 pm UTC

I would say a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken or which eventually grows a chicken.

Therefore the egg came first but grocery store eggs are still chicken eggs.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I would say a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken or which eventually grows a chicken.

Therefore the egg came first but grocery store eggs are still chicken eggs.

Or maybe a chicken egg is an egg that contains chicken DNA.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:57 pm UTC

Nah, because injecting some chicken DNA into a frog egg doesn't make it a chicken egg.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:43 pm UTC

Anyway, it doesn't really solve the issue, because "eggs which eventually grow chickens" are, as far as we know, in all cases also "eggs laid by chickens". Which is, you know, the point.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Nah, because injecting some chicken DNA into a frog egg doesn't make it a chicken egg.

Also, because you can fit a ton of DNA in an egg.

If I can fit DNA from a member of virtually every placental mammal into a chicken egg, does it become a chicken/bear/cat/dog/human/ape/giraffe/rhino/elephant/hyrax/sheep/horse/cow/monkey/marmoset egg?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Klear » Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:06 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Nah, because injecting some chicken DNA into a frog egg doesn't make it a chicken egg.


That's basically what they did in Jurassic Park though.

KrytenKoro wrote:If I can fit DNA from a member of virtually every placental mammal into a chicken egg, does it become a chicken/bear/cat/dog/human/ape/giraffe/rhino/elephant/hyrax/sheep/horse/cow/monkey/marmoset egg?


The secret origin of... ManBearPig!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:45 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really solve the issue, because "eggs which eventually grow chickens" are, as far as we know, in all cases also "eggs laid by chickens". Which is, you know, the point.
No, because we're assuming there was a first chicken, which by my definition must have come from a chicken egg. However, that chicken egg could have been laid by the last proto-chicken without there being any contradiction. I didn't say if it's a chicken egg it was laid by a chicken, I said if it was laid by a chicken it's a chicken egg.

Ergo: the egg came first.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:19 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really solve the issue, because "eggs which eventually grow chickens" are, as far as we know, in all cases also "eggs laid by chickens". Which is, you know, the point.
No, because we're assuming there was a first chicken, which by my definition must have come from a chicken egg. However, that chicken egg could have been laid by the last proto-chicken without there being any contradiction. I didn't say if it's a chicken egg it was laid by a chicken, I said if it was laid by a chicken it's a chicken egg.

Ergo: the egg came first.

Yeah but I was making a factual rather than definitional claim. I.E. there is no such thing a a "proto-chicken" capable of laying chicken eggs, and there never has been. Only chickens can lay chicken eggs. Proto-chickens could only lay proto-chicken eggs. The obvious solution to the dilemma is the vagueness at the border between "chickens" and "chicken-like birds," since there is no single place at which it would make sense to draw such a distinction, even if at the large scale the distinction is clear.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:50 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really solve the issue, because "eggs which eventually grow chickens" are, as far as we know, in all cases also "eggs laid by chickens". Which is, you know, the point.
No, because we're assuming there was a first chicken, which by my definition must have come from a chicken egg. However, that chicken egg could have been laid by the last proto-chicken without there being any contradiction. I didn't say if it's a chicken egg it was laid by a chicken, I said if it was laid by a chicken it's a chicken egg.

Ergo: the egg came first.

Yeah but I was making a factual rather than definitional claim. I.E. there is no such thing a a "proto-chicken" capable of laying chicken eggs, and there never has been. Only chickens can lay chicken eggs. Proto-chickens could only lay proto-chicken eggs. The obvious solution to the dilemma is the vagueness at the border between "chickens" and "chicken-like birds," since there is no single place at which it would make sense to draw such a distinction, even if at the large scale the distinction is clear.

Okay, so you've completely redefined the terms so that you have a chance to tell everyone else that they're "obviously" wrong.

Jolly good on you.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby addams » Fri Oct 31, 2014 4:51 am UTC

The chicken came first.
The egg was laid by something like a chicken.
The egg was laid by something that was Not a chicken.

The thing that came out of that egg was a chicken.
The first chicken. It probably pecked its Mom.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:19 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really solve the issue, because "eggs which eventually grow chickens" are, as far as we know, in all cases also "eggs laid by chickens". Which is, you know, the point.
No, because we're assuming there was a first chicken, which by my definition must have come from a chicken egg. However, that chicken egg could have been laid by the last proto-chicken without there being any contradiction. I didn't say if it's a chicken egg it was laid by a chicken, I said if it was laid by a chicken it's a chicken egg.

Ergo: the egg came first.

Yeah but I was making a factual rather than definitional claim. I.E. there is no such thing a a "proto-chicken" capable of laying chicken eggs, and there never has been. Only chickens can lay chicken eggs. Proto-chickens could only lay proto-chicken eggs. The obvious solution to the dilemma is the vagueness at the border between "chickens" and "chicken-like birds," since there is no single place at which it would make sense to draw such a distinction, even if at the large scale the distinction is clear.

Okay, so you've completely redefined the terms so that you have a chance to tell everyone else that they're "obviously" wrong.

Jolly good on you.

No I haven't. I have accepted every definition. Whether a chicken egg is an "egg laid by a chicken" or an "egg which may grow into a chicken" or "either of the previous definitions," it is still not possible to determine which came first. Minor changes in meaning will not avoid this problem. It is a result of there not being a "first chicken" at all.

addams wrote:The chicken came first.
The egg was laid by something like a chicken.
The egg was laid by something that was Not a chicken.

The thing that came out of that egg was a chicken.
The first chicken. It probably pecked its Mom.

There is no sensible definition that includes all chickens and no birds which are not chickens which can determine which bird was the first individual to qualify as a "chicken." Entire populations evolve, not individuals.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Klear » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:03 am UTC

I can't believe you're really still discussing this.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:39 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really solve the issue, because "eggs which eventually grow chickens" are, as far as we know, in all cases also "eggs laid by chickens". Which is, you know, the point.
No, because we're assuming there was a first chicken, which by my definition must have come from a chicken egg. However, that chicken egg could have been laid by the last proto-chicken without there being any contradiction. I didn't say if it's a chicken egg it was laid by a chicken, I said if it was laid by a chicken it's a chicken egg.

Ergo: the egg came first.

Yeah but I was making a factual rather than definitional claim. I.E. there is no such thing a a "proto-chicken" capable of laying chicken eggs, and there never has been. Only chickens can lay chicken eggs. Proto-chickens could only lay proto-chicken eggs. The obvious solution to the dilemma is the vagueness at the border between "chickens" and "chicken-like birds," since there is no single place at which it would make sense to draw such a distinction, even if at the large scale the distinction is clear.

Okay, so you've completely redefined the terms so that you have a chance to tell everyone else that they're "obviously" wrong.

Jolly good on you.

No I haven't. I have accepted every definition. Whether a chicken egg is an "egg laid by a chicken" or an "egg which may grow into a chicken" or "either of the previous definitions," it is still not possible to determine which came first. Minor changes in meaning will not avoid this problem. It is a result of there not being a "first chicken" at all.
Dude, yes, everyone having this discussion knows how evolution works and that species are fuzzy around the edges.

And everyone having this discussion except you knows that the question is facetious and so we have to get a bit facetious to answer it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby orthogon » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:28 pm UTC

Does it help if we admit the axiom of choice?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:35 pm UTC

Yes, at least to some extent.

Being equivalent to the well-ordering principle, accepting AoC means in any set of chickens and eggs, even uncountable sets, there is an ordering such that every subset has a first element.

Unfortunately, though, Choice-based proofs are rarely constructive, so it may be undecidable whether that first element is in fact one of the chickens or one of the eggs.
Last edited by gmalivuk on Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby addams » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:38 pm UTC

Klear wrote:I can't believe you're really still discussing this.

Please, believe it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg

We have been having this conversation for so long.
it is an older and better tradition than Santa Claws.

So many things and ways to discuss using the Structure of Chicken to float our intellectual boats.

How do you know a thing is not a Chicken?
Today it takes a Lab and/or an Expert.

Have you seen Domestic Dogs?
Jeeze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwkuD_Ij-HE
If you had never seen a domestic dog, before.
What would make you think, "Those are the Same Kind of Animal?"

Damn it!
Those dogs are distracting.

Maybe the little one will hatch and a Great Dane puppy will Pop Out.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:47 pm UTC

The axiom of choice clearly allows you to select an order for the union of chickens and chicken eggs, and therefore allows you to select either as first. Unless of course the set of chickens or the set of chicken eggs is empty, in which case we have all been played.

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: 1211: "Birds and Dinosaurs"

Postby thunk » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:58 pm UTC

If you accept Baron et al. (2017)'s taxonomy (which has caused quite a bit of uproar in certain circles), the comic shouldn't change but the group represented is now 'Ornithoscelida', not Dinosauria. Never mind those who claim that sauropods should no longer be dinosaurs under this.

This doesn't change the conclusions of the comic, however.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: orthogon and 110 guests