My logic says that you can’t have a chicken unless it was from an egg, but let’s say the first chicken was evolved from natural selection meaning it’s possible and probable that a “non-chicken” laid a chicken egg and so a chicken was hatched. Thus that reality means the egg came first. Who knows lol
The egg.
Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before there were chickens.
If you mean *chicken* eggs, then probably also the egg. Chickens evolved from a prior organism by mutation. That means that something that wasn’t exactly a chicken laid an egg with mutated DNA that we’d call a chicken. It’s not a hard cut, evolution is slow and gradual, but however you draw the line there was an organism before the line that laid an egg with something with DNA after the line.
This is very simple but I it depends what you want to call a chicken egg.
If you laid an egg that contained a chicken would it be a Person egg (cause it was laid by a Person, or a chicken egg (because it contains a chicken)?
The reason we need to know is because one day ages ago something that wasn’t quite a chicken laid an egg that contained what we would now be happy to call a chicken.
So if that first egg was a Person egg then the chicken came first as that second egg wasn’t a chicken egg but contained a chicken.
Get it? I might be wrong.
The question is irrelevant because species change over time. There wasn’t really a first one, it’s not like an egg magically appeared and then gave birth to the entire species of chicken. The definition of species is not really fixed, and the “first ancestor” of chicken would probably not be what we now consider a chicken
Latest Answers