But that still doesn't say which came first though because evolution is so slow. At what point do you drw the line and say that this is when the chicken become a chicken rather then it's ancestor

When it's a 100% match for the wild variant of what would become the domesticated chicken. No proto-chickens make the cut.

No but the egg comes from Tesco so you're all wrong.

Good point, now just need to prove when that was..... an exact date is needed

Just wanted to say I like your sig... I've looked a wally plenty of times but I'm smarter for it

The rooster came first.

I'm not sure which came first. I'm inclined to say that chickens and chicken-eggs came into existence simultaneously. But the chicken first theory seems to me that it can't be right.

Here's the problem with the "chicken first" theory. Call the first chicken Alice. For Alice to give rise to the chicken species, she would need to find a mate. Call her mate Bob. Now, notice that Bob is not a chicken. This is because if Bob were a chicken, then the same mutation would have had to arise independently in two organisms, when they were both reproductively active. This is extremely improbable. Not only that, but a theory of speciation among sixually reproducing organisms should not require such coincidental mutations to occur. Ok, so Bob is not a chicken.

But now there's another problem. A common view is that organisms are conspecifics if and only if they are not reproductively isolated. But Alice and Bob are not reproductively isolated, so Bob must be a chicken. So we're back to the improbable independent mutation theory. On the other hand, if Bob is not a chicken, then he can't have reproduced with Alice.

We might say that sometimes non-conspecifics can reproduce. After all, this is what we see with donkeys and horses. So let's say that Bob is a pre-chicken, but Alice and Bob aren't reproductively isolated. But now what about their offspring? We want to say they are chickens. But now ask: while they can breed among themselves, can they breed with pre-chickens? We should say yes, since (i) Alice could breed with pre-chickens, and (ii) the offspring should bear many pre-chicken traits, due to the genetic contribution of Bob, their pre-chicken parent (especially, the trait of being able to reproduce with other pre-chickens). But then all of the offspring can outbreed; this is not just an isolated case of non-conspecifics reproducing! It looks more plausible here that Alice, Bob, and all their offspring, are a single species, because there are no barriers to reproduction. Upshot: Alice isn't the first chicken. If she is a chicken, then so is Bob.

Could it still be that chickens came first? I think the only way to make sense of this requires that chickens and chicken-eggs come into existence simultaneously. Chickens come into existence when there exists a population whose members are reproductively and ecologically isolated from pre-chickens. But this basically means that chicken-eggs also have come into existence as well.

I'd state my opinion. but because it is of a religious nature i won't.

I think at this point it's all about semantics. Is it a requirement that the egg be from an actual chicken? If so, there's no way for the egg to come first. If the requirement is that the egg contains an actual chicken, then there's no way for the chicken to have come first. If you're talking about what was "first," then a line has to be drawn at the point that the organism qualifies...the problem is that the criteria is too vague.

I'd say the chicken, then the egg. You need a chicken to make a chicken egg.

That depends on what makes a "chicken egg" a "chicken egg." Does it have to come from a chicken or hatch into a chicken...or both? If the answer is "both" then there's a bit of a logical paradox.

There never was a "first chicken" though, speciation happens on a gradient, despite what taxonomy would have you believe.

Alice wouldn't be the first chicken and Bob wouldn't be a non chicken, they would both be proto-chickens.

Exactly. At what point do you draw a line and say, "that there is a chicken" and then, logically, invent BBQ sauce?

It's always been a matter of semantics. The egg obviously came first, as chickens are not the only thing that lays eggs by a long shot.

Agreed. Speciation is mediated by population membership: it occurs when populations become reproductively and ecologically isolated. But reproductive and ecological isolation is a somewhat vague matter. My point was just to show that there's no plausible way that there could have been a "first" chicken. If speciation is population mediated, then chickens and chicken-eggs come into existence at the same time---that is, what comes into existence is a population where the members can reproduce amongst themselves, but there is no gene flow from this population to distinct populations. It's extremely implausible that at the culmination of reproductive and ecological isolation this population consisted only of mature advlts (in which case chickens came first), or only of eggs (in which case chicken-eggs came first).

Also: I don't think this is just a semantic matter. What's in the background here are important points about how we classify the distribution of life, which plays a role in how we formulate important biological generalisations which are used for explanatory and predictive purposes.

@srk - to me your response sounds like "neither" and you're just paining with a really broad brush. It does come down to semantics in that there is no definition provided for "chicken" or "chicken egg." It's like talking about "people" rather than "homo sapiens."

Why does one have to come before the other? The first chicken and the first chicken egg are one in the same, the first offspring of an ancestor to the chicken which matches the modern species.

That's what I think anyway.

Yes, I am saying neither. They came into existence simultaneously.

Of course to some extent there's a semantic issue here, since we can't really answer the question unless we know what we're talking about. But I think people are mistaken if they think the issue is what is meant by "chicken" or by "chicken egg". The issue is how we should think of speciation and species-membership.

For suppose that you say that a "chicken egg" is an egg that contains a chicken. The thought here, presumably, is that a chicken egg need not be laid by a chicken. But there's something odd about this. Why should we say that the egg contains a chicken? One answer: because of its genotype. But its genotype is formed from recombining the genes of its parents. But then it looks crazy to say that the parents are pre-chickens, since their genotypes would also have been formed by the recombination of the genes of their pre-chicken parents. But maybe there's a difference: the genotype of the egg has the chicken-mutation. But mutation won't do either, for reasons I gave above.

Or suppose that you say that a "chicken egg" is an egg that has been laid by a chicken. But then there's similar issues. Why should we say that these organisms that lay the "chicken-eggs" are chickens? It won't do to point to their genotypes, since that won't distinguish them from their ancestors.

So it doesn't help to play around with definitions of "chicken" or "chicken egg". The crux of the issue is how to think about speciation and species-membership.

Their genotype does distinguish them in the sense that they are not completely identical within the normative ranges of genetic diversity of the wild chicken before it was domesticated (this distinction is made because due to various breeding techniques to produce the modern chicken, they are no longer within that normative range). Yes, evolution is a continuum, but there is a point in and out of a normative range where mutations have accumulated due to having superior characteristics, which is when taxonomical distinctions are made. What existed before were the proto-chickens: they possess a subset of the genetic markers of chickens, but not quite all of them yet, and over time these proto-chickens produce chickens as the genetic mix normalizes towards that end.

Cucu-atra.

You need a chicken egg to make a chicken.

Evolution - Mother's ugly duckling egg - chicken - Mother predator bird is like woooot! - chicken - egg - chicken - egg - yummie!

a chicken-type thing evolved from something else which didnt lay eggs, then the chicken-type thing evolved into an egg laying chicken. even if this doesnt make sense, im still right because this is my world and you're all holograms in my illusion of a universe

The egg came first, duh, because that's how evolution works. Living creatures don't suddenly transform into another species the subtle change that lead to the chicken happened through mutations in meiosis and thus affected only the eggs.

Birds evolved from lizards so yes Chicken's ancestors did lay eggs. In fact, giving live birth is a newcomer to animal life.

Oh my.

What came first?
If we're talking about an egg laid by a modern chicken, then the chicken came first.
If we're talking about an egg containing a modern chicken, the egg came first.
If we're talking about an egg laid by a modern chicken containing a chicken, well, see point 1.
If we're talking about an egg in general, the egg came first.

Now fetch me some bacon, I'm hungry.

http://i41.tinypic.com/25ap8uh.jpg

suits you, sir?

best answer in this thread. case closed

double post ftw