A chicken egg came before the chicken because it is the same animal and the egg stage is earlier than the adult stage.
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
868 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
14145 readers
239 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TIL the first chicken egg wasn't laid by a chicken
All mutations are birthed by the unmutated.
Differently mutated
All animals are mutated, some are more mutated than others
*Magneto is typing*
allegedly
if you want something crazier, look into ring species. where different species of animals have all their in-between species still alive and mate with each other, but the ones at the extremes cant mate with each other
Yeah one of my favorite ones is how donkeys and horses can mate for mules but some of those mules will be able to make with either eachother or one of the two parent species but not both, but most mules are infertile.
Proto-chicken>chicken>eschato-chicken
Chickens have "evolved" in recent years more than recent centuries
We just keep the chicken name but at what point do they become a different animal.
Evolution is slow and has no definite point in time of "First official example of a 2000s definition of a chicken"
It's similar to the paradox of the heap.
Of course a "chicken" layed the first chicken egg. But if we called that "chicken" a chicken then her egg would be the first chicken egg. Not the one she just layed.
Yeah it's an arbitrary line. Slow changes generation after generation, but where normally those changes balance out (a tall person is not much more likely to reproduce with tall people than short people), when a trait is advantageous/disadvantageous to survival or reproduction or encourages those with it to only reproduce with others with it sometimes it tilts the scales and slowly a proto deer/horse finds itself increasingly adapted to water to the point its leg bones become vestigial
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Even if you're talking about chicken eggs specifically it's still the egg first. The first chicken egg would have been laid by a proto chicken
proto chicken
Bro chickens are already loaded with protein, what are you doing?
Ye but if you boost the protein you can sell it as a health food!
I don't think It's that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg
load more comments
(8 replies)
But is it a chicken egg because it hatches into a chicken or because it is laid by a chicken?
Because it hatches into a chicken, you're thinking of a chicken's egg
load more comments
(11 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Oh wow, this is much simpler explanation than the obtuse one I use: "1st chicken ever definitely came from an egg but the creature that laid that egg wasn't a chicken."
load more comments
(5 replies)
I've always understood this debate as a veiled religious thing. Chicken = religion, god creates chickens; or Egg = science, animals are products of evolution, and thus naturally the egg must come first.
load more comments
(2 replies)
God creates eggs. Eggs create dinosaurs. God kills dinosaurs. Eggs inherit the Earth
edit I did it. I forgot the chicken
I've always interpreted this as more of a metaphorical question.
However, this general response is where I usually take things if pushed for an answer. Meaning, egg laying species existed for hundreds of millions of years before chickens and chickens evolved from egg laying species, so the egg came first.
A lot of people try to interpret this on the micro scale view: The idea that there was one specific event (place, time, individual) where a non-chicken laid the first egg that hatched out to became the first chicken.
The reality of the situation is counterintuitive, though. Life, nature, and even taxonomy are so much more complex that this situation. It can be hard to conceptualize, but there literally never was a case where a non-chicken laid an egg, and the resulting offspring was the first chicken ever.
The species concept really only applies on a population level (barring exceptions like cases where there's literally only 1 known living individual remaining of a soon to be extinct species). And furthermore, taxonomy is an artificial, human concept -- nature does not abide -- and a bit of an art at that. Even if we could somehow scale back in time and view every individual in the chicken lineage as far back as we desire and in much detail as we desired, there would be no consensus on where in that mess chickens emerged from non-chickens.
So, this is one of those cases where I would actually advise -- don't think too hard about it or take it too seriously and accept the question for its metaphorical nature.
And there is evolution to take note of too. The chickens that were alive back then could look very different to the chickens we have today. We say the word "chicken", and we think of the chickens that you see at farms, or sometimes in the wild, with no thought at all to the details. True, one could argue that chickens have not undergone any evolution, and were as they are today, but there are several flaws in that reasoning. First, every animal has been a certain way, but, as time passes and their environment changes, they must change as well. Here's an example of natural selection, for those who are not as well versed in the matter of evolution.
Say there are white squirrels. They have lived there for hundreds of years, and therefore adapted to accommodate the forest. One day, a paper mill is built next to the forest where they reside, and spews pollution out. Over time, the trees of the forest, once elm white, are not soot black. The white squirrels are then hunted because they can no longer blend in with their environment. Soon, black squirrels are born. They can now blend in with the trees, and are killed less often. The white squirrels are hunted until there is no more left.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The rooster came first
This is why I say a much more interesting question is what came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?
It entirely depends on your definition of a chicken egg. Is a chicken egg an egg that hatches a chicken, or an egg that is laid by a chicken? If it is an egg that hatches a chicken then the chicken egg came first, but if it is an egg that is laid by a chicken then the chicken came first
That's a language-dependent ambiguity; this sort of "noun¹ noun²" construction in English is actually rather vague, and it can be used multiple ways:
- material - e.g. fish fillet (the fillet is made of fish)
- purpose - e.g. fish knife (the knife is made to handle fish)
- destination - e.g. fish food (the food goes to the fish)
- inalienable possession - e.g. fish tail (the tail belongs to the fish, and removing it means removing part of the fish)
- alienable possession - e.g. fish bowl (the bowl "belongs" to the fish, but you could give it another bowl)
- etc.
As such I believe that in at least some languages it's probably clear if you refer to chicken egg as "an egg coming from a chicken" or "an egg a chicken is born from". Not that they're going to use it with this expression though.
For reference. @cuerdo@lemmy.world used as an example "my penis":
If I say “my penis”, it is likelier that I am talking about the one attached to me rather than the one I bought in the market.
In Nahuatl both would be distinguished: you'd call your genitals "notepollo" (inalienable possession), and the one you bought "notepol" (alienable possession). (Note: "no-" for the first person. For someone else's dick use "mo-" when speaking with the person, i- when talking about them.)
Just language things, I guess.
TIL I learned to refer to my penises (both of them) in Nahuatl, Thank you!!!
load more comments
(1 replies)
You cannot have a chicken without a chicken egg. And the egg comes first.
It's the paradox of the heap
At some point the pre-chicken will lay a chicken egg and a chicken will be born
If a chicken egg is an egg that hatches into a chicken, then unfertilized chicken eggs would not be chicken eggs. But if you took an alligator egg and transplanted a developing chicken embryo into it, that would become a chicken egg.
You'd get the heuristic "All chickens have hatched from chicken eggs", which sounds pretty elegant.
If a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken, then you couldn't reliably say that a chicken egg hatches into a chicken - the heuristic from before would become "Not all chickens have hatched from chicken eggs". And that one, while it feels a bit imprecise, might be closer to what we observe in reality, especially with that Proto-chicken argument. So the Proto-chicken would have laid a Proto-chicken egg, which hatched into a chicken, which laid chicken eggs.
And it would work with the current scientific hijinks like hatching chickens from different eggs or straight from test tubes.
load more comments
(2 replies)
that's not the question though. you're going against grice's maxims.
OK but what did the first egg laying animal come out of.
Some non-egg laying animal gave birth to an egg laying animal due to a beneficial mutation. So the "chicken" (or rather, any egg laying animal) came first.
I’m laughing my ass off rn because I’m imagining this process happening today like imagine giving birth to your daughter the normal way and she gives birth by laying eggs
Not exactly, they produced eggs just not with the hard outer shell built for dry air filled environment. THATS where the next land dwelling being came from.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
eggish
Everyone here seems to be missing the point of the question. The chicken isn't the key point. It stands in for all egg laying animals. To rephrase the question: how is it possible that an early species was able to develop egg laying abilities, considering the problem of that animal not having been born from an egg? I suspect the real answer has something to do with fish ...
- Shells are soft gloopy things laid in lakes
- Evolutionary advantage: Eggs laid on the edge of lakes away from water predators
- Evolutionary advantage: Harder eggs survive longer further out of water
- Evolutionary advantage: Harder land eggs give rise to amphibous/land animals
- Evolutionary advantage: Amphibous/land animals lay land eggs
- etc.
I fool-proofed the question..."Which came first, the egg of a chicken, or the chicken?". And you can't say they use eggs in dinosaur shaped pasta. /s
In that case the chicken came first, regardless of how we define "chicken", we can reuse that definition for the first "chicken egg" it laid.
But how do we define a "chicken egg"? Is it an egg containing a chicken, or an egg that's been laid by a chicken?
Good point. Now I'm less sure.
I guess any "egg containing a chicken" came first, by definition. I don't think I would accept anything that didn't come from an egg as my canonical first chicken, anyway.
view more: next ›