the chicken and egg

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

My take:

The chicken came first.  The tree makes a sound.  These are not mysterious to me, although philosophically stimulating to many.  I say the chicken came first because something had to incubate the egg.  Adaptation and evolution would explain the disparity concerning origin, because as each generation of species adjusts or adapts to their environment, the offspring evolve.  Thus, the offspring possess traits that the predecessor does not.  This is to say that the chick that we know today is not the same as the original offspring.  Therefore, over the scope of time, whatever would have been born of the organisms that originated in the oceans, including chickens, would have to be the product or offspring of something else.  The fact is that all organisms have to go through an infancy and then a reproductive phase as a fact of life.  In order for an egg to exist, it would have to come from something that reproduced (re i.e. again and produce i.e. create) a virtual copy of itself.

As for the tree in the forest: I get it. If no one is there to receive the vibrations, is there a sound?  Similar to Schroedinger’s theory of the cat being both dead and alive, as it is neither until it is observed and declared to meet the criteria of one or the other.  The thing is, the definition of sound is independent of human observance.  I realize that even time is a human-conceived concept, but it is based on observable scientific law.  I would liken this  question to be equivalent to asking whether time passes if you aren’t looking at the clock.   There are pre-existing criteria that define both “time” and “sound” that are met whether there is a human to observe and acknowledge them.

How do the bugs get into the ceiling light?  I never looked it up, but I would imagine that since bugs are attracted to light, and heat is used to incubate eggs, and light produces heat, that insects are laying eggs in or near the lights that eventually hatch.  I could look this question up to find someone else’s answer, but that one satisfies my common sense.

My point is that it can be that simple to come to a reasonable explanation without listening to and spreading the dogma of whichever doctrine to which one subscribes as opposed to simply being true to oneself and recognizing that many of us take for granted that what we learned growing up is the truth–simply because it’s what we were taught.  We take for granted that, no matter what extent, a good amount of what we believe is what was recited to us and committed to our memory over time.  Unless you stop, question, identify and test what you have come to believe, you will continue to believe what is most familiar or comfortable but not necessarily what makes sense.


Sometimes less is more.  I saw the Jim Beam’s “Devil’s Cut” bourbon commercial in which the gimmick is that they have devised a way to extract bourbon from the saturated wood.   I wondered what possessed them to try to extract the bourbon from the wood.  I suppose that it’s supposed signify the degree of potency, aroma or woody flavor.  But who is to say that that would make the bourbon taste better? On the part of the manufacturers, this may be a business-saving measure, necessary for the sustenance of their enterprise; or on the more likely end, it’s one more way to sell a product to people by making them think it is something they have been missing [and therefore needing] all the while.  Next, in considering the potency factor, it’s called The Devil’s Cut. The title is a blatant acknowledgement, if not association with the potential negative effects of alcohol.

There is Belvedere vodka commercial that says, there are only 93 summer nights–shows people with clear liquid in glasses, toasting with a bottle of Belvedere between them at which time the narrator continues provocatively: make each one count.   It would seem as though this commercial condones, if not encourages drinking vodka on a daily basis, notwithstanding the long term and short term affects of alcohol use, abuse, and overdose.  Even if you do not abuse alcohol–perhaps you have one drink per day for 30 years, there is a risk of dependency.  Of course, most people do not use alcohol in such moderation over extended time.  Most people that have had alcohol, have found themselves accidentally drunk and subsequently embarrassed.  With alcohol there is risk of overdose, risky behavior, poor/lapse in judgment, fighting, erratic or exaggerated emotions, incidence of physical, sexual or mental abuse, rape, domestic violence, black outs, life-altering consequences, hangover, vomiting, hepatitis, pancreatitis, cirrhosis, gout, high blood pressure, jaundice, vitamin deficiency, ascites, encephalopathy, seizures, delirium tremens, tremors and death (pardon me if I’ve left out something)

That said, when it comes to what is being marketed, which is implicitly acceptable, I am disappointed that there are those that can ignore all the aforementioned in the defense of the War on Drugs and other determinations made be the FDA, ATF and for that matter the NRA and all the other bureaucratic agencies on the pay roll behind the scenes unaffected by and unyielding to the laws they impose.

what they’re selling