Actually this conundrum refers to the 'Roman egg' which is the birth of the universe. The Romans beleived that the universe was born from an 'egg' so the answer was that the egg came before the chicken, however this wasn't a chicken egg. Curiously, the Roman egg as the start of the universe is now surprisingly popular... in that the universe possibly started off as a single dense 'egg' that exploded (big bang).

What we recognize as a chicken, like most common domestic animals, is essentially a product of many generations of selective breeding by many generations of farmers. Some of today's chicken breeds date back only a few years, others centuries. I suspect all of today's breeds developed within the last thousand years or so... maybe three or four thousand at the outside. I doubt their ancestors before that would be recognizable as chickens. So, the chicken egg has to be my answer as well.

I prefer the simpler answer. God decided that He'd make a chicken one day. The chicken was a kind of bird, and God had already decided that birds would lay eggs. Why mess with a good plan, right? So God made a chicken, and then it laid an egg. Simple. Why waste time trying to figure out a puzzle that makes no difference anyway? I eat chickens and eggs.

for me, the chicken came first. because in creation, God made all living things. how would an egg hatch if there is no chicken to warm the egg? well, when God created man and all living things, the chicken was created first and then these chickens made eggs.

It depends on what is meant by "the egg". If it means "chicken egg", then other answers have addressed this. If it means just any egg, then I would have to say the egg came first since fish and reptiles, for example, were created/existed before chickens.

If we are referring to the early ancestor of the modern chicken and the egg that would be associated with that bird, then the bird came first. Why? God created the heavens and the earth with the "appearance" of age. He created a mature Adam and Eve, mature trees and shrubs, and even a mature earth. He created adult animals so that they could "be fruitful and multiply." So, he created male and female birds and the eggs came later. Hope that helps.

It had been scientifically observed that the egg came first...because 1. In the process of evolution the chicken used to be another type of bird called some ferrral or falcon (forgot the name) just like how humans used to be homo sapiens. 2. As we give birth, our childrens are the one with the changed attributes, for example Hairy cavemen-like humans would give birth to less hairy childrens. 3. The falcon/ferral or whatever used to fly, a chicken CANNOT fly 4. as it was evolving a few birds gave birth to ones without wings...(because it was unecessary or whatever that has to do with natural selection but i won't go into detail of how evolution works) 5. Those without wings are called "chicken" 6. AND those chickens were once in eggs AND SO the first chickens species were in eggs first before they hatched and became the chicken GET IT???

The answer depends upon whether you belive in evolution or creation. If you beliueve in evolution then the egg came first: Genetic variation occurs with every generation, the creature that laid the first chicken egg was ever so similar to a chicken but genetically different enough to not be classified as a chicken. If you believe in creationism then the chicken was put on this earth in adult form and hasn't changed.

Problem goes away when you realize that the chicken and the egg are the same "thing". Neither existed first. Both are stages of existance of the same thing. They are co-creators in a dependant origination relationship. "First" is a time issue. Time is relative, so you would have to have some more data to answer the question. As in "From what point on what timeline...and in what direction?" We just think things are "first" because we come across them "first" when mentally traveling whatever timeline we're using at the...uh...time.

Obviously, the chicken came first. Chickens evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs layed eggs. So as time passed by a newly evolved chicken layed an egg and then came the chicken. (Genome by Matt Ridley)

The common sense answer is that the chicken came first. It had to exist to lay the egg. An egg cannot make itself. The animal then had to come from somewhere. And the only answer is to be created by God. As stated at Genesis 1;20-22. An important part of the scripture is the words.."according to its kind". This shows that one species cannot change into any other species.

It's obvious isn't it? The chicken came first. The chicken had to get laid before the egg could be...hahahahaa

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The chicken cannot have come about had it not hatched from an egg, and the egg could not have come about had a chicken not laid it.Therefore the chicken, along with its mate, had to both have been created fully formed and functional along with its food sources in order for them both to feed and breed to create other chickens. Evolution is an impossibility because Evolution, being mindless, would never know when to say "Ok, we can stop now. This creature is perfect." Furthermore, if Evolution were true, we would see evidence of living things in partial stages of development. All living creatures we see today are fully formed and functional, just as we see in the fossil record and just as it is stated in Genesis. Can a plant such as, say, a Maple tree that has no eyes to see "evolve" aerodynamic seedlings that float in the breeze to disperse its seeds? No it cannot. Only an intelligent being with knowledge of aerodynamics could produce a wing-shaped seedling to travel on the wind. Evolution would only randomly make various seedlings, never knowing if its previous result was successful because Evolution has no intelligence to analyze the result of its efforts. But wait: "Its survival would be a gauge for its success" the Evolutionist will say. But no: the Maple does not have any knowledge of it or its seedlings success. The Maple WILL NOT tinker with its genetic code (like it really could if it wanted to) nor could it ever alter its genetic structure to add features, picking and choosing from various genes. Why don't we see trees with feathers or with a thick coat of fur like a polar bear? Such a result is just as probable as an animal sprouting bark because Evolution is mindless, guided only by random process and external environmental forces. Both tree and animal are exposed to cold so it would stand to reason a tree would evolve the ability to grow fur. The logic of evolution is this: A giraffe got its long neck from millions of years of stretching to reach leaves higher up in the trees. Water-breathing creatures became air-breathers by millions of years of cautious exposure to air. If we follow this logic then we can say if I and all my descendents for millions of years flap our arms and peck at seeds with our noses we'll eventually sprout beaks and feathers and fly off into the air! At the very least our arms will grow longer in an attempt to "evolve" towards flight. This is complete and utter nonsense. It flies in the face of common sense, pardon the pun. The core of this extreme lack of wisdom is simple unbelief founded in a refusal or inability to acknowledge God as creator. Either you are going to believe in the almighty God or you are going to believe in the collective "wisdom" of Man and his feeble efforts to understand what God hath made. I'll place my faith in God, thank you.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs laid eggs, so the egg came first.

The answer is that the chicken came first. why? well if you believe in god, in the bible, Adam was a fully grown man and not a baby so if god created the first things fully grown, that means that the chicken came first.

Evolution is a theory??? Evolution has not been proven??? Has evolution ever been disproven??? Anyone who knows anything about science (which is obvious that most of you do not) knows that science is considered to be true unless proven otherwise. Charles Darwin introduced what we now call the "theory of evolution" in the mid 1800s. The "theory of evolution" has not been able to be disproven for over 150 years. You would think that with all the advances that we have made in science recently, we would now ,more than ever, be able to disprove the "theory of evolution," if it were in fact a false theory. Well we haven't. I really think that's saying something... don't you? Also, in the science world, "theory" does not mean the same thing it means in our everyday world. Scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world." In science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation. Most biologists believe that evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact. And for all you morons out there that think that evolution is just a "theory" you know what else is a theory - gravity!! Gravitational theory. You guys saying that evolution doesn't exist is the equivalent of saying that gravity doesn't either. I understand all of you Christians want to believe in your God. That's fine. But obviously none of you who wrote anything here have any scientific background. Please do not speak about matters in which you are unfamiliar. I have a Bachelor's degree in Biology and a Master's degree in Forensic Science. I have studied the field of Biology for almost ten years now. I was raised Roman Catholic, I learned all about God and Christ and the whole nine. In no way, shape, or form would I say that I am an expert in Theology. I would never comment on the existence of God. Just because I do not believe in God does not mean that I should force my views onto other people and try to tell them that God does not exist. Theology is completely different from science. Theology is based on faith, and science is based on proven, substantiated facts. You want proof that science exists? Look around you. That antibiotic that cured your bacterial infection - science. That surgery you needed last year - science. That chemotherapy to slow the growth of cancer you had - science. Evolution is all around you too. Ever heard of vestigial structures? I'm assuming that the answer is no. A vestigial structure is your appendix or your tail bone. Structures that we have today that we no longer use. We used to use them in the past, when we were different animals. I'd challenge any of you to disprove evolution. Even the top theologists can't do it, as much as they want to. So until the day comes (which will be never) that evolution is disproved - evolution exists. Period. End of story. Oh, yeah you Christians are so hypocritical. You need so much proof that evolution exists but you don't need any proof that God exists? Why is that? You can see/touch/feel/taste/hear science. You can't do any of those things with God.

What came first....the man or the sperm? The apple or the apple tree? You will know the answer if you find from what legume the turnip evolved. ..................... simple.

The Chicken - who else is going to lay the egg?

The chicken, God made all animals, the chicken then laid the egg.

The egg. Nobody said it had to be a chicken egg. There were dinosaur and fish eggs long before chickens.

The chicken came first. An egg does not produce a chicken unless it is fertilized by a (you guessed it) chicken!

The Rooster! Well, that's what my Daddy always told me . . . Yeah, he was joking, not bashing Hens!

both i guess i dunno

This is a question about evolution. If you believe in creation, then it's the chicken and then the chicken laid the egg. If you believe in evolution, then at some point in the evolutionary process there was the point where the dinosaur became a bird, and that bird came from a bird egg, therefore the egg came first.

You actually have to clarify your question - and when you have done so, you will have answered the question. Is a chicken's egg an egg which is laid by a chicken, or an egg from which a chicken hatches? If the first, the chicken came first, but it hatched from a pre-chicken-egg. If the second, the agg came first, but it was laid by a pre-chicken. When you ask clearly enough, the answer is simple.

Neither, the rooster.

i hate to say you's but i actually know the answer, scientific results shopw that two unlikly chemicals were crossed and sperm from a bird were put together nthen were formed an egg with a sheel hard enough to form a chicken inside and thhats how it happen alot of these were made so actually the answer is that the chickenS came first

THE SPERM

THE SPERM

egg and chicken both came togather

In this case, the egg is not assumed to be a chicken egg. In effect this changes the question to: "Which came first, a chicken or any egg". From a cellular biology point of view this question can be answered quite easily. The egg came first because any female sex cell is called an egg. If the egg is defined structurally as the hard shelled thing, and the chicken a feather covered animal, the answer is still simple. Evolutionary scientists believe the first hard shell egg was the amniotic egg laid around 300 million years ago, and was laid by the animal who was the link between amphibians and reptiles. One of the first dinosaurs that we know had feathers was the Archaeopteryx, and came much later. Modern birds would not arise until 150 million years ago, descending from theropod dinosaurs. In this case, the first chicken must have been the mutated offspring of a proto-chicken that laid the egg containing the first true chicken. In any case, this creature hatched from a recognizable egg. After all, the question is purposefully ambiguous -- it is not, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" The crux of the matter is how to biologically define 'a chicken'. What level of genetic similarity or structural similarity determine whether an organism is a chicken? One can only define what was the first chicken after the fact, thus any definition of the first chicken becomes arbitrary. The question 'which came first?' ignores the complicated reality of speciation. The concept of species is an abstraction intended to categorize a broad swath of genomes and their subsequent phenomes. If one were to do away with approximate categories, each individual 'chicken' actually represents a unique genotype. Under this definition, if a 'chicken' possessing genome A were to lay an egg possessing genome B, then an egg of genome B is antecedent to an animal possessing genome B and that the parent--genome A--is antecedent to, yet different from the egg of genome B. Hence, in an absolute sense, the egg came before the 'chicken.' According to the principles of speciation, neither the chicken nor the egg came first, because speciation does not occur in simple, obvious units. In fact, evolution is about a slow transition in an overall population. What qualifies as “chicken” (ignoring the many diverse modern types of chicken) involves a wide range of genetic traits (alleles) that are not encompassed in a single individual and continue to be modified from generation to generation. The transition from non-chicken to chicken is a grey area in which several generations are involved, and therefore which includes many many chicken-and-egg events, with no one step representing the whole. Since the result of the process is an incomplete transition into various new characteristics rather than one single blueprint, a new species, "chicken", is only identified in hindsight when the species can be obviously identified as different from its ancestral stock. [edit] Theological answers According to creationists who believe in Biblical inerrancy, birds were created "on the fifth day". Since there is no reference to the creation of eggs, they presumably were then made by chickens afterwards by the normal process. Therefore, the chicken came first. Alternatively, for those who accept the intelligent design form of creationism, Eugene Volokh has noted that "In my experience, most creationists are also pro-life -- in which case, the egg is a chicken."

Eugh that damn question! The egg, because something really similar but not quite a chicken laid an egg with a mutant of itself that turned out to be a chicken, ok?!?!?!?!?!

uhhhhhhh........well........the chicken came to be through evolution and was born before it could make any eggs........ so the chicken,lol,this question is irrelevant,it can't really be answered but we can only take through logic that if it was able to be determined it would be the chicken.I was waiting for someone to ask this!

Evolution is an interesting theory and received popular support at a time when the scientific community did not use rigorous laboratory experiments to test this theory. It was simply accepted because it was convenient for secular humanists and suited the social belief systems of 19th Century England. However, in light of modern scientific research and discoveries, science can no longer claim to support such un-scientific models and hypotheses. In the past, many people used to believe that evolution was a scientific fact, however, following recent discoveries in the sciences such as genetics, geology and molecular biology, it can no longer be claimed that evolution has any scientific basis. It was only in fairly recent decades, when some of the worlds most highly regarded scientists, such as Isaac Asimov and Albert Einstein, started to highlight the problems and inconsistencies of evolution that the scientific community began to seriously research this issue. For instance, Asimov pointed out that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy (or the measure of chaos and disorder in the universe) increases with the passing of time. In other words, everything deteriorates, breaks down and wears out, if left to itself. This makes the so-called ?big bang? theory an impossible event, as it presupposes that out of nothing or chaos came a sophisticated life system by random chance. Einstein wrote that ?The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the pillar of classical physics, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible; nature moves just one way.? In the field of biology, evolutionary belief violates the Law of Biogenesis, which states that ?Life begets life.? In other words life can only come from preceding or pre-existing life, and perpetuates itself by reproducing its own kind or type. Life cannot evolve from non-living matter. It is not scientifically possible for a random explosion in space to produce complex life and sustain living organisms. Additionally, the scientific Law of Causality states that ?Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause.? Therefore, if the universe is a material effect, then it had to have a cause. Evolutionists cannot explain what caused the ?big bang? and simply tell us that the universe caused itself. The Law of Genetics states that ?Living things only reproduce after their own kind and species.? In other words, the genetic information contained in an animal can only ever produce the same kind of animal. A chicken cannot produce a giraffe, a turtle cannot produce an elephant and an ape cannot produce a human. For evolution to work, you would need new genes capable of containing new genetic information, however, there is no scientific process that can produce these new genes. Recent discoveries in science, such as the genetic code of DNA, RNA and proteins reveal that genes have always contained complex information from the very beginning. Evolution tells us that simple organisms became complex over ?millions? of years, but all the experimental data and scientific observation show this to be impossible. The field of Molecular Biology reveals that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on our planet. Organisms today are no different from organisms in the past, so humans could not have derived from such organisms or bacteria. The DNA of human beings is unique and confirms that we did not derive from any other animal or species. The fields of Palaeontology, Archaeology and Geology also confirm this in the fossil record. If humans really did evolve from micro-organisms or from apes, then there would have been abundant fossil evidence of transitional species. Instead, all the sedimentary evidence from fossils and deep sea rocks show that animals and humans have always lived side by side, without any trace of so-called ?missing links? or half-animal, half-human species. All the biological groups are present in the fossil record and are intact. If evolution were true, museums throughout the world would have been full of fossils to clearly document the transitions between the various biological groups. And instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has only served to emphasize the enormity of the gap. To his credit, even Charles Darwin admitted this fact as being the biggest flaw in his theory when he said, "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin, 1902 edition. ??I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science?.It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.? Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475. ?Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature?.Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.? Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358. ?I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.? Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422. ?Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.? Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page. "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13. ?[There is a] widely promoted belief that evolution has been ?proven? by the natural sciences. The fact is, however, that although the natural sciences are commonly interpreted in an evolutionary framework, no one has ever observed real evolution to take place, not even in any of the life sciences, let alone the earth sciences or physical sciences. True science is supposed to be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Evolution, however, even if it were true, is too slow to observe or measure and has consisted of unique, non-repeatable events of the past. It is therefore outside the scope of genuine science and has certainly not been proven by science.? Dr Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (Master Book Publishers, 2000), p. 23. So why do many people still believe in evolution today? Because to do otherwise means having to believe in a Creator or Intelligent Design, and their biased world-view does not allow that, so they convince themselves that evolution is science. But unfortunately, evolution is nothing more than a convenient belief system for those who don?t want to believe in God.

The answer is really quite simple. By any definition, an egg is merely a by-product of an animal. For a chicken egg to exist, it requires an adult hen and an adult rooster to fertilize the egg. Otherwise it would just be a scrambled egg! Remember roosters? An egg requires a hen to incubate the egg and keep it warm before it can hatch. Remember incubation? The young chick requires a chicken to keep it warm, gather food and to protect it from predators. Otherwise it would simply die if left on its own. But even if an egg could produce itself, then what? How could other chickens have come about from one egg? An egg cannot give birth to a chicken, whereas a chicken can lay hundreds of eggs in her life. In the same way, a baby human cannot give birth to its mother. It requires an adult female and an adult male to fertilize her eggs. Furthermore, a baby human and a chicken egg are each produced in the womb of their mother. Neither a baby nor an egg can be produced outside of their mother?s womb. Since an egg is only a by-product of a chicken, it is impossible for it to have come before the chicken. Therefore, BOTH the chicken and the rooster came first.

There are some wonderful answer to this paradox, and I find I agree with all of them. The simple truth is that the egg, or concept of a thing, came first, followed by the chicken, or actuality of that thing. All the theology bit is just twaddle.

If you believe in evolution, the chicken evolved from the first organisms then laid eggs. If you believe in creation, God created the chicken and it laid eggs. SO EITHER WAY THE CHICKEN CAME FIRST.

I do agree that A egg came first laid by a non-chicken, the egg hatched and out came a proto -chicken, but remember a chicken today probably doesn't look and behave the way it did 2-3000 years ago, all things evolve. Also I would like to comment on the person who said animals don't change. There are animals that change their sex so why can't they evolve to another species. There are new species discovered everyday and unless God still creates new species of bugs and fish then animals mutate to new species.

Egg, Evolution answers this question.

The chicken if you believe in Creation.

If you believe in the idea that God created the world in Seven days, and he inhabitated the world with creatures then the chicken came first. Yet one can make the case that with evolution, the chicken egg came first

as most females will tell ya it "it always happens the male comes first and rolls over and goes to sleep so therefore it was the ROOSTER

eggs were around way before the chicken evolved, Dinosaures layed eggs reptiles lay eggs, so the eggs came first.

This question has never truely been answered, only partly-answered (it all matters how you interpret it): Overall: The chicken or the egg is a reference to the causality dilemma which arises from the expression "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Since both the chicken and the egg create the other in certain circumstances (a chicken emerges from an egg; an egg is laid by a chicken) it is ambiguous which originally gave rise to the other. Purely logical attempts to resolve the dilemma result in an infinite regress, since an egg was caused by a chicken, which was caused by an egg, etc. Since every chicken originates from its egg, it seems obvious the egg came first. Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. The solution may require an examination of syntax and may rely on verification from advances in modern genetic science. When used in reference to difficult problems of causality, the chicken and egg dilemma is often used to appeal to the futility of debate and lay it to rest. Language: There is one common answer that over 75 million people agree upon. People fluent in the Thai (Thailand) language will tell you that the first character or letter of the Thai alphabet "gaw" and is represented by a picture of a chicken. The second letter of the Thai alphabet is "kaw" and is represented by the picture of an egg. So, this riddle for these people is a no-brainer. The chicken came first and then came the egg. Creationists: According to creationists who believe in Biblical inerrancy, birds were created "on the fifth day" as adolescents or adults. Since there is no reference to the creation of eggs, they presumably were then made by chickens afterwards by the normal process. Therefore, the chicken came first. ...And In Terms Of The Question: One can consider the question inside the framework of experience, making the question concrete instead of abstract: "The chicken or the egg - which came first?" "The chicken" came first - in the sentence of the question. If the question is phrased differently, the answer is different. Hope this helps.

The egg. The chicken resulting from the egg was a mutation of it's origonal parent. It survived and breed with another eventualy creation what we have today as chickens. This question is perfectly logical as long as you believe in evolution.

The egg had to come first as in purely evolutionary terms, the very first example of what could be classed as the species of chicken would have orignally hatched from an egg. The animal that laid the egg was the precursor species. However, since evolution in higher organisms is very gradual slow, this answer maynot be 100% totally valid - makes sense to me though.

This has already been asked..........Eggs came first, they were around way before the chicken was even evolved, dinosoures, reptiles ect.

The chicken or the egg is a reference to the causality dilemma which arises from the expression "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Since both the chicken and the egg create the other in certain circumstances (a chicken emerges from an egg; an egg is laid by a chicken) it is ambiguous which originally gave rise to the other. Purely logical attempts to resolve the dilemma result in an infinite regress, since an egg was caused by a chicken, which was caused by an egg, etc. Since every chicken originates from its egg, it seems obvious the egg came first. Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. The solution may require an examination of syntax and may rely on verification from advances in modern genetic science. When used in reference to difficult problems of causality, the chicken and egg dilemma is often used to appeal to the futility of debate and lay it to rest. ________________________________________________ Assuming a chicken egg In this case, the egg is assumed to be a chicken's egg. This is an obvious assumption since the question itself implies a link between the two. If one assumes the egg to be a chicken egg then one must define what a chicken egg is: If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken Then a bypass is allowed: An animal that was not a chicken laid the chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the egg came first. If: A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken lays Then a bypass is allowed: A chicken (that hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid an egg (a chicken egg). In this case the chicken came first. If: A chicken egg will hatch a chicken and A chicken egg is the egg that a chicken lays Then there may be an error of definition. If the definition of "chicken" used does not refer to "chicken eggs", then the chicken must come first, because without chickens there cannot be any chicken eggs. [edit] Biological Answers In this case, the egg is not assumed to be a chicken egg. In effect this changes the question to: "Which came first, a chicken or any egg". From a cellular biology point of view this question can be answered quite easily. The egg came first because any female sex cell is called an egg. If the egg is defined structurally as the hard shelled thing, and the chicken a feather covered animal, the answer is still simple. Evolutionary scientists believe the first hard shell egg was the amniotic egg laid around 300 million years ago, and was laid by the animal who was the link between amphibians and reptiles. One of the first dinosaurs that we know had feathers was the Archaeopteryx, and came much later. Modern birds would not arise until 150 million years ago, descending from theropod dinosaurs. In this case, the first chicken must have been the mutated offspring of a proto-chicken that laid the egg containing the first true chicken. In any case, this creature hatched from a recognizable egg. After all, the question is purposefully ambiguous -- it is not, "Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" The crux of the matter is how to biologically define 'a chicken'. What level of genetic similarity or structural similarity determine whether an organism is a chicken? One can only define what was the first chicken after the fact, thus any definition of the first chicken becomes arbitrary. The question 'which came first?' ignores the complicated reality of speciation. The concept of species is an abstraction intended to categorize a broad swath of genomes and their subsequent phenomes. If one were to do away with approximate categories, each individual 'chicken' actually represents a unique genotype. Under this definition, if a 'chicken' possessing genome A were to lay an egg possessing genome B, then an egg of genome B is antecedent to an animal possessing genome B and that the parent--genome A--is antecedent to, yet different from the egg of genome B. Hence, in an absolute sense, the egg came before the 'chicken.' According to the principles of speciation, neither the chicken nor the egg came first, because speciation does not occur in simple, obvious units. In fact, evolution is about a slow transition in an overall population. What qualifies as “chicken” (ignoring the many diverse modern types of chicken) involves a wide range of genetic traits (alleles) that are not encompassed in a single individual and continue to be modified from generation to generation. The transition from non-chicken to chicken is a grey area in which several generations are involved, and therefore which includes many many chicken-and-egg events, with no one step representing the whole. Since the result of the process is an incomplete transition into various new characteristics rather than one single blueprint, a new species, "chicken", is only identified in hindsight when the species can be obviously identified as different from its ancestral stock. Possibly, if life originated from an ooze or protozoa of some type, at first there may only have been cellular life that used division as a reproductive method but as multicellular creatures evolved, mutation led to sexes differentiating. Division of the reproductive task into sexual roles took the form of an ovum / fertilization sequence. The egg was therefore present at the same time as the creature that gestated/layed it, speciation into birds or turtles happens much later with such a scenario. It's Academic There is one common answer that over 75 million people agree upon. People fluent in the Thai (Thailand) language will tell you that the first character or letter of the Thai alphabet is ก or "gaw" and is represented by a picture of a chicken. The second letter of the Thai alphabet is ข or "kaw" and is represented by the picture of an egg. So, this riddle for these people is a no brainer. The chicken came first and then came the egg. Theological answers According to creationists who believe in Biblical inerrancy, birds were created "on the fifth day" as adolescents or adults. Since there is no reference to the creation of eggs, they presumably were then made by chickens afterwards by the normal process. Therefore, the chicken came first. Alternatively, for those who accept the intelligent design form of creationism, Eugene Volokh has noted that "In my experience, most creationists are also pro-life -- in which case, the egg is a chicken." [3] A question of syntax One can consider the question inside the framework of experience, making the question concrete instead of abstract: "The chicken or the egg - which came first?" "The chicken" came first - in the sentence of the question. If the question is phrased differently, the answer is different. Reframing the question It could be said that the question simply requires one to know the context. Most people thinking of the question automatically think of the timeline and it is in this manner that both the previous evolutionary theory and religious teachings contexts arise. Other potential contexts are: Having looked through a dictionary from front to back, which came first? - the chicken or the egg? When you walked through the supermarket, which came first? - the chicken or the egg? When reading the menu, which came first? - the chicken or the egg? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_chicken_or_the_egg

the Lord first create d the chicken.

Dirt!!

This querstion has been asked soooooooo many times! Eggs were around way before chickens were evoloed, so eggs came first!

You can just go read and find out by yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution that it is in a egg of a specie like a chicken mutates and became a chicken so egg comes first.

ehh i've been on answer bag about 2 months now and this questioned has been asked about three times. aahhh

The egg, but the chicken had a better orgasm

the obvious answer is the rooster. why does every-one forget about him?

definetively the chicken, I was there. if you believe in creationism then it would be the chicken, if you rather like the evolutionist theory then you'd have to pick the egg.

The chicken. Just as Adam and Eve came before Cain and Abel.

The egg. Duhh! what would lay it? maybe a turkey/duck? then go on to have a poultry orgy and make the turducken.

Chicken. Look at all the other species, the actual animal was alive first, then the offspring. And plus, how would the egg survive.

A chicken is one egg's way of becoming another egg.

Dinosaurs were making eggs long before chickens came on earth

An egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, and that egg from a chicken, ETC.

the egg was around before the hen evolved.

The Hen. God Created animals,...not the eggs. Just my opinion.

Then Hen.. Like adam and eve, they werent babies first..so why would the chicken be an egg?

May be both at a time

for me: in the virtue of operation...the egg came first in the virtue of existence..the chicken came first! am i right!?

The one which was ordered first.

biblically speaking.. when God created the earth and the things that includes it, He made it the way they can reproduce themselves.. like adam and eve, God didnt created adam and eve as a babies for abvious reason.. and so with the animals and the trees.. so abviously the chicken came first.

may be a hen and a cock came on earth because only hen cannot produce egg. Suppose if hen came out of egg at first then it cannot produce more eggs. It needs help of a cock

Single-celled protozoa.

According to my understanding of evolution, the egg would have come first. The first chicken came into being through a random mutation on the gametes of a bird that must have been very similar to a chicken. It would have been born to parents who were very similar to it, but they would not have been chickens. It would have been an egg before it hatched so the egg came first... Also yes eggs were around before any chickens or even birds.

Genetic material does not change during an animal's life, therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

The hen because hens produce eggs. If there was no hen, there'd be no egg.

This question appears regularly in the question file, so let's take a shot at it. In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote. Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken. Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

Egg - Birds are descended from dinosaurs and dinosaurs laid eggs, so I'd suggest that the 'chicken' was a variation or slight mutant of some other close species which eventually evolved into the chickens that we know today.

A type of prehistoric chicken did not always lay eggs. Stop cruelty to battery hens

What I would like to know is who was the first guy to take a look at the chicken and say "Let's eat the first thing that comes out of that thing's butt."

egg it only makes sence because then chic would have geneticaly changed. or gotton the "hidden" gene from the parent

the egg but it probley had genetic disforities and became a chicken.

i think it would have to be the egg as the chicken had to evolve from another species,so then it had to be sum other creature that laid the egg from which the chicken hatched

The rooster.

I would vote for Hen. Man came to earth first, then the process of producing siblings came in. Serious thought since it has come in social science section

The egg - it's a little thing called evolution. ^-^

hen

Without a doubt it is the egg. http://science.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm

the egg

im going with comman sence the egg

Almighty God created all animals, including the chicken (Genesis chapter 1).

I say the egg. As it would have contained a mutation from whatever laid it and became a chicken. So the egg comes first :)

The thing that became a chicken came first.

The disgusting-slimey little thing that crawled out of the swamp and mutated into the chicken, which began to reproduce, using eggs as a land based creature.....maybe! LOL I'm no Darwin here!

There were eggs long before there were chickens. So if you mean *any* egg, the egg certainly came first. But if you mean a chickens egg, you have to define what you mean by a chickens egg. Do you mean an egg laid by a chicken, or an egg from which a chicken hatches? How you answer that question provides tha answer to your main question.

A chicken and an egg were laying in bed naked. The egg was smoking a cigarette with a satisfied smile on its face. The chicken, on the other hand, looked very annoyed, and said in a most irritated voice, "Well, I guess we answered THAT question." :)

The chicken.

Duplicate: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2562 Just for fun: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/70936

Ameoba

Chicken i think. But there is no actually answer.

The first chicken was a live birth from a tiger mating with a dolphin.

Put them in bed together. Whichever lights a cigarette first, will be the answer.