1361

submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 9 points 5 months ago

Ah, but when that line of tiny change is so arbitrary... Is it a true chicken until it grows up and fulfils its destiny? Is it a chicken based purely on its genetic code, so the egg whence it hatched is a chicken egg; or is it truly a chicken when it becomes a chicken..... meh, I write this far and find I still agree with you: even in that case the egg it hatched from becomes a chicken egg by virtue of the chicken it grew into.

[-] bob_lemon@feddit.de 20 points 5 months ago

In other words, the question becomes: "Is an egg defined by the creature that laid it, or the creature that will hatch from it?"

[-] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Hatch or grow. Because once you're asking those questions, is the first chick truly the first chicken?

"Is a juvenile defined by what it currently is or what it will/might become?" And, "is chicken-ness an innate quality of the animal, or in relation to the animal fulfilling/presenting (or being able to fulfil) some chicken-ness?"

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

The thing that defines chicken-ness is crossing the road. So if the egg rolled across the road before hatching does that mean the egg is a chicken egg?

But of course the chicken must also see the other side of the road. Since it's impossible for see outside of the egg before hatching it might be the egg lacks sufficient chicken-ness to be considered a chicken egg.

But once the egg hatches the chicken will see the other side of the road. So if the egg crosses the road and the chicken that hatches from the egg sees the other side of the road, both the egg and chicken must both be considered to be sufficiently chickenly to complete the sequence required to establish the complete chicken.