Chicken vs Egg

The compression artifacts (from converting B/W line art to jpg) being printed on the page have given me a new pet peeve
- Now imagine these corrupted images being engraved into stone or steel by machine. Turned into literal artifacts for future generations to ponder over.
  
  "The intentional grey diamonds, you see this was a highly advanced society capable of high definition videos and images, represents a loving fealty to that which is complete or known. The imperfections in the art represent an acknowledgement of their societal short falls. This will be on the exam by the way."
- Jpg for photos, png for everything else.
  It’s an easy rule of thumb, it hurts that 20 years of repeating it seems to have had zero effect.
  Maybe this helps: Jpg fucks up your image, and png doesn’t.
  Or: jpg is lossy, png is lossless.
  Or: It’s better to save photos as png than cartoons as jpg.
  Seriously, I hope some of this breaks through because deep fried images are so fucking unnecessary.
  
  I hear WebP can often offer much better compression than PNG in lossless mode so that could be an alternative.
  
  Are there any downsides to saving photos as pngs?
- We have explosive
- John Warnock is rolling in his grave right now.

At which point does an egg of non-chicken become an egg of chicken?
- Chickenness is a spectrum, not a binary
  
  Is archeopteryx a chicken?
  
  That's quite controversial.
- Is a "chicken egg" an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg that will hatch into a chicken?
  
  It's an egg that will hatch into a chicken, since the "first" chicken must have hatched out of an egg that was laid and fertilized by two "non-chickens" whose DNA combined together to make a full-blown chicken. Of course it wasn't actually just one egg, but really, no matter how you think about it, the egg came first.
  
  The former, otherwise it would be "chicken's egg".
  
  I think it's an egg laid by a chicken. Unfertilized eggs laid by chickens that will never become chickens are still chicken eggs.
  
  I feel like my comment in another thread is even more relevant here:
  I have no direct knowledge about that, but if we take the analogy of the egg (shell, albumen and yolk sack) being the life-support system of the embryo during gestation, in humans the placenta would be a big part of that, and exactly whose body it is part of its not simple (from what I remember both mother and child contribute cells, and the 'plan' for building it comes from the father's genes). So maybe for chickens it could be ambiguous whether the shell 'belongs' to the laying generation or the hatching one. Seems like mostly a human taxonomy distinction to make anyway, obviously it's in between the two, but we like to draw the line somewhere.
- When first chicken lay egg, duh!
  
  Unless you define a chicken egg as an egg of which a chicken is born (or of which a chicken could be born)
- Doesn't matter as it's not a stated in the question. It just needs to be an egg.
- Wherever humans draw the line. The meme uses the assumption that there is a clear change from earlier species to later descendants, when it reality it is a continuous change of many characteristics each time an individual reproduces and spreads their genetics. It's the flaw of the missing link argument.
- When genetic mutation happened between non-chicken and its egg to create real chicken

The chicken vs egg question has never been about chronology or science.
It’s been about religion vs science.
Science says the egg came first: something nearly imperceptibly not quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched a chicken. That’s how evolution works, with the egg coming first.
Religion says a god poofed a chicken into existence. The chicken came first, and only ever laid pure chicken eggs. The eggs will forever hatch a chicken and nothing but a chicken.
That’s the chicken vs egg thing. It’s not a puzzle at all, it’s just science vs religion.
e: simplified. I’m too wordy by default.
- You can interpret it that way now but that's not the original meanig.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
  I understand and respect where you are coming from but i prefer not to rewrite history while arguing about ideas.
  
  Yes, thank you, you're exactly right. The person you're responding to is correct that it's come to have science vs religion overtones, but that's not what the expression meant to people for ages and ages.
  
  You’re right, I shouldn’t have said ‘never’. It was a paradox in ancient history, but at least in my lifetime, I’ve read it as basically solved. That may be a relatively recent stance (since 100-200 years ago), but it doesn’t seem useful to continue presenting it as a paradox at this point.
- I've always interpreted it as which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
  But I'd just like to point out not all religions have that view of creationism vs evolution, and even within Christianity it's really only your super conservative, and very loud, fundamentalists. Catholicism doesn't have an official stance on evolution, iirc, the Episcopal church in the USA is fully supportive of evolution, as are most mainline Christians. Not to detract from your point or anything, I just don't like seeing all religious people, or all Christians, lumped together with some of the worst examples of religiosity that the US has to offer.
  
  I've always interpreted it as which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
  I agree. And this boils down to how you define 'chicken egg'. If the definition is "egg laid by a chicken", then the chicken had to have come first. If it's "egg that hatches a chick" (which will grow into a chicken), then the egg must have come first. But this ignores the pretty huge problem of picking a precise point on the evolutionary timeline where a non-chicken gave birth to a chicken. There isn't going to be such a clearly-defined point.
  
  Religion is usually bad, so I don't have an issue lumping them all together.
- literally no one in the world means that when they talk about chicken vs egg. what a weird way to look at the world.
  also citation needed on religion saying god proofed chicken into existence without the egg.
  
  It made Fox News in 2015.
  A biology paper that same year.
  Religious people seem to care.
  More religious people care.
  Biologists have been talking about it.
  BBC Science covered it.
  I didn’t pull this out of my arse.
  And re: that citation you asked for:
  God created mature birds with the ability to reproduce. So the bird was first, ready to lay eggs.
  —Answers In Genesis
- I think there are two valid scientific/philosophical answers without taking religion into it, based on one question:
  Are we specifically talking a chicken egg, or the concept of an egg?
  In the former case, eggshells contain compounds that cannot exist in nature, and must come from a creature. a chicken egg cannot exist without a chicken before it, thus the chicken came first.
  In the latter case, various evolutionary splits happened between animals evolving egg developing capability and some animals evolving into chickens. From this we can say that the egg came before the chicken.
  Worst case, this solved exactly nothing. Best case, it can be an exercise in reasoning.
- This is by far the most correct answer to the chicken and egg question.
  
  Not really, it still doesn't answer the question as the main thing is still unclear.
  Is the first chicken egg the one the chicken hatched from or the first egg a chicken laid.
  Both can be argued as correct.

I don't like this because it's not addressing the actual saying. Obviously the saying is about chicken eggs specifically.
But I've always felt obviously the egg came first. The first chicken was born in an egg, so the egg came first. That egg could have been produced from a creature with a mutation which caused it to produce the first chicken egg when it is not itself the exact same species.
- The newly classified creature didn't mutate as soon as it hatched, it was a chicken inside the egg the whole time.
  Is it the mom's egg or the chicken's egg I guess is the argument you are making. I call it the chicken's egg. So the egg came first.
- 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.
  
  In other words, the question becomes: "Is an egg defined by the creature that laid it, or the creature that will hatch from it?"
- It's somehiw obvious now, but the question appeared 25 centuries ago when it wasn't even remotely clear what was the answer.
- But I think it's not about chicken at all. People just don't know which creature on earth laid the first egg, so the chicken is just a stand-in. As chicken are the species we most associate with eggs for obvious reasons. What came first: the first egg or the first egg-laying creature? Has to be the egg-laying creature, but then how did that get born?
- I believe this is correct as I read in a book somewhere that it was a kind of proto-chicken if you will, that laid an egg of which came a the first chicken.
  The more interesting question is how long did it take for the first BBQ Chicken.
  
  Real question is which came first, BBQ chicken or the Eggs Benedict?

I very much like that I have a clear cut answer for this now.

Over time, a population of proto-chickens lay eggs with unique genetic variations that randomly direct the population towards laying eggs that result in modern chickens. The egg comes first, and it's a whole bunch of them

That's some good jpeg
- delicious, sweet jpeg
  
  Delicious artifacts uhmm

I know this is a science meme community but the amount of factually inaccurate comments is concerning.
- There are more stars in the galaxy than there are atoms in the universe
  
  Lmao
- Unironically would be interested in a list of them, with explanations why they're wrong. Not to dunk on them but to check my own misconceptions.

This cladogram is outdated about turtles, which are no longer considered the most phylogenetically basal reptiles.
- Last I heard they might be closer to crocs and birds than to zards and snakes

The snake and lizard branch is wrong. I care very much about the accuracy of memes, and I have to point out that many lizards are more closely related to snakes than they are to other lizards.
- Genetically, maybe, but you have to remember intermarriage and cultural separation within the lizard-snake community.

TIL turtles are older than crocodiles
- No, turtles and crocodiles share an older closest common ancestor than lizards and crocodiles.

As a child I was really into dinosaurs and came to this conclusion

Are chickens even real?
- Yes, unless declared integer.
- Or are they local?

But which came first:
The chicken or the chicken's egg? Did the first chicken come from a chicken egg? Or did it come from a snake egg?
- Based on the jpeg, this meme came first
- I recall reading somewhere that it would have been a proto- chicken kind of thing. Like not quite a chicken but it laid an egg and the first chicken came out.
  Maybe a gene mutation of some sort.
  
  Even that's not that clear cut. The mutants and the nonmutant proto chickens interbred regularly and different mutants showed up and also interbred. The real answer is there's no platonic ideal chicken but we really want to categorize this thing.
  Edit: I guess the platonic ideal chicken is a man according to diogenes.
- i think it would depend on whether the genes from the mother or embryo build the shell.
  
  I have no direct knowledge about that, but if we take the analogy of the egg (shell, albumen and yolk sack) being the life-support system of the embryo during gestation, in humans the placenta would be a big part of that, and exactly whose body it is part of its not simple (from what I remember both mother and child contribute cells, and the 'plan' for building it comes from the father's genes). So maybe for chickens it could be ambiguous whether the shell 'belongs' to the laying generation or the hatching one. Seems like mostly a human taxonomy distinction to make anyway, obviously it's in between the two, but we like to draw the line somewhere.

Forget the chicken. What came first, the tardigrade, or the egg? Well, in this case, I think the tardigrade would have to exist first.

The egg came first. To the chickens disappointment and, who left to find a more satisfying partner.

I guess the tree branch needs to start somewhere, but why leave out amphibians?
- Thats on the branch labeled traitors that leads to paying bills.
  
  I don’t get it. Care to explain?

Maybe they meant chicken eggs but I guess the chicken egg is still first in that case
- Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, "which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg?" And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:
  If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother's ovum, the father's sperm, or the fertilised zygote.
  As an alternative, though it's a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: "which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?" That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it's really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It's a way of making an analogy for a "causation dilemma" and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It's also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.

An egg is technically a single cell. So, eggs came first as those were the first forms of life.
- Eggs are single cells, but all single cells are not eggs.
  
  If they were, we'd be made up of about 30 trillion eggs each
  
  Due to evolution, unicellular became Multicellular.

And now everybody together... C O E V O L U T I O N

I thought this was a T-shirt and now I want it on a tshirt

- Well some of us are not only ignorant but had our critical thinking skills to varying levels stunted by shitty education. To me the answer didn't necessarily matter as long as people agree both exist, but I'm glad to now have an answer grounded in science rather than relying on philosophical musing

I haven't understood how this question seems difficult to so many. Not trying to put anyone down, but chicks hatch from eggs. In order for a chicken to be classified as a chicken (as we know it to be), it would have hatched out of an egg.
- When they say egg they mean chicken egg, not any kind of egg. It's not completely clear if the first chicken came up from what you'd call your usual chicken egg.
  
  Is it a chicken egg if it came from a chicken, or contains a chicken?
- And who laid that egg? Certainly not me. The implication is that it's about a chicken egg and it's not difficult, it just doesn't have a determinative answer because chicken is a spectrum. What even is the first chicken? There ain't just a thing, that's not how evolution works. It's a gradual change from once species to another like language change. Who was the first speaker of modern English and how could they understand their middle English speaking parents?
  That's why the chicken and egg thing is used as an allergy for questions that do not have a straightforward answer. Who started the fight? "Certainly not me, I made a joke and you took it seriously and then you insulted me" "I didn't hit you hard but you did"
- To expand on this: mutations between generations happen exactly there, between generations. So the parents of the "first" chicken (if you draw the line somewhere on the evolutionary scale) were not chicken; the egg however was a chicken egg, as it contained a chicken.
  
  Exactly. Well put.

I love charts without units and labeled axes.
- This isn’t a graph, it’s a phylogenetic tree. It doesn’t need units or labeled axes (and they wouldn’t make much sense anyways).
  
  So you can't write dates/millenia on the "y-axis" (time axis)? Since when do turtles exist for example?