What came first: the chicken or the egg?

[confutatis]

So "all cats are brown" is a rule?

"All cats are brown" is a statement that may be true or false. It qualifies as a rule according to my definition. It even has exceptions!

You seem to have it backwards

You probably realize I'm just playing a game here, but I don't think you understand what kind of game it is. It's a secret one

is your point that in order for there to be death, there must be life?

Yes. And the opposite as well; you can't have life without death.

 

[Imparcticle]

A statement that can be true or false is usually called a proposition.

What's to stop it from having a synonym?

A rule is usually considered to be something that must be true. You seem to have it backwards.

Not neccesarily something that MUST be true. Take this into consideration:

A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases

-Meriam Webster dictionary

As I have observed, many on this forum do not trust dictionary definitons.
If that is the case with you, take this other point into consideration:

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule. Because once in a while, one of those phenomena not in the primises is going to eventually "collide" with the finite set of rules that do not describe it.
Therefore, there must be exceptions to rules.

 

[honestrosewater]

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule. Because once in a while, one of those phenomena not in the primises is going to eventually "collide" with the finite set of rules that do not describe it.
Therefore, there must be exceptions to rules.

Do the premises/rules claim that they apply to anything and everything? Or do they specify to what they apply?
Does infinite imply anything and everything?
Can a rule be rewritten to specifically exclude any exceptions that may be discovered?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[hypnagogue]

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule. Because once in a while, one of those phenomena not in the primises is going to eventually "collide" with the finite set of rules that do not describe it.
Therefore, there must be exceptions to rules.

I don't think that every rule must necessarily have an exception. For instance, if we really wanted to, we could probably manipulate the genetic stock of cats such that the rule "All cats are brown" would be true without exception. It would be a massive and pointless undertaking, but it's possible in principle.

In any case, you are right that a proposition need not have the status of absolute truth in order to be considered a rule. But at the very least, a rule is taken to be a statement that is true in most cases. Simply stating that a rule is any statement that may be true or false deflates the meaning of the word-- we could have infinitely many rules that were not true in the majority of cases, so long as they were true in at least some cases. Even if the definition "true in most cases" is loosely defined, it should be respected or at least acknowledged if we are to use the corresponding word. It is pretty common in the parlance of science and philosophy to take colloquial words and assign to them new, more technical meanings, but usually at least some essence of the defining characteristics of the original word is incorporated into the new definition.

 

[honestrosewater]

As Stevo intelligently pointed out (in another discussion), science takes finite rules and uses them to describe an infinite set of phenomena. Therefore, because finite rules cannot be compatible with phenomena not within their premises, then there must be exceptions to the rule.

The point I was trying to make is that rules do not have to "be compatible with phenomena not within their premises". The rule "all cats are brown" doesn't have to apply to dogs. How would you even apply that rule to anything other than cats?
My second point is that a rule, such as "For all real numbers a, there exists a real number a^(-1), such that a*[a^(-1)] equals 1" can be rewritten to exclude the exception, in this case, 0.

For instance, if we really wanted to, we could probably manipulate the genetic stock of cats such that the rule "All cats are brown" would be true without exception. It would be a massive and pointless undertaking, but it's possible in principle

What about genetic mutation? The rule could be true for one generation, but what if there are cats somewhere else, unknown to us? We could kill all the non-brown cats and say "All known, living cats are brown". Then, I think the rule would be true without exception. Another example of rewriting a rule to exclude exceptions.
Now, if the rewriting process can be repeated an infinite number of times...

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Imparcticle]

Do the premises/rules claim that they apply to anything and everything? Or do they specify to what they apply?

They apply to all that has been tested.

Does infinite imply anything and everything?

By definition infnite is all that there is.

Can a rule be rewritten to specifically exclude any exceptions that may be discovered?
=

Is this what you refer to : "All cats are brown except those that are not brown"? I believe this statement is false, because it says "All cats are brown" and goes on to say this excludes those that are not brown. If all cats are brown, then some cannot be another color, correct?

 

[Imparcticle]

In any case, you are right that a proposition need not have the status of absolute truth in order to be considered a rule. But at the very least, a rule is taken to be a statement that is true in most cases.

Yes, in most cases; not all. Therefore there are exceptions.

I don't think that every rule must necessarily have an exception. For instance, if we really wanted to, we could probably manipulate the genetic stock of cats such that the rule "All cats are brown" would be true without exception. It would be a massive and pointless undertaking, but it's possible in principle.

Ah, then there would be an exception to the rule that there are exceptions.

Simply stating that a rule is any statement that may be true or false deflates the meaning of the word--

A rule can be true or false. A rule can be flawed. That is why there are constant revisions to laws (such as those in science).

Even if the definition "true in most cases" is loosely defined, it should be respected or at least acknowledged if we are to use the corresponding word. It is pretty common in the parlance of science and philosophy to take colloquial words and assign to them new, more technical meanings, but usually at least some essence of the defining characteristics of the original word is incorporated into the new definition.

Yes, a revised defintion of the original is incorporated into the new definition.

 

[honestrosewater]

They apply to all that has been tested.

All rules apply to all that has been tested? "All cats are brown" applies to cats. There are rules that apply only to rational numbers, right triangles, chess, nonrelativistic particles, American citizens, etc.

It seems like you think quite quickly, and sometimes too quickly for your own good :) There is something to be said for circumspection, besides that it's a funny word.

By definition infnite is all that there is.

Are you talking about the Universe or a rule that applies to an infinite number of cases?

Is this what you refer to : "All cats are brown except those that are not brown"? I believe this statement is false, because it says "All cats are brown" and goes on to say this excludes those that are not brown. If all cats are brown, then some cannot be another color, correct?

The first statement is redundant, not false. Read it carefully ;)
"All cats are brown" could be changed to "Some cats are brown.", and there are other equivalent ways of saying this same thing.

You could also say "All cats are brown or black or orange or..." and keep adding colors as you observe them. I'm sure you know that this is, more or less, how most physical sciences progress. I find this case interesting because if the list is never considered to be "finished", then it comes close to always having an exception. But some things would have to be clarified before you could say *how close* it comes.
Of course, if you instead throw out "Some cats are brown or black" and replace it with "Some cats are brown or black or red", that is, if you consider the "new and improved" rule as separate from the old rule, then the continuity is lost, and, though there is an exception to every old rule, there is no exception to the new rule.

(Should I have said "there is no *known* exception to the new rule"? This is one thing that needs to be clarified)

Yes, "All cats are brown" and "Some cats are not brown" cannot both be true.
However, "Some cats are brown" and "Some cats are not brown" can both be true.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

When you say, "A rule can be flawed.", you are not proving your point. You must prove "All rules are flawed." or "If C is a rule then C is flawed."

 

[Imparcticle]

All rules apply to all that has been tested? "All cats are brown" applies to cats. There are rules that apply only to rational numbers, right triangles, chess, nonrelativistic particles, American citizens, etc.

It seems like you think quite quickly, and sometimes too quickly for your own good :) There is something to be said for circumspection, besides that it's a funny word.

I admit that I do think too quickly.

Are you talking about the Universe or a rule that applies to an infinite number of cases?

I made a HUGE mistake! Infinity has no boandaries. But, couldn't infinite still refer to all that exists too?

The first statement is redundant, not false. Read it carefully ;)
"All cats are brown" could be changed to "Some cats are brown.", and there are other equivalent ways of saying this same thing.

I have a quick question about the word "are". In Spanish, you can say "are" two ways (when "are" is equal to "to be") "estar" and "ser". By definition, both mean "to be", but "estar" actually refers to a location or a temporary state. And "ser" refers to a permenant state. I was wondering if there was something like that in English?

 

[honestrosewater]

I made a HUGE mistake! Infinity has no boandaries. But, couldn't infinite still refer to all that exists too?

I think physical infinity is a difficult concept to pin down, but discussions are cooperative efforts :) You can use whatever word you want to, and let it refer to whatever idea you want to- but if you don't make your meaning clear to the others in the discussion, things can quickly turn awry ;)
What do you mean by infinite?

I have a quick question about the word "are". In Spanish, you can say "are" two ways (when "are" is equal to "to be") "estar" and "ser". By definition, both mean "to be", but "estar" actually refers to a location or a temporary state. And "ser" refers to a permenant state. I was wondering if there was something like that in English?

You can google linking verbs. Lots of words can be used as linking verbs. For instance, "feel", as in "I feel pretty."

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Imparcticle]

I think physical infinity is a difficult concept to pin down, but discussions are cooperative efforts

Yes, discussions are helpful. I have a conception of infinity, where infinity is defined as endless, unfathomless, no boundaries. My conception falters at the idea of something infinitely big. I understand infinitely small (simple concept), but not infinitely large. These characteristics are physical characteristics.
Physical infinity, you say? What sort of infinity is there that is not physical? Ah, an infinite supply of energy? Is that what you mean?

:) You can use whatever word you want to, and let it refer to whatever idea you want to- but if you don't make your meaning clear to the others in the discussion, things can quickly turn awry ;)
What do you mean by infinite?

Well, I realize I must define words, honestrosewater. You live up to being honest, you know. (That's good) I just assumed, when you said "Are you talking about the universe..." that you already had an idea of what infinity is?
I will post a definition from the dictionary until we come up without own (if that is your intention): "Having no boundaries or limits."

I believe the dictionary has served its purpose. Now, I presume we would like to critize the definition?
I would. The concept of inifinitely small resides on the basis that the dimensions of a, say sphere, equal zero. That is, they cancel. But, what about something infinitely big?

 

[honestrosewater]

Sorry, I was away for the weekend.
It seems the discussion has gotten off track. If "All rules have exceptions" is considered a rule, then you have a problem.

If it is false, then "Some rules have exceptions" is true. This is the same as saying that some rules are false. (I am considering "exception" to be synonymous with "counterexample", and "rule" synonymous with "proposition".)

If it is true, then *it* has exceptions- which normally would mean that it is false. But you seem to want to introduce this as a new, fundamental rule- an axiom, as opposed to a theorem- in other words, you want it to be true. Fine, then you need to start all over and define a system of rules that includes this rule. This changes the normal meaning and value of "true" and "false". If all rules have exceptions, what is the difference between a true rule and a false rule? Especially, what is the difference between the two rules:
1) All rules have exceptions and
2) All rules do not have exceptions?
That is the question you need to answer as you design your new system. One possible way to solve this may be to introduce quantitative comparisions, such as "If a rule has stricly less "exceptions" than "nonexceptions" then it is a true rule." Or put further restrictions on what can be a rule. I don't know what will work, just a first thought.

Actually, this thread started out with chickens and eggs, so you may want to start a new thread in which to continue this discussion.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rader]

It seems the discussion has gotten off track. If "All rules have exceptions" is considered a rule, then you have a problem.

Can it be any other way. "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

Actually, this thread started out with chickens and eggs, so you may want to start a new thread in which to continue this discussion.

Actually the chicken and egg, is just renovation of new truths.

 

[honestrosewater]

Can it be any other way. "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

I mentioned something like this 4 posts ago.

You could also say "All cats are brown or black or orange or..." and keep adding colors as you observe them. I'm sure you know that this is, more or less, how most physical sciences progress. I find this case interesting because if the list is never considered to be "finished", then it comes close to always having an exception. But some things would have to be clarified before you could say *how close* it comes.
Of course, if you instead throw out "Some cats are brown or black" and replace it with "Some cats are brown or black or red", that is, if you consider the "new and improved" rule as separate from the old rule, then the continuity is lost, and, though there is an exception to every old rule, there is no exception to the new rule.

(Should I have said "there is no *known* exception to the new rule"? This is one thing that needs to be clarified)

The point is that this is a phiolosophy forum, and a rule that may be useful in a physical science may have to be reformulated to become meaningful in a philosophical system. We were discussing whether or not a rule was true, and I chose to deal with this in a logical system. Of course truth is also a question for metaphysics and epistemology, but we seemed to agree on the relevant metaphysical and epistemological points.

I wonder if you read my entire lasy post. I explained what I thought the problem was.

If it is true, then *it* has exceptions- which normally would mean that it is false. But you seem to want to introduce this as a new, fundamental rule- an axiom, as opposed to a theorem- in other words, you want it to be true. Fine, then you need to start all over and define a system of rules that includes this rule. This changes the normal meaning and value of "true" and "false". If all rules have exceptions, what is the difference between a true rule and a false rule?

Do you see the problem when you say, "to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change."? You said: To every rule, there is an exception. This rule is the only rule. And this rule does not change. I assume by "does not change", you mean does not have an exception (time-independent). So what exactly did you mean? Because what you have just created is a system with only one self-contradicting rule.

I agree that there is inherent uncertainty in physical sciences. I disagree that there is inherent uncertainty in ALL sciences. This is why the distinction is made between physical sciences (like physics) and [can't think of the term] sciences (like math).

Actually the chicken and egg, is just renovation of new truths.

Actually, I think the chicken and egg question is a philosophical question, as confutatis said.

Please don't take my comments as mean-spirited.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rader]

I mentioned something like this 4 posts ago.
The point is that this is a phiolosophy forum, and a rule that may be useful in a physical science may have to be reformulated to become meaningful in a philosophical system. We were discussing whether or not a rule was true, and I chose to deal with this in a logical system. Of course truth is also a question for metaphysics and epistemology, but we seemed to agree on the relevant metaphysical and epistemological points. I wonder if you read my entire lasy post. I explained what I thought the problem was.

I did read what you wrote several times.

I believe I would refrase this: "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change to this.

"truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule, when there is new knowledge, there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

Do you see the problem when you say, "to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change."? You said: To every rule, there is an exception. This rule is the only rule. And this rule does not change. I assume by "does not change", you mean does not have an exception (time-independent). So what exactly did you mean? Because what you have just created is a system with only one self-contradicting rule.

I think you touched on it, there is no *known* exception to the new rule, until it is known.

I agree that there is inherent uncertainty in physical sciences. I disagree that there is inherent uncertainty in ALL sciences. This is why the distinction is made between physical sciences (like physics) and [can't think of the term] sciences (like math).

Which sciences?, there seems to be uncertainty in all sciences. There is no proof of anything, just close approximations. Math proofs, to my understanding are proofs of present knowlege. Present knowledge will change and so will the math that goes with it. I tried to get some answers on this on the other thread I started. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=207021#post207021

Actually, I think the chicken and egg question is a philosophical question, as confutatis said. Please don't take my comments as mean-spirited.

By no means your entitled to your opinion.

 

[honestrosewater]

I believe I would refrase this: "truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change to this.

"truth appears to be a function of time". This seems to be the reason why, to every rule, when there is new knowledge, there is an exception and that is the only rule, that does not change.

Eureka- I have found it :) I misundersood "that". I see now what you mean, "and that is the only rule which doesn't change." In other words, that rule applies to every rule, except itself. ;)

Which sciences?, there seems to be uncertainty in all sciences. There is no proof of anything, just close approximations. Math proofs, to my understanding are proofs of present knowlege. Present knowledge will change and so will the math that goes with it.

"0*a=0" is *not* an approximation.[period]
It follows *validly* from the axioms, from the construction of the mathematical system. The *validity* of "0*a=0" does not depend on the *truth* of the axioms. The definition you quote is misleading- it is not how mathematics defines "axiom". A mathematical axiom does not have to be self-evident nor universally accepted. The distinction to make here is between "validity" and "truth", as logic defines them (you can google a definition; http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm sounds good from what I've read- sorry I'm in a hurry). I like Grimey's answers (in your other thread). He comes off brusk sometimes- because he chooses to be honest and straightforward. Politeness can be costly to understanding. Anyway...
I'm not sure if my comments will be helpful. Could you explain why you do not find the other's answers acceptable?
I have to run, but I will answer your question "Which sciences?" when I get back.
Happy thoughts
Rachel
P.S. There is a question of how we determine if how we determine if a logical argument is valid is valid, but that is another discussion ;) The point to understand now is that math and physics are fundamentally different.

 

[Rader]

Eureka- I have found it :) I misundersood "that". I see now what you mean, "and that is the only rule which doesn't change." In other words, that rule applies to every rule, except itself. ;)

Correct, I believe you understand my meaning. Even if you apply it to the truth, we now have in common about this statemnent, it still applies. This truth held in common, will change over time.

The *validity* of "0*a=0" does not depend on the *truth* of the axioms. The definition you quote is misleading- it is not how mathematics defines "axiom". A mathematical axiom does not have to be self-evident nor universally accepted.

I always use this meaning: A mathematical axiom means "A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well established or universally-conceded principle..." If we did not use this meaning, it seems we would be farther from the truth, that's not saying, that we are not farther from the truth anyway. At anyrate whatever definition you use for axiom, does not change, that truth is a funtion of time.

The distinction to make here is between "validity" and "truth", as logic defines them

I have read the link. This seems to sum it up.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.

The point to understand now is that math and physics are fundamentally different.

In what ways do you mean physics and math are different? Physics makes an attempt to explain certain aspects of nature, where math models what physics finds in nature.

 

[honestrosewater]

I always use this meaning: A mathematical axiom means "A proposition that commends itself to general acceptance; a well established or universally-conceded principle..."

Have you considered this may be the reason for your not understanding why math and physics are different? Your definition is not mathematical. Math is concerned with validity. Math is not concerned with truth or reality or physics.

If we did not use this meaning, it seems we would be farther from the truth, that's not saying, that we are not farther from the truth anyway. At anyrate whatever definition you use for axiom, does not change, that truth is a funtion of time.

And math is not concerned with truth.

I have read the link. This seems to sum it up.
Some logicians designate the combination of true premises and a valid inference as a sound argument; it is a piece of reasoning whose conclusion must be true. The trouble with every other case is that it gets us nowhere, since either at least one of the premises is false, or the inference is invalid, or both. The conclusions of such arguments may be either true or false, so they are entirely useless in any effort to gain new information.

I'm sorry, why are you confused? *IF* the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true.

"Are the premises true?" is not a question for logic. It is a question for metaphysics, epistemology, and the physical sciences.

Physics makes an attempt to explain certain aspects of nature, where math models what physics finds in nature.

This is only one thing that math *can* do. Math is more than what physicists do with it. My mom is an accountant and might argue that transcendental numbers do not exist because she never uses them in her work. And I would tell her the same thing. Math is fundamentally different. Math does not use the scientific method. Math is not a physical science. Math deals with validity, not truth. Math uses axioms, arguments, theorems. Math does not use observations, experiments, laws. How else can I say it?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Rader]

Have you considered this may be the reason for your not understanding why math and physics are different? Your definition is not mathematical. Math is concerned with validity. Math is not concerned with truth or reality or physics.

No, up until now I have not. I think I understand what you mean. You see I am not a mathematician and can not possible think like one. Although I wish to understand how one might think.

And math is not concerned with truth.

Then only the validity of the mathematics, containes premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived.

I'm sorry, why are you confused? *IF* the premises of a valid deductive argument are true, THEN the conclusion must be true.
"Are the premises true?" is not a question for logic. It is a question for metaphysics, epistemology, and the physical sciences.

Then it would be correct to say that math can validify, an aspect of nature, but can not provide a proof of its truth? aspect meaning: designating primarily the relation of the action to the passage of time, especially in reference to completion, duration, or repetition.

This is only one thing that math *can* do. Math is more than what physicists do with it. My mom is an accountant and might argue that transcendental numbers do not exist because she never uses them in her work. And I would tell her the same thing. Math is fundamentally different. Math does not use the scientific method. Math is not a physical science. Math deals with validity, not truth. Math uses axioms, arguments, theorems. Math does not use observations, experiments, laws. How else can I say it?

Thanks for the insight, your expanation has repercussions on what I considered mathematics was usefull for.

 

[honestrosewater]

Then only the validity of the mathematics, containes premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived.

Yes. :) axiom=premise, proof=sound argument, and theorem=conclusion.
When a mathematician formulates a proof, it is with the expectation that other mathematicians *must* accept the proof as a theorem, as long as there are no mistakes in it (if it is indeed a sound argument).
Whereas, in the physical sciences, a theory can have varying degrees of success or certainty, but cannot meet the burden of a mathematical proof.

It is important to note that a theorem is meaningless without its axioms. The axioms must be specified. Though, in practice, they are usually assumed. As when someone asks why the sky is blue, it is assumed they mean Earth's sky.

BTW mathematicians do recognize and make use of conjectures- things that they suspect are probably true, but cannot yet prove. But the distinction between a theorem and a conjecture is sharply maintained.

Then it would be correct to say that math can validify(validate), an aspect of nature, but can not provide a proof of its truth?

Pretty much, but not exactly. Math is applied to nature through models. I saw a show the other day, Nova "Magnetic Storm" I think, where someone created a computer program model of the Earth's magnetic field. He ran the program to simulate several thousand years, and the Earth's magnetic field flipped! North was south and south was north. Anomalies developed in the field and grew- terribly interesting show BTW :)
Does the result of the model validate that aspect of Earth's magnetic field? Not exactly. (Logical) Validity does not apply directly to nature. Validity can apply to models. And models can approximate nature. How well does the model approximate nature? That's the question.

Thanks

You're very welcome, I am glad to help :)

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Moonrat]

Hehe, sorry could not pass up on this. In an infinite universe, if indeed the universe is infinite, then that would suggest that there has always just been chickens and eggs, chicken and eggs!

 

[Växan]

this is a simple logic question


there has never been a chicken which did not come from an egg

and there have been eggs long before there were chickens

therefore the egg came first, and then the chicken


no other possibility exists

 

[honestrosewater]

and there have been eggs long before there were chickens

Ah, but the question means *chicken* eggs. Staying in the logic arena (i.e. forget evolution), chickens come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs come from chickens. The dilemma is something like this:
A=chickens exist, B=chicken eggs exist, A iff B and B iff A, and A or B must come (temporally) before the other. Perhaps that is not the best way to say it, but I can't think of a better way yet.
Of course, the fact that both chickens and chicken eggs exist can be explained via evolution. But the logical problem is still interesting.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Pattielli]

So finally what comes first ?
Was an organizm developed from a cell ?
Thanks

 

[honestrosewater]

Logically, neither can come first, since each must be preceded by the other.
As for the real world, the distinction between chicken and egg is erroneous. The only difference between the two is a developmental difference, not a difference of origin. So asking "Which came first?" must refer to the developmental stages in the life of a chicken, and the egg comes first.
As for the question of origin, here's an oversimplified (i.e. not really accurate, but conceptually close) explanation: all chickens are the result of their DNA. The first chicken occurred as a result of some old, nonchicken DNA being put together in a new way. And the result was a chicken.
If you want a better explanation, just ask, I'll be happy to oblige :)
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[honestrosewater]

Oh, sorry, I forgot your question :zzz:

Was an organizm developed from a cell ?

Actually, the first organisms were a cell. They reproduced by binary fission; they copied their DNA and then split in two. All other organisms (including chickens ) evolved from these first single-celled organisms. So, in that way, yes, organisms developed from a cell.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Växan]

the first chicken was a mutation

it came from an egg containing the DNA of a genetically altered individual
different from it's parent

the egg came first - chickens have not existed very long in their present form

modern chickens evolved from a previous species