Guidance finding and serving up a fairly wordless paradox


What is not known or understood is simply that and nothing else

Why are you doing what James should be doing? You are in a feisty mood. :evilfun:


An absence of what you imagine here would suggest otherwise


Asking for a solution where none exists is somewhat paradoxical

:icon-rolleyes:

As I just explained:

That goes for questions too.
(3) - Neither came first.

No because no paradox requires no solution

A right answer to a question cannot be paradoxical

Perceptions of illusion only exist in the mind not in reality

The paradox being imagined here is therefore an illusion so not real

Here is a non real [ abstract ] non paradox for you : one plus one equals one

Now it is actually very easy but it can be hard only if you insist on making it as such

The chicken and egg scenario isn’t really a paradox, it’s just a mystery (if you don’t know the answer).

Wendy, here’s a good one for you: Russell’s Paradox.

:sad-roulette: You guys have killed the fun. Never taking any of you out in public. =;

Wendy, unless you want to deal with real paradoxes, I’m sure you can solve them yourself.


The one she asked about is not a paradox anyway only a mystery if you do not know the answer


rationalskepticism.org/which … 53477.html

S57 said there are no paradoxes, just knowns and unknowns.

I believe that logic in the larger sense (not the definitional/numerical types) runs out which would place it in the unknown category with multiple friggin Mobius Strips looping like many a conversation here using circular reasoning, however God don’t play repeats eternal, God may be cutting the fat (so-to-speak), just so happens that fats often gives flavor, hence reality is being stripped of its value. Is anybody with me still or ever?

Now James tells moi that he can use precise language to find that logic gone wild solution. Lol. 1,2,3. Lol.

Okay, that was lame. No first of either, now that’s ridiculous. Check please!

I still think the egg came first but as you can see not everyone automatically thinks so
Simple questions do not always have simple answers and this one is one such example

What people don’t think about is that every type of animal has breeds, subspecies, or races within that type, just like homosapians. And those breeds did not come from the same “prechicken” source. Before they became similar enough to be categorized as the same animal, the fowl-like creatures were more distinct and clearly not the same animal. Through all of the trials and troubles associated with life and environment, entire pre-chicken creatures die out, leaving similar looking animals that are not related yet are functionally the same.

The reason it works that way is that environmental pressures tend to tailor life toward the most successful for concurrent environment. Very different creatures under the same pressures and mutating forces gradually mutate and evolve toward being almost the same creature, the one most stable form for that environment.

The fact that there are many stable forms for any one given environment and millions of creature types to be pressured into a better fit, yields a variety of stable creature types that are very different from each other and also very different from their origins. An era of entirely new creature groupings gets formed. And many within each group stem from a different origin. The “chicken” got created from a variety of unrelated non-chickens that through their pressured mutating gained the ability to cross breed into an even more uniform grouping. And when the environment shifts very much, it all happens again.

The bottom line is that the thing that you now call “chicken” is the result of a cross breeding of earlier forms of dissimilar chickens that stemmed from cross breeding and mutating of almost-chickens which stemmed from the mutating and cross breeding of a variety of non-chicken creatures.

Within all of that maze of confusion spread over millions of years, the exact moment DNA molecules got altered varies from pre-chicken type to pre-chicken type. Some changes occurred after the prechicken was born. Some occurred during inception. Some occurred within the egg. Some occurred within the sperm. And through the pressures of time, those similar to what we now categorize as “chicken” survived and their pre-chicken ancestors died out after perhaps a very short existence, leaving no trace.

So the real answer is that neither egg nor chicken of what you now call “chicken” gave initial rise to the other. It is like asking which ingredient of the cake came first, the yeast, flour, sugar, egg, … which? Or perhaps “Who was the first Jew?” The question itself is inadequate.

All of evolution is a transition. So asking such a simple question is not going to provide a simple answer. There is no one absolute point in
geological time that can be referenced to give an answer. Evolutionary biologists cannot agree on taxonomic classification of species and
subspecies for this very reason. But one thing which can be stated with absolute certainty is that abiogenesis began somewhere between
three and half to four billion years ago with single cell non self replicating bacteria. So this was the very earliest ancestor of chicken and
egg [ and all other life ] despite being neither chicken or egg as such

Well, … I’m not so absolutely certain of that. But the general point is right.

Eggs are just overgrown ovums, and ovums are just overgrown cells, and since cells came before chickens, so did the egg.

Yeah, James is weird.

Yeah, to the insane, the sane seems “pretty weird”.

Not perceiving ‘unknowns’ is insane to those that do.