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.
John Warnock is rolling in his grave right now.
At which point does an egg of non-chicken become an egg of chicken?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Biologists have been talking about 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
TIL turtles are older than crocodiles
No, turtles and crocodiles share an older closest common ancestor than lizards and crocodiles.
Are chickens even real?
Or are they local?
Yes, unless declared integer.
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 thought this was a T-shirt and now I want it on a tshirt
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?
And now everybody together... C O E V O L U T I O N
egg laying animals came long before chickens, why was that ever hard to figure out for anyone?
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
but had our critical thinking skills to varying levels stunted by shitty education.
I've also noticed that everyone I went to school with who got good grades is a dunce. But everyone who got shitty grades with me was much easier to talk to.
I never have to explain in verbose detail what I mean by every fragment of a sentence to someone who got shitty grades in school. I had a principal at one school I went to who was an idiot.
Every time another group of students stole my hat and there was a coordinated effort to keep it away from me, I had no choice but to go to the principal, because the teachers wouldn't help me either.
Every single time this happened, the principal, with zero self awareness would say "what do you mean ____ stole your hat? did you give it to him?" Then I had to explain in vivid detail each thing that happened for 15 minutes, like I was programming a robot-arm in a factory to this idiot with no ability to listen and think.
George Carlin used to rant about how schools teach kids to just barely be smart enough to pull levers and push buttons, but never to critically think about things or to solve problems they don't have a pre-planned solution for. and that's why I hated going to school, as high functioning autistic man, when I was in school, they always wanted me to fit into a cookie-cutter path they set for me, but I never went along with it.
This one boomer I know refuses to ever use anything except for the official tool you're supposed to use for each thing. So I ask him, "well if this other pair of plyers does the job, why can't I just use this one if I can make it work.?" "IT'S NOT MEANT FOR THAT!" with no good reason for not wanting me to help him by using that other pair of plyers that I can make work.
I quit high school about half way through my 10th grade year one day when literally everyone in the school yelled at me when I tried to talk about literally anything. I just got my stuff out of my locker and walked home.
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.
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.
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"
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).
