So Which Came First; the Chicken or the Egg? Let's Eggsamine both sides...
Posted: Friday, June 08, 2007
by Ben Jones
Too-Write!
It's one of those eggaserbating philosophical questions that has entertained and confounded academics, self proclaimed deep thinkers and children and parents alike. So what are the origins of this brain busting puzzler?
The first recorded reference to the Chicken and Egg debate harks all the way back to ancient Greek philosophers when Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote:
"If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother -- which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg."
Obviously it's a tangled skein indeed, if one of the greatest thinkers of all time was struggling to figure out if the chicken or the egg came first.
Since the chicken emerges from the egg, and the egg is laid by the chicken, it appears to be an ambiguous and circular question with no possible solution. However there might just be an answer...
Recently, a debate was commissioned by Disney to promote the release of the movie "Chicken Little" and the overwhelming opinion determined that the egg in fact came first.
According to Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics; because the organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would soon develop into, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the chicken species, would be this first egg.
Professor David Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed with this opinion by suggesting that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens. He went on to argue that "it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it".
However is it possible that Professor Brookfield and Professor Papineau have actually missed a fundamental piece to the puzzle? If they argue that it is a chicken egg because it has a chicken in it, then they are forgetting about the very chicken they just confirmed was in the egg.
Thus, if there was a chicken inside the very first chicken egg then surely what they have done is prove that the chicken and the egg arrived together, or at least very, very close to one another. The first chicken egg which developed through evolutionary mutation from something that was not quite a chicken must have actually contained a chicken.
Now the debate could be taken further; to consider the specifics of how chickens actually develop, starting from a zygote, becoming an embryo around which a shell forms as it in turn becomes a chicken.
Of course then we have to decide at which point the chicken actually changes from a developing embryonic life form into a little baby chick and whether this is before, during or after the protective membrane develops to become the shell.
This is a metaphorical "can of worms" in its own right, since we as a society still can't agree on when a human fetus actually becomes a living human baby.
Therefore, rather than get bogged down in moral debate over when life comes into being and what is and is not a baby chicken, I'll simply suggest that perhaps the most straight forward answer is that both the chicken and the egg arrived at the same time and leave it to the eggsperts to debate it further.
The first recorded reference to the Chicken and Egg debate harks all the way back to ancient Greek philosophers when Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote:
Obviously it's a tangled skein indeed, if one of the greatest thinkers of all time was struggling to figure out if the chicken or the egg came first.
Since the chicken emerges from the egg, and the egg is laid by the chicken, it appears to be an ambiguous and circular question with no possible solution. However there might just be an answer...
Recently, a debate was commissioned by Disney to promote the release of the movie "Chicken Little" and the overwhelming opinion determined that the egg in fact came first.
According to Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics; because the organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would soon develop into, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the chicken species, would be this first egg.
Professor David Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed with this opinion by suggesting that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens. He went on to argue that "it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it".
However is it possible that Professor Brookfield and Professor Papineau have actually missed a fundamental piece to the puzzle? If they argue that it is a chicken egg because it has a chicken in it, then they are forgetting about the very chicken they just confirmed was in the egg.
Thus, if there was a chicken inside the very first chicken egg then surely what they have done is prove that the chicken and the egg arrived together, or at least very, very close to one another. The first chicken egg which developed through evolutionary mutation from something that was not quite a chicken must have actually contained a chicken.
Now the debate could be taken further; to consider the specifics of how chickens actually develop, starting from a zygote, becoming an embryo around which a shell forms as it in turn becomes a chicken.
Of course then we have to decide at which point the chicken actually changes from a developing embryonic life form into a little baby chick and whether this is before, during or after the protective membrane develops to become the shell.
This is a metaphorical "can of worms" in its own right, since we as a society still can't agree on when a human fetus actually becomes a living human baby.
Therefore, rather than get bogged down in moral debate over when life comes into being and what is and is not a baby chicken, I'll simply suggest that perhaps the most straight forward answer is that both the chicken and the egg arrived at the same time and leave it to the eggsperts to debate it further.
This Article has been viewed 4,068 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)You know Ben when I was about 13 years old I asked my nephew who was only 7 at the time the same question. He thought about it for awhile and then said "God made the chicken, then the chicken began to lay eggs" For a seven year old kid I believe he came up with what may be the long and unanswered question of the centuries. What do you think?Hi David, thanks for your comment on my article and for your kind rating. It's certainly a fun and interesting question to consider. I remember, when I was in my early teens, spending an hour or two debating which came first with a couple of my friends. I'm pretty sure we just went round and round in circles, and making very little headway. Of course at the time, we all thought we had the definitive answer and that our position was obviously correct. Ahh to be young and always right! *Smile*
Always wondered about this question. Thanks!Thanks for your comment. :)
Maybe once this is figured out, we can then start working on why the chicken crossed the road....was it really to get to the other side or is there something more to it??? Interesting article, Ben!You've hit the nail on the head James. That question is the truly inscrutable problem of the ages, and one I was too "chicken" to address. *Sorry to everyone who reads this comment, I couldn't resist the appallingly bad pun. So what do other people think, which came first?
Creationism forces the conclusion that the chicken came first. And Evolutionism is the model that almost-a-chicken laid an egg from which the first chicken emerged. A goldfish that believes in Evolutionism MUST believe that the goldfish bowl is the universe and is, somehow, the source of everything that is. The creationist goldfish belives there is something outside the bowl.Thanks for commenting on my article.
I'd have to say that Steve has it backwards. Assuming a goldfish was able to look at its surroundings logical and apply evolutionism then it would have to assume that their is more than the goldfish bowl, based on the food that is added, the lights that turn on and off around it and that it sees hands tapping on the bowl. A creationist goldfish would most likely assume that the goldfish bowl is the entire universe and that the hands tapping and feeding are in fact the creator.Glad you stopped to comment on my article.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.