# What came first: the chicken or the egg?

honestrosewater
Gold Member
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

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!

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
Gold Member
Växan said:
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

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

honestrosewater
Gold Member
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
Gold Member
Oh, sorry, I forgot your question :zzz:
Pattielli said:
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

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