The egg

Yes, egg. Im curious if your reasoning is the same as mine though. Care to share?

Fish laid eggs well before there were chickens.

If we consider the question in a DNA context, the question is: what came first, the protein-based ribosome, or the proteins constructed by them? The answer is, the protein. Which is the chicken.

But viruses were there long before the fish.

Your posts are for the most part garbage.

Your posts are for the most part garbage — Banno

That's where the most interesting things are found, my dear@

Is the chicken and egg problem an issue for evolution?

We could say non-egg laying chicken evolved into egg-laying chicken and be done with it, ja?

Fish laid eggs well before there were chickens. — Banno

Did the fish lay the chicken? There oughta be a law.

We could say non-egg laying chicken evolved into egg-laying chicken and be done with it, ja? — Agent Smith

Nee. For the chicken to evolve it needs a next generation to be born. By creating an egg. The egg is an extension of the ribosome that once developed in protein life structures. These resemble the proto chicken. The primordial chicken came first.

Dose assumption come first or does another opinion come first: Like theory or some other fact finding? — Robert G Ortega

Your question was lost in the rush to mediocrity. The answer, of course, is that you cannot have one without the other; an assumption is an opinion, yet an opinion can only stand on that which it assumes. This is not a vicious circularity so much as a holism.

After the opinion is established, if the egg is laid, it is said that the reality the opinion is about has functioned like the chicken that was there first.

The rooster came first, as males often do, which fertilized the egg, which was then laid, which was then sat upon by the hen, which resulted in a hot little chick, who was eventually noticed by another rooster, and the laying cycle began again.

The chicken is just an eggs way of making another egg.

The chickeggen separated into chicken and egg.

Your question was lost in the rush to mediocrity. — Banno

:up:

To formulate a theory, assumptions are necessary.

To make assumptions, one needs a context (a theory).

Which came first, assumptions or theories?

Excellent question. I don't have a ready answer OP.

As I said,

The answer, of course, is that you cannot have one without the other; an assumption is an opinion, yet an opinion can only stand on that which it assumes. This is not a vicious circularity so much as a holism. — Banno

Neither can come first, hence neither does; the problem can only be an error in conceptualisation.

Neither can come first — Banno

Ok, that means there's a tertium quid (a third, unknown). Do you have a theory as to what that could be?

Neither can come first, hence neither does; the problem can only be an error in conceptualisation — Banno

RUBBISH

It's the chicken that comes first. The proto chickens looked eeagerlyfor new ways. Then they invented the proto egg and the proto rooster. Voila!

I prefer eggs. They are more versatile.

I prefer the rooster. sprays life into the egg.

A more serious answer in terms of evolution:

https://www.newscientist.com/question/came-first-chicken-egg/

I was thinking in term of cooking :)

I was thinking in term of cooking — I like sushi

So was I! A popular subject on the PF! Rooster, when he has had a good life, brings life to the egg.

More seriously, proteins were there before the ribosomes. The first ribosomes were the proto eggs.

I prefer eggs. They are more versatile. — I like sushi

@Possibility :point: P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L!!!

error in conceptualisation — Banno

Can you describe this error to us? I'm all ears.

Possibility :point: P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L!!! — Agent Smith

Bingo!

Bingo! — Possibility

Which came first? Chicken or egg?

Can you describe this error to us? I'm all ears. — Agent Smith

I did, and as so often, you missed it. I'll not do it a third time.

P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L!!! — Agent Smith

The potential is virtual. The rooster is real.