Which came first:
Is this meaningful?
Why should this be a primary question? (links available upon request.)
Egg.
Egg. I don’t understand why this is even a question. Eggs were in existence long before birds were even around!
Even if you limit the question to chicken eggs, where do you think the chicken came from?
Because the question then becomes:
Wherefrom came the first eggs.
Let’s say fish (for example).
Which came first, the fish or the egg?
Or, to be more serious, if the first egg was produced by the first egg producer; why should the first producer of eggs produce an egg?
And, was that producer a producer of eggs as a species of egg producers?
Egg, obviously.
At some point, the first chicken was born, but the definition of “chicken” is an arbitrary one. At one time there were birds that we would not consider chickens, but then natural selection changed them, gradually, until finally one day an animal was created that was the first that we would define as a “chicken” when its parent was just one gene short of what we’d define as a “chicken.” Since that first chicken was a chicken, it was born from an egg. So the egg came first.
Yes, but it was born from some type of egg, Yes?
Perhaps not a Chicken egg.
Fish, Crocodiles, Turtles and Platypuses lay eggs. Some species laid the first egg.
RIGHT?
Wherefrom did it arise?
…which is to say that eggs predate birds, but that the question remains…
The animal came first. Whether that animal was a fish, or a bird, or a dinosaur, platypus, etc., it was something produced eggs. The animal evolved not the egg.
Surely the progression is:
proto-chicken egg → proto-chicken → mutation → chicken egg → chicken
Unless you think that a proto-chicken evolved into a chicken after hatching.
You want us to trace the evolutionary history of the galliformes for you? All animal life? Or all life period :)?
You know, it’s this sort of dichotomizing that is the root of the world’s troubles. If I’m an egg or I’m a chicken, why should that matter. Don’t we both deserve the same rights. The same respect? Why should I be scrambled because I’m one and roasted because I’m the other?
But does anyone question this? No. They accept barbarity as normal and go about their lives. But what sort of world will they leave behind. What does it teach their children. Always, we have to think of the children.
I dream of a future when animate and inanimate can accept each other as equals rather than continue to engage in the bloody conflicts that litter our history.
Thank you.
If you would like to nominate me for the peace prize, i think the letter goes to some town in Norway.
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
Bravo! We need more bright visionaries like you.
Neither one came first. They both appeared simultaneously, emerging from the ether of the cosmos before history really began. The event has come to be known as the dawn of the chicken age.
Something had to produce eggs as a form of reproduction. As the egg-producing creature evolved so did the animal that came out of the egg.
I’m not asking anyone to do anything for me. I came across what I considered to be a childish riddle that was credulously taken as an indictment of certain philosophical positions.
Then I realized that I didn’t have a very firm grasp of the matter.
Some beastie laid the first egg, yet that beastie should itself have been born from an egg.
I tend to go with RickJay’s line of reasoning. But that seems to beg the question, since the issue can simply be transferred from the Chicken to the bird-that-would-evolve-into-the-chicken, as it were.
So, maybe it’s the definition of Egg that’s arbitrary more than the definition of Chicken??
If you want to make an omelet…
I know this might seem a little silly, but I am curious, and I am trying to understand more clearly.
Is it fair to say that some first entity produced some first egg despite the fact that the species it belonged to was not a species which procreated by means of eggs? Thereby giving that species multiple means of procreating? Or, possibly, multiple stages in life where different procreative possibilities existed? Or even different “castes” where individuals of a given species had different reproductive traits?
Egg…
All biology starts at the container surrounding the nucleus.
Without that container, amino/nucleic acids would be a just a blob of organic stuff and not a cohesive unit we call a life form.
So there. 
I’ve been thinking along those lines myself more and more. Ironically, it goes directly to an argument made defending the creationist viewpoint by noting that a cell placed in (loosely) “the building blocks of life” will die if the cell wall is punctured.
Without that container, amino/nucleic acids would be a just a blob of organic stuff and not a cohesive unit we call a life form.
So there.
In may ways, the cell is an “egg.” Defined somewhat arbitrarily of course.
It also makes sense if you believe in the Jungian collective subconscious and believe that it tells you something about the true nature of reality.