How to solve unsolvable logic?

Question

Take the example of the chicken and the egg question, 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?'

Since there must be a chicken to lay an egg one would say that there must have been the chicken first. However there must have been an egg from which the chicken hatched that laid the egg. Therefore there must have been a chicken to lay the egg and there must have been an egg from which the chicken who laid the egg hatched which must have been laid by a chicken .... etc.

So my question is, firstly, who does someone go about solving this question without relying on external information, i.e. the chicken evolved to the point at which we know today or god created the first chicken?

How does solving this problem help in the explanation of the origin of life on earth? Evolution and creation theory both rely on circular reasoning, creation is true because the book says so and the book is true because all things were created, evolution is true because things evolved and since things evolved evolution must be true. Neither of these arguments hold any credibility.

Please explain if possible

Thanks.

For those arguing over the nature of the manner in which I placed the Evolution argument please be advised,

I am asking about the origins of life NOT the continuation of life. Evolution in lifeforms is all but proven however the circular logic comes into play in the generation of life. It goes like this.

Proof of the evolution of life is evident, this proof is in direct opposition to creation theory, therfore creation theory is incorrect. Since creation thoery is incorrect and life is here life must have started by evloution. Therefore life started by evolution and has contiuned to this day. The fact that evolution continues to this day is evidence that evolution is correct and that life started by evolution.

This arguement feeds back into itself and creates a circular argument for the beginning of life on earth, it is however not supported by any evidence due to the fact that no evidence of this early stage of life on earth survives to this day, only stages after this survive

Answer 1

If the logic gets stuck as the case is with respect to the classic chicken and egg question, it means that the logic being applied is based on some faulty or inconsistent assumption. We have to examine the underlying assumptions critically to find the answer.

In the chicken and egg question, for example, the assumption is that the chicken comes out of an egg which has been laid by a chicken. Since such an assumption does not lead to any solution as to which came first, it means that the assumption may be holding always true as we see it now in the ongoing process, but going back in time to the origin, this was obviously not the operating truth. That then leads to two alternate possibilities... one that the original chicken did not come out of an egg or an original egg was not laid by a chicken. Our examination then needs to proceed further as to which of the two possibilities could be proved to be more probable..... to me it appears more logical to believe that a different bird may have laid the chicken containing egg due to certain changes having happened in its dna composition. That would then become a hypothesis which then would need to be further examined for authenticity through other corroborative evidences.

But then when it comes to the "very beginning" issues buried in too distant past, we have no way to identify or gather evidence... hence we may all the time be left with only a few hypotheses without our ability to corroborate one way or the other. It would then be for each individual to apply his own mind to hook on to one belief or the other or to have the maturity to simply accept that the question is not possible to crack satisfactorily as of now.

Answer 2

The chicken thing isn't real logic anyway. It's just a mind game. Obviously, we do not know the answer, and it doesn't matter. Maybe neither came first. Maybe nobody EVER knew how that first chicken got there. I know what came first, the idea of a chicken! Whoopy! :)

Maybe you haven't learned enough yet about the evolution / creation issue. They do not necessarily rely on circular reasoning. Maybe what you've heard so far does, yes; there are such circular arguments out there. But it's not necessarily so.

A lot of people get quite confused over the evolution thing. The word evolution does not even refer to a theory!!!Proposed MECHANISMS of evolution involve theories. I'll explain.

One characteristic of a scientific theory is that it attempts to set out a causal explanation for some set of natural phenomena, or to define a relationship among physical structures. The theories over the mechanism(s) of evolution refer to a set of natural phenomena that the world gives us plain as day, as facts. That is, the theories attempt to set out a causal explanation for a set of natural phenomena, or a relationship among natural structures.

How so? Well, the main set of relevant facts is the fossil record. Anybody can see it. We see change over time, in the fossil record. No theory. Just facts that the world gives us. Change through time is a fact. It's in the world's record.

Change is evolution. It's in the dictionary. Change is evolution. It doesn't even imply progress. Just change. Uh, change, it's everywhere!

Did you ever hear the expression "let's hang out a minute and see what evolves from the situation?" "Evolution," change, characterizes the facts. "Evolution" refers to the facts, ie. the fossil record and the change it portrays. No theory is involved in what we have decided to dub "evolution."

Theories come in when we set out MECHANISMS of the evolution. The world does not give us those so easily. Some yes, such as sexual selection; others, no.

BUT LOOK AT ALL THE ARGUMENT AND HATEFUL MESS PEOPLE HAVE MADE OVER NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT SIMPLE THING!!!!! People say evolution is false. Well, I guess we'll have to tell the Earth, in the least, that it has been lying to us all this time.

We're just trying to explain the facts within the parameters of scientific method!

And note, it is not the job of science or of any of its theories to make any religious assertions or implications. NOTHING about the theories over the mechanisms of biological change through time, imply that the idea of creation is bunk !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So anyway, that was an example of what I mean over all. Evolution does not involve circular reasoning. It just involves the world's factual record of biological change over time. HOW change happened, though, gets into theory. And IT does not involve circular reasoning either.

Who ever said "evolution is true because things evolved," anyway? I never heard naybody say that, or anything like it, and I did two semesters of quided, independent study in the philosophies of science and religion, and two other classes in similar material including the history of scientific methodology and the nature of theoretical entities/structures. Never heard such a boneheaded thing! That's just silly.

BTW, a lot of these mindless, apparent dilemmas people go around over, such as creation OR evolution, and free will OR determinism, or "did you mean everything you said last night, OR didn't you," send us on a very narrowminded and juvenile path. Typically in life, it's both things at work, not one OR the other.

Answer 3

Logic is based on human reasoning and human reasoning is nothing with nothing to work on. That is, we cannot acquire new knowledge through pure logic; logic is just a set of rules and an incomplete one at that. There are simply things which we believe are true or consistent but not because we deduced them from pure logic alone. Reason is nothing without Observation or Insight. So to solve the chicken and egg problem, the input of external information is inevitable if we are to extract any meaningful conclusion.

"...evolution is true because things evolved and since things evolved evolution must be true..."
I see no circular reasoning involved in this argument. The positions of the subject 'Evolution is true' and the clause 'since/because things evolved' are merely swapped.

By the way, just because logic tells that an argument is valid doesn't mean that it is true. A valid argument doesn't necessarily stand against the scrutiny of soundness

Answer 4

Evolution is a fact, case in point - our small toes are disappearing, and is a constant ongoing process. it is not a circular argument to say that at one time in history there were no animals who could clearly be identified as chickens, and if you want to go strictly by the bible, how many dinosaurs did Noah take on the ark?
Yes chickens evolved, at what exact point did they become chickens? I don't know. That's the whole point of the question, there is no definite answer if you want some unsolvable logic try this:
A man fires an arrow at a target, in order for it to reach the target, it must first travel half the distance, then half the remaining distance, and so on. Now since there is no distance that cannot be divided in half, it is impossible for the arrow to ever actually complete the total distance to the target.

Answer 5

Unsolvable problems are just that. Unsolvable. There is no answer to the chicken-egg problem. It is just as you explained, you cannot answer the question without including external information.

The last part of your question is very confusing though. Creationism is clearly circular in its logic. The book is the truth because the book says so.

However, creation itself is not proof of creationism. You would still need to find evidence that things were created by someone else.

However, evolution is different. Evidence of evolution exists. And in no small supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Answer 6

" - it is however not supported by any evidence due to the fact that no evidence of this early stage of life on earth survives to this day, only stages after this survive -"

My friend, there is now, and has always been, real physical evidence of the earliest stages of life on earth. The remains of those early lifeforms are known to science and have been studied and validated.

So this part of your argument doesn't hold credence and tends to make the rest of your question moot.

Edit:

How far back do you wish to go to define 'early' life?

Precambrian microfossils living in ancient oceans, discovered recently, were trapped initially in soft gelatinous silica which, over many years, hardened, preserving the soft organisms in the rock. These organisms have similarities with Prokaryotic cells living today in anaerobic environments, such as hydrothermal undersea vents. They are tiny and have to be magnified 1000 or 2000 times to be viewed. While the Gunflint Chert Finds, the first prior known examples of early life forms are 2 billion years old, these 'living' fossils, discovered near Shark Bay, Australia appear to stretch back perhaps 4 billion years.

So the question should be: Were there chickens walking upon this earth 4 billion years ago?

Answer 7

Easy, it depends. If you believe in evolution, then a thing not a chicken lays an egg that becomes a chicken due to a mutation. Therefore the Egg came first.
However, if you are a creationist, the chicken was created alive and born and therefore the chicken came first.

So it is you that makes the call. Reality creates the answer.

Answer 8

the chicken and egg question fails because we simply have no way to point to one animal in a chain of evolution and say "this is the very first of a new species", it is a gradual process.

As for the question of why evolution is true, it is hardly "because things evolved". That is an extremely simplistic view of the history of science and the thousands of years of observation by various cultures that came to beleive animals evolved at least once in ancient Greece and again in the late 1800's by Darwin.

Answer 9

My head hurts. I think I'll have an omelet. Or maybe a chicken sandwich?

Answer 10

Why did the chicken cross the road?