Eggs existed before chickens. The fossil record is the scientific answer.
100%. But I do want to note for those in the back seats, matrotrophy and integumentation (basically, egglike gametes/ gametophytes) evolved multiple times and independently in other lineages, like plants. So even though plants follow the same “sperm and egg” pattern, its evolution is wholly independent. Turns out investing in the next generation is a broadly advantageous evolutionary strategy.
The first chicken Egg was laid by a non-chicken. However, that’s more theoretical than realistic. The mutational difference between generations of offspring isn’t enough for us to call the offspring a different species, it’s not a hard line. It’s only on a much broader scale across a population and large timeframe that they can differentiate enough to be considered a different species.
It’s the egg.
The way evolution works is that offspring might suffer mutations and not be 100% a copy of their parents DNA. As such, for any concrete definition of chicken there was a non-chicken that put a chicken egg.
There’s no argument for the chicken first, because a chicken needs to come from a chicken egg, but a chicken egg does not need to come from a chicken.
Neither the chicken nor the egg can cum.
Therefore, the rooster came first.
I hope I’ve been able to help answer your question…
Purely from evolutionary biology & physiology: yes, it’s the egg. It has actually been fairly definitively answered for almost 20 years that Wikipedia has a section on this
By most definitions of the dilemma it will be the egg which came first. The very first “egg” in our world came long before birds are a thing. If we are strictly talking about chicken eggs, since the modern chicken is a domesticated animal, strictly speaking the first true domesticated chicken came from two non-domestic chicken parents… which created a fertilized egg that became the first domesticated chicken.
If you had paid attention in school, you would know the answer. The concept of “Eggs” is way, way older than any bird.
i remember reading this last year, egg first.
“at some point, a bird that wasn’t quite a chicken laid an egg that carried a mutation turning its offspring into the first true chicken. So technically, the egg came first”
The rooster.
Yeaaaah, here comes the rooster…oh yeah!
First laugh of the day. Thank you so much I am going to steal this from you…hope you don’t mind.
Assuming you mean chicken egg, and not just eggs (which @Sanctus@anarchist.nexus points out are much older than chickens) then it’s really a philosophical question. Does the egg belong to the hen or the chick? If it belongs to the hen, then the chicken chick came out of a proto-chicken egg, else the chicken’s egg came before it did.
It’s a grammatical one, not a philosophical one. And, now that I think of it, it’s also one with a definite answer.
If you waved a magic wand and had a chicken come out of a leathery egg lay by a lizard, a watery egg lay by a fish, or the sort of large egg an oatrich usually comes from, we wouldn’t call any of those a “chicken egg”
And, conversely, if by super-advanced genetic engineering we made chickens who lay eggs with bacon or cheese or just all whites, we’d call those eggs “chicken eggs” when we talk about the shells themselves and not the contents therein.
So the chicken came first. And the first chickens hatched from the eggs of some other bird.
What if a lizard laid a hard egg with a chicken inside?
It’s actually more of a theological discussion.
The egg is literally part of the chick until it’s hatched. It’s formed by the embryonic cells, not the maternal cells. Ergo, if the embryo is a chicken, the egg is a chicken egg, and the chicken came first.
Now, it is arguable that an embryo is merely an undeveloped eukaryotic organism until such time as it is morphologically distinct from other organisms. A cell merely bearing chicken DNA is not yet a chicken anymore than a stack of lumber and a blueprint is a house. If that is the position you’re more comfortable with, then the egg formed before the chicken.
So whether the undeveloped embryo constitutes a chicken or not is the core of the question, and no, science doesn’t have an answer to that. That’s a semantic, philosophical, and to some theological question about what constitutes a chicken.
Dawkins solved it time ago.
Mutations are passed into the next generation and if we assume that only chickens can laid chicken eggs then the paradox solution is as follows :
A proto chicken (soemthing extremely similar to a chicken but not yet one) laid a proto egg of which a chicken hatched and then it could laid a chicken egg.
Here there is a reduced scope version saying that proto chicken can lay eggs, which depends on the eggs definition may not be 100% acceptable
I think it you take any example of a chicken that is alive today and were able to trace back its ancestry far enough then you’d eventually find an ancestor that most reasonable people would agree is not a chicken. And probably many of those “non-chicken” ancestors did hatch out of “non-chicken” eggs. So I think that it is most likely that some “non-chicken” egg existed before, and forms part of the direct ancestry of, every chicken that has ever lived. If that’s what you’re asking.
Many of the arguments to support ‘chicken’ being first seem to add the assumption that “egg” must mean “chicken-egg”. That assumption doesn’t seem reasonable to me, especially in the context of ancestry. Maybe it would be reasonable to creationists though - so frankly if someone does believe that I’d just walk away and let them “win”. I’d rather find a natural history museum and see if they have any proto-chicken exhibits than waste time with people like that.
My answer is also based on extra assumptions too. I’ve slotted the indefinite article in to the gap “[a] chicken”, and worse replaced the definite article “the” with the indefinite “an” in reference to ‘the’ egg. People will argue about that, but the question is ambiguous, and needs to be more specific. ‘Which came first the troll or the bait?’
The question is moot, as soon as you start digging into embryology and evolution. The question dates back to times when people were mostly ignorant of these two fields of study.
The egg is the same organism as the individual that hatches out of it.
It’s like saying “which came first, the infant or the adult”?
Well now that you mention it.
Donkeys and horses don’t even have the same number of chromosomes.
But they can breed, which creates a mule (which is usually infertile, but not always).
Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species.
Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species.
Species is a construct and falls apart very quickly outside of the common barnyard and kidsbook animals. It can be a useful construct for understanding some things, but its not a “thing” that inherently exists in biology.
We can impose an idea on organisms, but they have no obligation to follow it.
No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring.
Okay, let’s back it up a bit…
Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal.
Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid.
In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them.
I ate two fried unfertilized eggs just a few hours ago.
Unfertilized eggs literally never create offspring.
Maybe take a sex-ed class?
What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question.
What’s your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you…
The [unfertilized] egg is already the new offspring.
A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension…
A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning.
when it’s fertilized.
You seem to have missed that part.
Did you even read their comment?
https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177
No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring.
This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said.
