Even if you restrict the question to, “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg,” the answer is still the egg. If we could pinpoint the moment in evolutionary time when a mutant was sufficiently different from its parents to be considered “a chicken,” that first chicken would have first come from an egg, which egg having been produced by non-chickens.
(Of course, this depends on whether you define “chicken egg” as “the egg produced by a chicken” or “the egg which produces a chicken” – I chose the latter, obvioulsy – but that philosophical discussion is a little too deep for me.)
Except-and I’m not an evolutionary biologist-it seems to me that such a moment would never occur, since each new generation would only be marginally different from it’s parents. It would still be close enough genetically to breed with it’s father or mother(hey, these are birds, not people). The major speciation differences would only be apparent if one was to look at (a) groups of protochickens that were geographically separated enough to prevent interbreeding, or (2) one generation of chickenoid in comparison with another generation removed by several, ie. great-great-great grandhens.
Basically, there would be a smooth continuum of protochickens blending into CHICKENS, with no instantaneous point of separation.
And, of course, the problem with Unca Cece’s joke is that a chicken does not have to get laid in order to lay an egg - although she does in order to lay a fertilised egg which could produce another chicken, I suppose.
Well, I am an evolutionary biologist, and I completely agree with your assessment – which is why I made sure to include “if” in my statement about determining the moment in time of the evolution of the first chicken. Of course, such a distinction of when sufficient “chicken-ness” had occurred to qualify as an actual chicken would be completely arbitrary. But, given that such an arbitrary point could be determined, and that chickens come from chicken eggs (and not chicken eggs come from chickens), my non-philosopher logic tells me that the egg must then have come first.
Precisely. The difference between chicken and protochicken is whatever we say it is. So when that (you should pardon the term) half-cocked critter crosses the definitional road, it becomes a chicken whether it wants to or not.
Some days I think the term human is defined much too broadly.
This is the crux of the question. However: Those things I have in the molded cardboard carton in my refrigerator came from chickens, but they have no chance of themselves producing chickens. Since I would be inclined to call those objects “chicken eggs” (they certainly aren’t eggs of any other species), I would prefer the former definition, that a chicken egg is an egg produced by a chicken. In which case, of course, one would say that the chicken preceded the chicken egg.
This is going to take forever if I go one word at a time!
Has anyone else ever heard the nonsense answer to this question: the chicken came first after the egg? I used to hear that when I was a kid, but maybe it was a family thing.
I disagree. The question never asks about the chicken egg, only the chicken and the egg. IANAEB, but it seems that “egg” is the correct answer. Both because the genotype of what we arbitrarily called a “chicken” is set at conception (even before the hard shell that we call “egg”) and because of the arbitrary designation of the female gamete.
What’s I’ve been interested in though is: has there ever been a college level genetics class whose final exam consisted of exact same question followed by “Why?”
It seems obvious to me that the mutated egg of a proto-chicken came before the chicken. However what perplexes me is is where and how a non sexual proto life form gave birth to an egg laying species.
There is sex without eggs and there are eggs without sex, and some of the lower animal phyla are quite difficult to understand in terms that we are used to.
At the risk of sounding like the one calm guy in the room who remains calm because he doesn’t know what’s going on, you guys are making much too big a deal about this.
How you define an egg or a chicken never enters the picture. The chicken came first, quite simply.
“God said, 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky. God created the large sea creatures, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.’ There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind’; and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 1:20-25 World English Bible
Whether chickens are birds of the air or livestock is the only definition you have to worry about, but in either case the chicken came first.
I have to say I am not convinced. Even using the bible as the source, where does it say that God created these creatures as fully formed adults and that God didn’t make them as eggs first so they would have a complete life cycle. Using the bible just makes things more ambiguous.