Chicken Or The Egg?

Of course it’s the age-old question of which came first. Apparently it finally has an answer.

Science has determined that the egg had to have come first. This article explains the secular science viewpoint about why the egg had to have come first. To quote the article:

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.

However, a recent development made by British scientists suggests that science is, in fact, wrong in this conclusion. This article states that these scientists have proven that the chicken had to have come first. To quote this article:

The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken.

The protein speeds up the development of the hard shell, which is essential in protecting the delicate yolk and fluids while the chick grows inside the egg, the report said.

“It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,” said Dr. Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University’s Department of Engineering Materials, according to the [Daily] Mail.

“The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation, but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process,” he said.

While it not only gives us a seemingly definitive answer to a question that has befuddled philosophers and scientists alike, it also seems that this scientific discovery may force science to flat-out reject the evolutionary theory that previously supported the “egg first” idea. Interestingly, while rejecting the idea of evolution to produce the chicken, it also supports the creationist idea found in the Bible; Genesis 2:19 says “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” If the chicken came first, it becomes not only possible but extremely plausible that an Intelligent Designer created it, especially given the exactness of balance needed for an egg to be the right hardness and have the proper oxygen intake and release in order to produce a baby chick and further sustain “chickenkind.”

God is good, and His Word stands forever!

9 responses to this post.

  1. In fact, we’ve known the answer to that question for decades. In the evolutionary sense, which is the only meaningful sense in which you can ask this question, the answer is clear: the egg came first. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs laid eggs. Therefore eggs were around before there were birds, and during the period when birds were evolving from dinosaurs, every creature in that lineage laid eggs. Therefore eggs preceded chickens in evolutionary time.

    Yes, a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, but hat says nothing about “which came first.” Again, yes, a protein found in the ovaries of modern chickens is necessary for the formation of a modern chicken egg. But the chicken’s ovaries, the protein, and the egg that chicken lays almost certainly co-evolved, that is, have undergone genetic change in a coordinated fashion over the same time period. Just because one feature is now required for the formation of the other doesn’t mean that one evolved before the other.

    Science is good, and its conclusions stand right up until you can falsify some aspect of it. Evolution is. Get over it.


    • Your surprising notion that the age-old question has actually been “which came first, the modern chicken or the dinosaur egg?” notwithstanding, there is one sentence at the end of your post from which I think we could potentially have a discussion:

      Evolution is.

      This in itself suggests that you accept evolution as a fact, or, better put, you accept evolution as absolute truth. I can therefore deduce that you believe truth is absolute. Is that correct? A simple answer would suffice and be post on this blog; a complex answer trying to dilute my simple question with big words solely meant to demonstrate your intelligence will likely never see itself post. Your choice.


      • I guess I have to comment on here to let any readers know that Tildeb chose the latter course of action, rather than simply answering my question; therefore, I have to honor my word, and that post will not be shown.

  2. Posted by Paul in York on August 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    Hmmmm trying to disprove evolution… Good luck.

    Regarding scientists coming up with contradictory studies… So what!! That is make a hypothesis experiment or research to prove or disprove it. This is then the established scientific thinking…. Until another study maybe finds something else, or maybe further confirms it. This will then be reviewed by their peers and the scientific community at large before becoming the accepted scientific thought.

    Science is always ‘evolving’ unlike your own personal opinion of the master creator that just popped into existence.


    • Hi Paul,

      Thanks for coming over. I think you jumped over the point of the blog. I’m not disproving evolution; what I’m saying is that science has shown that the evolutionary concept of the chicken egg is a faulty one, and that what science has found supports the Biblical account. This doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does produce a chink in the armor, so to speak. So since scientific evidence has shown this, wouldn’t that mean that a Biblical view ought to be the “established scientific thinking”, and if this study is verified would make intelligent design the “accepted scientific thought”? I would suspect you disagree, but to do so you would probably have to refute your own statement here.

      As to the “evolution” of my personal opinion of my Creator, I would hope that you would not make suggestions about my relationship with God, as you know neither me nor apparently my God. I would definitely say my opinion of Him is growing more and more fondly all the time, because He is revealing not only evidence of Himself to me, but also characteristics and qualities that I desperately long for. I would say that’s where you are wrong about God, because He didn’t just “pop into existence”; He IS existence, and everything flows from Him.


      • “The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken’s ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg.”


        “what I’m saying is that science has shown that the evolutionary concept of the chicken egg is a faulty one, and that what science has found supports the Biblical account.”

        Wow, are you serious?

      • Yes I am. What part of the post didn’t you understand?

  3. ok we need to clear a few things up on this total mess. You are correct in your assumption that the egg had to come first, however if we are talking the first calciferous egg you need to look back to the carboniferous era some 359 million years ago, whereby the first known species of egg laying creature known as Archaeothyris layed the first calciferous egg with a hard shell. As for the chicken it could not have come before the egg becuase the egg evolved as mentioned previously 359 million years ago and the first chicken evovled around 30 million years ago from the jungle fowl. Ergo if the chicken had evolved before the calciferous egg then the argument would stand. However, as we have good solid evidence mainly in the form of genetic manipulation of chicken embryos that birds decended from directly from dinosaurs. the argument is false.

    Also never ever use the daily mail s a referance. its not called the “daily fail” over here for nothing!


    • Ian,

      Thanks for your response. I appreciate the information, but you ought to realize that what you have given is the evolutionary postulation, nothing more. You have not given any evidence to support this. Your statement about genetic manipulation of chicken embryos doesn’t speak at all to the regressive state, only a progressive one. So while your argument uses a lot of dates and big words, it doesn’t really lead anywhere.

      It doesn’t matter whether or not the Daily Mail was used; the article is everywhere, which speaks to its validity. Plus MSNBC (a credible news source) also ran with it, so the article has some merit to it. And the article clearly shows that science has found that a necessary and vital pre-cursor to the egg can only be found inside of a chicken. So if evolutionary theory says the egg came first, then I submit that the evolutionary theory is wrong. If the chicken came first, this supports a Biblical account that God created the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air. While God could have done this by creating an egg from which the first chicken came, a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis would suggest this isn’t the case.

      So if scientists have shown that it is necessary for the chicken to be first, and this supports (not confirms, Tim) the Biblical account and is in direct contrast to the evolutionary account, which is more plausible?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: