Live data from Hacker News

Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg

smithsonianmag.com

1–10 of 23 posts

Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg

#3
> While much of the egg’s contents leaked out, some of the yolk remained, and the researchers preserved it for future DNA analysis.

I'm amazed there was still yolk in there! Although I'm sure it's probably decomposed I would still love to see a picture of 1k year old egg yolk!

Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg

#6

So the egg really did come first after all.

well yeah, but we knew that long ago. fish, dinosaurs, etc. and this one was long after chickens.

No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?"

It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.

Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg

#7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well yeah, but we knew that long ago. fish, dinosaurs, etc. and this one was long after chickens.

No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?" It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.

The attribute of "chickenness" is a sorites paradox. So even if you allow the interpretation of "egg which will become chicken" vs "egg laid by a chicken" (which is quite clever, I hadnt encountered that) you are still stuck with marginal difference between mother and child/egg in overall "chickenicity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg

#9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well yeah, but we knew that long ago. fish, dinosaurs, etc. and this one was long after chickens.

No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?" It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.

The whole question is a proxy for the evolution question.

If God put chickens on the Earth then they came first obviously.

If chickens evolved from some close but not quite chicken ancestor then the first chicken hatched from an egg with a beneficial genetic mutation.

Re: Archaeologists discover and crack a thousand-year-old chicken egg

#10
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has ever interpreted the question as "which came first, the chicken or the fish egg?" It's not interesting even when you don't intentionally misinterpret it. If a chicken egg is an egg from which a chicken will hatch, then the egg came first by definition. If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then the chicken came first by definition.

The whole question is a proxy for the evolution question. If God put chickens on the Earth then they came first obviously. If chickens evolved from some close but not quite chicken ancestor then the first chicken hatched from an egg with a beneficial genetic mutation.

Maybe God put chicken eggs on the Earth.
Post reply on HN