|
Which did come first... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ze7 |
| you guys are so deep ;p |
|
|
| TweeK |
| Dj mikey nice sig......its ing funny |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris d(-_-)b
I believe some creature close to the chicken genotype evolved to a unstable metaphase. The phenotype of this creature evolved to something close to a chicken. In million years, the genotype was modified and soon it started to resamble a chicken. Now, since the new genotype always had to take characterics through the first stadium of a new individual; the egg, the first real fully evolved chicken was born out of an egg. This leads to our conclusion. The egg wasn't laid by a chicken but rather something close to it. A mutation during the chomosomal duplication of the X or Y chroms lead to the evolvation of the chicken genotype as we know it today.
So the egg came first. |
I agree with that.
In layman speak it means a thing which was very like a chicken layed an egg which was a bit differnt to that non-chicken (mutated). This thing in the egg was the first thing which could be called a chicken. Which came from an egg and so egg wins.
Yeah? |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Noisician
well, if you want to get all technical about that, then the answer really depends on which set theory you base your explanation upon. for example, in zermelo-fraenkel set theory (the one adopted almost universally), the expression "set of all sets" makes no sense whatsoever because in zf such a thing simply does not exist. there's only the CLASS of all sets, and it actually happens to be a proper class (i.e. it's NOT a set). therefore, it cannot be a member of itself because a proper class is NOT an object. this is a direct consequence of the axiom of separation (aka axiom of subsets). for the same reason the entire universe of discourse cannot possibly be a set. it's a proper class as well. and for that matter, we can also prove that the class of all ordinals is not a set. etc. |
Nice explanation. I should study some set theory. In any case, it's not interesting for the same reason that Russell's Paradox is.
As for the continued debate for the chicken vs. egg... it's already solved. Depending on how you define an egg (something that gives birth to a chicken or something that a chicken lays), the problem vanishes immediately. If one defines a chicken egg to be "an egg that yields a chicken," then yes, the egg came before the chicken by definition. The silly question "but then what laid THAT egg" becomes moot. Either a chicken laid it, in which case the chicken came from the egg (by defn), or something else laid it, in which case there's still no paradox. If you define it to be "something that a chicken lays," then the chicken came first.
It's a purely logical argument that sidesteps evolution. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Hey I have a question: shut up.
Oh, wait, that wasn't a question.
But still, shut up and stop asking stupid questions that are supposed to make you look really deep but are actually really insipid and nobody really cares about. |
|
|
| Dervish |
If you not interested why post something in this thread? Hmm maybe for a reaction? Feeling lonely?
BTW about | quote: | | But still, shut up and stop asking stupid questions that are supposed to make you look really deep but are actually really insipid and nobody really cares about. |
Supose you mean look deep and look smart....
...yeah kinda like if you had a pic in your profile which make sure everyone knows you can do FFT calcs isn't it? Or a status which make sure everyone knew you were an EE grad?
....now nobody would care about that would they?
 |
|
|
| Billabong |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
If you not interested why post something in this thread? Hmm maybe for a reaction? Feeling lonely?
BTW about
Supose you mean look deep and look smart....
...yeah kinda like if you had a pic in your profile which make sure everyone knows you can do FFT calcs isn't it? Or a status which make sure everyone knew you were an EE grad?
....now nobody would care about that would they?
|
Lol i second that as he invaded my thread, twat. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
If you not interested why post something in this thread? Hmm maybe for a reaction? Feeling lonely?
BTW about
Supose you mean look deep and look smart....
...yeah kinda like if you had a pic in your profile which make sure everyone knows you can do FFT calcs isn't it? Or a status which make sure everyone knew you were an EE grad?
....now nobody would care about that would they?
|
Damn, you caught me, and here I was thinking I was going to get away with it. A lot of people said they thought the avatar and status were funny, you know, due to there being no jobs for EEs anymore, but I guess they were just humouring me and trying not to hurt my feelings. I'm just starved for attention and the only place I can get it is online, I just wish you hadn't found me out!
...or, maybe I just thought it was a stupid thread. Occam's razor, anyone? |
|
|
| *InVeRs3* |
| rules of evolution say egg. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Damn, you caught me, and here I was thinking I was going to get away with it. |
Away with what?.... being a wanker?
| quote: | | due to there being no jobs for EEs anymore, |
... maybe it's just you.
Besides lets have your opinion chicken or egg? If you don't provide one then I don't see the point in you answering. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
But still, shut up and stop asking stupid questions that are supposed to make you look really deep but are actually really insipid and nobody really cares about. |
I don't think that's what he's going for.
I think he's just your token asinine 13 year old. |
|
|
| Noisician |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flyboy217
Nice explanation. I should study some set theory. In any case, it's not interesting for the same reason that Russell's Paradox is.
|
you don't think russell's paradox is interesting enough? hmm... i think it's amazing how one little antinomy followed from apparently sound assumptions was able to plunge the entire set theory into a crisis at the time it was devised. the paradox destroyed one of the most plausible postulates that cantor and his adherents piously believed in. what russell did was checkmate cantor's comprehension principle in two simple moves. unlike previous antinomies that had arisen before, russel's one did not require lengthy expositions and seemed very sound even to persons completely unfamiliar with set theory. he actually showed that some classes could not be regarded as sets. sure cantor had already been partially aware of this contradiction (he knew of the burali-forti paradox) but he didn't devote attention to this discovery at all, nor was he any disturbed by it. and boy, was he wrong. this clever trick of russel's persuaded zermelo into developing what later became known as zermelo-fraenkel set theory, the one we still use nowadays. hell, it still remains the best we have. though i should also add that the axiomatic approach it's based on is not ideal, either. while it helps with blocking the logical antinomies, it does not guard against various semantic antinomies, such as berry's paradox for example.
oh and btw, a chicken is just the means by which one egg produces another egg. |
|
|
|
|
