863
Just so there's no confusion
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
863 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
13931 readers
1783 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even if you're talking about chicken eggs specifically it's still the egg first. The first chicken egg would have been laid by a proto chicken
Bro chickens are already loaded with protein, what are you doing?
It's preferable to Zergchicken, trust me.
I wasn't scared before this, so I'm going to do exactly that
Ye but if you boost the protein you can sell it as a health food!
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.
But is it a chicken egg because it hatches into a chicken or because it is laid by a chicken?
Because it hatches into a chicken, you're thinking of a chicken's egg
Wait, so is an unfertilized egg referred to as a chicken's egg, and never a chicken egg?
it contains the DNA of a chicken, if not a viable chicken embryo
"chicken's egg" is the owner of the egg the chicken inside it, or the one who laid it?
Likewise it's not clear that "chicken egg" refers to the creator of the egg or the inhabitant of it.
Pretending for the sake of semantic argument that any of these scenarios were possible:
If an alligator laid an egg and a chicken came out, was that a chicken egg?
If a chicken laid an egg and an alligator came out, was that a chicken egg?
But now consider, you know what I mean by the following phrase:
"An alligator laid a chicken egg, and an alligator hatched out of it"
One who laid it. Yes it is, it's the inhabitant. Yes. No. You mean alligator egg, not chicken egg.
"you mean alligator egg"
No, I didn't. And yet you still likely understand what I mean, or get close enough to what I mean that it doesn't matter, unless you're being intentionally obstinate.
And what do you think of the idea that the egg is simply a phase in the life of an animal, that the chicken is the egg it hatched from, not just the former inhabitant? In this case how can the egg be owned by the animal that laid it if it is itself an animal?
Like the caterpillar is the chrysalis is the butterfly, the chicken is the egg.
If it hatches into an alligator then it's an alligator egg, so yeah you did mean alligator egg. I actually don't know what you mean, because what you described doesn't make sense.
And I do think think that, it belongs to that creature just like you belong to your mom and vice versa. If somone pointed at your mom and said "that's PeriodicallyPedantic's mom" and you said "Aha! But how can she be mine when she's a different person!", they'd probably just say "the fuck you on about".
I honestly do not believe that when I said that, you not only didn't but we're unable to imagine an egg that by all properties confirmed to the expectations of a chicken egg until an alligator miraculously hatched out of it.
I do not believe you're debating in good faith
I genuinely cannot imagine that. It doesn't make any sense. The only property that is a necessary condition for an egg to be a chicken egg is that it has the potential for a chicken to hatch from it. So what you are describing has an inconsistency and is therefore nonsense. Do you mean an alligator egg that looks like a chicken egg? Because if so, then it's still an alligator egg.
Literally the only thing that matters is that an alligator hatches from it, so it's an alligator egg.
It depends on which egg and which chicken you mean exactly.
I feel like this kinda answer just shows you haven't really thought about the problem in depth.
I feel like this kinda answer just shows you haven’t really thought about the problem in depth.
I feel like this kinda answer just shows you haven’t really thought about the problem in depth.