The Chicken, The Egg, The Forest, and the Trees

Jesterspace's picture

Today's stupid question.. what is the dumbest or most non-sensical thing you can blame Racial Tensions on. and you have to back up your statements!

For me.. it's Sesame Street..

Let me explain...

The Chicken, The Egg, The Forest, and the Trees

Well, you see, it goes a little something like this. I have a habit of solving (or at least trying to solve) one Universal Mystery(tm) once a week. Usually before breakfast. One of the more recent solvings is actually one I'm rather pleased with myself for.

Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Quite the paradox. It's been used for years to represent the kind of question that cannot be answered. It's like the "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" question. Granted, I plan on working on that one after a big bowl of Wheaties and OJ. But I digress. I have pondered the Chicken/Egg dilemma for a while. I honestly thought I would figure out this one while I was drunk/stoned/tripping/whatever, but nope. There I was, sitting in my bed re-reading the tattered copy of the Principia Discordia which has been a constant travelling companion for years now. The answer hit me like the metaphorical Ton of Bricks, which was a lot less intrusive than a real Ton of Bricks would have been. (Thank you Eris) Anyway, the answer is....

Say it with me now, Kiddies...

THE EGG!

Now, leaving aside the humorous image of a happily sleeping chicken and an egg smoking a cigarette looking all frustrated and muttering "Well, I guess we answered THAT question", you might want an explanation of how I came about this Blessed Revelation. Well, It comes less from the answer than from the question. I'll explain...no, that will take too long. i'll sum up.

Reptiles have existed on the Big Blue Marble for quite the long time. And as birds evolved from reptiles, it is relatively safe to postulate that reptiles existed before the chicken, which is...well, a bird. Hooray for evolution. Now, reptiles lay eggs. And thus eggs were around before the chicken.

The trick comes in in the fact that if you look at the question carefully, it never says the "Chicken Egg", just the "Egg". If the question was "Which came first, the Chicken or the Chicken Egg?", well, we'd have to take this document out and shoot it like a myopic doggie. But thankfully, the question simply asks "Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?" By looking at the question for what it is, and more importantly, what it isn't it becomes childs play to solve. The Chicken/Egg question actually demonstrates the dangers of assumption and societal conditioning better than it demonstrates a paradox.

We've all heard the question many times. In school, on TV, etc... And we've almost all been conditioned to see a Chicken Egg when the question is asked. When you first read the header of this page, did you see a chicken egg? I'll lay odds most of you did. And that is one way THEY* can control you. We become conditioned to see something at a trigger, like the Manchurian CandidateWe see TV news casts, Police shows, and Movies, which show maybe 2 black men worth talking to, and the rest as gun toting gangstas, crackheads, or petty thieves. Now, how it works is, you're bombarded with these images. Then, when you see a black man, your programming kicks in, and you get scared, you roll up your car windows, clutch your purse a little bit tighter, etc. Now, i'm not saying that everyone does this. Anyone who truly thinks doesn't. But...How can I put this gently..most people don't think. The Sheep of Humanity are programmed to have racial tension, and hence they do. THEY count on it.

Remember that the next time you see a stereotype on the TV. There is a reason they call it a Boob Tube. It isn't because it makes you dumb. Which it does. Have no doubts about that. It's because it functions as a teat to which we suckle for knowledge. It's the electronic babysitter, it's how we wind down, it's how we find out who died and why courtesy of the nightly news. Who reads the newspaper anymore with the possible exception of the funnies anymore? Especially among the young. It's a lost art, much like diecast construction. It works so well as a control device because we grew up with it. We watched Sesame Street. Now, before I hear you all give me crap for dissing Kermit, I have no issue with Henson, the Muppets, and Sesame Street. I honestly believe that they are trying to do a good thing. But the unplanned effect that the Media Giants have capitalized on is that as kids, it made us TRUST the television. Sesame Street wouldn't lie to us. And with Kid Logic, is Sesame Street wouldn't lie to us, and Sesame Street was on TV, then TV wouldn't lie to us.

A Discordian truth is "You are prohibited form believing anything you read", but as we are now part of the New Milennium and Y2Kallisti+6, maybe we need to append that to "don't believe anythihg you see on TV". Think about it. The Gas Price fiasco that we are currently undergoing depending on the week. I'm not saying this is what is happening, but what if there is actually no real reason for the prices to be going up save the Bush wants more of our money to fund his Crusade. We hear the prices are going up on the news, and we accept it, especially they blame OPEC. It sounds somewhat farfetched at first, but if you look close, you see how ridiculously easy it would to be to do. Especially if OPEC was involved and possibly sharing in the money. And if Ted Koppel says it's happening, we reflexively believe it. But remember, you read this. Hence you cannot believe it. But you read that you can't believe what you read. Confused yet? Good. You're getting the point.

Well, enough ranting for today.

Jester

* When I refer to THEY, insert whatever group you feel has been controlling the Destiny of Humanity to date. The Illuminati, the Masons, Al-Queda for Kids, The American Medical Association, Microsoft, etc...Because, remember..You're not like the other people, here, in the Trailer Park....

"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Define chicken egg. If the

Define chicken egg. If the chicken egg is an egg that comes from the chicken then the chicken would have to come first. But if the chicken egg is just an egg that produces a chicken then the egg would have to come first.

Dissident1's picture

I have stated the same

I have stated the same answer for the same reason to those who dared to postulate this question to me. Never has there been a person who was capable of refuting me.

So, if oranges were grapes, would they then come in bunches?

Anyway, I agree with your post here. I have been combating this kind of programming for a long time. There seems to be no end to human stupidity and foolishness.

I am become death, destroyer of worlds

Jesterspace's picture

I would postulate that what

I would postulate that what defines a 'chicken egg' is the genetic material contain within, and not where it came from. in the same manner that it has been known where two apparent caucasians can give birth to an apparently non-caucasian child. And yes, I am aware that genetics can carry many surprises due to our current lack of ability to accurately map out the genetics of a fetus yet. If I have a box of Cheerios, but the box is labelled Frosted Flakes, It is still a box of Cheerios. Irregardless of the labelling.

"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Jesterspace's picture

That's why I use 'human

That's why I use 'human stupidity and foolishness' to illustrate my points. When couched in humor, sometimes it's easier to take the medicine of logic Smiling

"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

Quote:If I have a box of

Quote:
If I have a box of Cheerios, but the box is labelled Frosted Flakes, It is still a box of Cheerios. Irregardless of the labelling.

Yup that's what I was thinking, but I'm sure if someone wanted to argue the chicken came first they would assume chicken eggs can only come from chickens. I'd bet it would be possible for similar species by implanting it, but that is mad scientist stuff and opens a can of worms. Also the idea of chicken eggs only come from chickens is to assume evolution is false. Now you could argue I'm assuming evolution is true here, but I have a lot of good evidence to back up my claim.

Jesterspace's picture

Yeah.. I don't pull a

Yeah.. I don't pull a Hovind-esque 'Kinds' argument.

Evidence? Of EVOLUTION?! Heresy! Blasphemer... wait.. crap.. I got that same evidence.

And as for the 'mad scientist' stuff.. I love mad scientist stuff. Heh.. I shoot up a concoction made from the extracts of Chinese Hamster Ovaries mixed with human DNA three times a week and take a medicine that adjusts my dopamine levels, allowing me to stay awake for 30 hours with no caffiene jitters, sleep 8, and do it again and again.

"Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.

I thought the mad scientist

I thought the mad scientist things would be another topic so I decided to leave it at that Eye-wink

Chicken or egg

Every farmer on planet Earth counts on evolution not happening. They count on it. It doesn't happen. People can believe whatever they want but whenever a farmer crossbreeds a cow he expects to get a cow not a kitten. Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies? Why don't they make another human?Actually the book has a much longer title, which they're kinda embarrassed about, The [sic] Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin was a racist.What we’ve got today is a generation of people that have been raised believing in Evolution which says rights come from the government.Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.

Twistedokie wrote:

 

"Every farmer on planet Earth counts on evolution not happening. They count on it. It doesn't happen."

 

Me: Oh. My. Reason.  Twistedokie...farmers may not admit it, but they *do* act as if evolution *does* happen.  They do this every time that they change pesticides.  Here's how it goes: first, the pests (say...grasshoppers) find a field full of crop (...never mind which one, for now...) and they start chomping down.  The farmer, of course, doesn't like this.  So he/she/it goes out and gets pesticide.  From the grasshopper's point of view, this changes the environment.  And this change is deadly to most of the population.  The exceptions have some sort of biochemical resistance to the pesticide.  This is due to a mutation.  The unlucky grasshoppers die, of course.  The lucky grasshoppers survive--and they reproduce.  This is definitely a "selection" in favor of the mutation.  The next season, a new bunch of grasshoppers come in--but these are the offspring of the survivors, and as such, they are altered, in comparison with the massive numbers which died the previous season.  This means that the pesticide which *did* work the last time, *won't* work, this time.  Which in turn means, it's time for a new pesticide.  You see? Random mutations, selection by the environment in favor of the mutation, equals evolution.

 

Twistedokie wrote: "People can believe whatever they want but whenever a farmer crossbreeds a cow he expects to get a cow not a kitten."

 

Me: Oh, *please* tell me that you're not this deeply misinformed about evolution.  Even back when I did believe in God, I only rolled my eyes at crap like this.  Cows on the one hand, and  cats on the other, are two different lines of evolutionary development.  So...if a cow *did* give birth to a cat...that would actually *disprove* evolution (among other things.)

 

Twistedokie wrote: "Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies? Why don't they make another human?"

 

Me: Well, of course they are.  Look, this may surprise you, but nobody said otherwise.  You see, nobody said that humans are descended from chimpanzees.  Or monkeys, for that matter.  What *was* said is that humans on the one hand, and chimpanzees on the other, have a common ancestor.

 

Twistedokie wrote: "Actually the book has a much longer title, which they're kinda embarrassed about, The [sic] Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin was a racist."

 

Me: Here's a new thought for you, Twistedokie: languages change over time.  You might even say that they evolve.  In any event, words and phrases change meaning over time.  An example: compare the English in a King James Version of the Bible to the English spoken in daily life.  They're two different things, right?  And yet, the English of the KJV *is* how native English speakers *used* *to* speak.  "Races" is the term which Charles Darwin used for what we now refer to as "species."  His full title, properly understood, is not the least bit racist.  It is, however, easy to misunderstand in a modern American context, as your comment proves.  (This is especially true given America's history with racism, slavery, and other related issues.)  By the way, this information--the full title of Darwin's work--is readily available to anyone who bothers to pick up any edition of his work.  So nothing's being hidden.

 

Twistedokie wrote: "What we’ve got today is a generation of people that have been raised believing in Evolution which says rights come from the government."

 

Me: Really?  Who said this?  Who believes it?  Can you provide so much as a single honest quote from any source outside of yourself to demonstrate this?  Really, I want to know...who is this badly misinformed about evolution?  To be clear:  Evolution does not say anything at all about anything outside of biology.  Furthermore, within biology, evolution only concerns itself with the *speciation* of life.  It does not, for example, say anything about how life got started in the first place.  (That theory is called "abiogenesis.&quotEye-wink  It certainly provides no political statement at all.  Nor does it say anything about morality.

 

Twistedokie wrote: "Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible."

 

Me: No, if evolution is true, then we are in possession of a more complete understanding of speciation.  That is all.  As for your ethics...you should take responsibility for that.

 

Conor

_________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

 

"But it should!"--Me

butterbattle's picture

Hello. Welcome to the forum.

Hello. Welcome to the forum. You're definitely a drive-by Creationist, and you'll never read this, but I'll respond to your post anyways.

Twistedokie wrote:

People can believe whatever they want but whenever a farmer crossbreeds a cow he expects to get a cow not a kitten.

That's not how evolution works. You don't understand evolution. I don't believe that happens, and I don't expect that to happen.

Quote:
Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies?

Yes. 

Quote:
Why don't they make another human?

Because that's impossible. That's not how evolution works. No respectable biologist would claim that a chimpanzee can give birth to a human. A chimpanzee can't give birth to a human.

Edit: Oh yeah, also, you stated, "Why don't they make another human?", implying that it has happened before. However, the currently scientific consensus is that chimpanzees are, biologically, our cousins, not our ancestors. 

Quote:
Actually the book has a much longer title, which they're kinda embarrassed about, The [sic] Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin was a racist.

We all know the title. We're not embarrassed. 'Races' refers to species of organisms, not humans with different skin colors.

Quote:
What we’ve got today is a generation of people that have been raised believing in Evolution which says rights come from the government.

Only about half of the people in America accept evolution. The ones that believe in evolution don't necessarily believe that rights come from the government either, for example, me. Human rights are supposed transcend cultures and governments; that's why they're called human rights.   

Quote:
Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive.

You're contradicting yourself. You claimed that if evolution is true, then there are no moral absolutes. But, you also claimed that only the strongest would have the right to survive. That would be a moral absolute. You can't have it both ways.   

Also, whether evolution is true or not isn't dependent on whether people believe in it. This is an appeal to consequences. If you present it as a deductive argument, it is a logical fallacy. 

Also, if you're implying that the strongest have the right to survive because the best fit in every specific environment survives, then you're committing a naturalistic fallacy, another logical fallacy. Morality discusses what ought to be. Nature only contains what is. You can't translate an "is" into an "ought."

Naturalistic fallacy

Quote:
If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.

This is a naked assertion, a potential non sequitur.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

butterbattle's picture

Conor Wilson wrote:They do

Conor Wilson wrote:

They do this every time that they change pesticides.  Here's how it goes: first, the pests (say...grasshoppers) find a field full of crop (...never mind which one, for now...) and they start chomping down.  The farmer, of course, doesn't like this.  So he/she/it goes out and gets pesticide.  From the grasshopper's point of view, this changes the environment.  And this change is deadly to most of the population.  The exceptions have some sort of biochemical resistance to the pesticide.  This is due to a mutation.  The unlucky grasshoppers die, of course.  The lucky grasshoppers survive--and they reproduce.  This is definitely a "selection" in favor of the mutation.  The next season, a new bunch of grasshoppers come in--but these are the offspring of the survivors, and as such, they are altered, in comparison with the massive numbers which died the previous season.  This means that the pesticide which *did* work the last time, *won't* work, this time.  Which in turn means, it's time for a new pesticide.  You see? Random mutations, selection by the environment in favor of the mutation, equals evolution.

Yep, and this happens in medicine too.

For example, the flu. It has such a high mutation rate that vaccines are usually only effective for a few years. Once a virus has an error in genetic replication, a mutation, that allows it to overcome a vaccine or resist a cure, the organisms with the mutation will be more likely to survive. The mutation will spread like wildfire through the population. Hence, evolution. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Butterbattle wrote:

"Yep, and this happens in medicine too.

For example, the flu. It has such a high mutation rate that vaccines are usually only effective for a few years. Once a virus has an error in genetic replication, a mutation, that allows it to overcome a vaccine or resist a cure, the organisms with the mutation will be more likely to survive. The mutation will spread like wildfire through the population. Hence, evolution."

 

Me: Thanks for the reminder, butterbattle.  BTW, isn't evolution the essential problem with HIV?  As far as I know, we're *still* working on a vaccine for it.

 

Conor

butterbattle's picture

Conor Wilson wrote: Me:

Conor Wilson wrote:

Me: Thanks for the reminder, butterbattle.  BTW, isn't evolution the essential problem with HIV?  As far as I know, we're *still* working on a vaccine for it. 

Conor

Eh, I'm not sure, but wikipedia...

wikipedia wrote:
HIV differs from many viruses in that it has very high genetic variability. This diversity is a result of its fast replication cycle, with the generation of 109 to 1010 virions every day, coupled with a high mutation rate of approximately 3 x 10-5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication and recombinogenic properties of reverse transcriptase.[85] This complex scenario leads to the generation of many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of one day.[85] This variability is compounded when a single cell is simultaneously infected by two or more different strains of HIV. When simultaneous infection occurs, the genome of progeny virions may be composed of RNA strands from two different strains. This hybrid virion then infects a new cell where it undergoes replication. As this happens, the reverse transcriptase, by jumping back and forth between the two different RNA templates, will generate a newly synthesized retroviral DNA sequence that is a recombinant between the two parental genomes.[85] This recombination is most obvious when it occurs between subtypes.[85]

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Vastet's picture

Twistedokie wrote:Every

Twistedokie wrote:

Every farmer on planet Earth counts on evolution not happening. They count on it. It doesn't happen. People can believe whatever they want but whenever a farmer crossbreeds a cow he expects to get a cow not a kitten. Do you know chimpanzees are still having babies? Why don't they make another human?Actually the book has a much longer title, which they're blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


This person is either the biggest idiot I've encountered in months, or a troll. *Flips coin*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.