The CHICKEN before the EGG?

In this intelligibly simple argument, all you have to do is to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first. Of course I'm AGAINST the fact that the egg was created BEFORE the chicken.

My beliefs for this particular concept, and my argument is as follows:

1) It's been scientifically proven.
2) Scientists discovered a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries that is necessary for the formation of the egg.
3) Because of this, there is no other way the egg could've been created.

It will be sort of hard to debate on a topic that has been proven by science, but I really hope you consider debating with me.

-- Rebuttal --

My opponent claims that my explanation of why the egg came before the chicken has "already been scientifically disproven by English researchers." He then proceeds to copy and paste an excerpt from the CNN article that he claims dismantles my case. However, Pro completely makes this "scientific disapproval" up -- the article NEVER says that the chicken necessarily came before the egg. As a matter of fact, the article Pro cites specifically claims that the assertion that the chicken came first has been CHALLENGED.

"Researchers in Britain have been credited with cracking the age-old conundrum about the chicken and the egg. But are they right? ... Press headlines proclaimed the answer was the chicken ... However, one of the paper's lead authors, Colin Freeman, from the University of Sheffield in northern England, told CNN that the result was not as conclusive as it seemed."

http://articles.cnn.com...

In other words, my opponent blatantly lied in asserting that his article claims that it has been "scientifically proven" that the chicken came before the egg. Instead, the article concludes by reiterating the fact that there is still an ongoing debate. In that case, my opponent is responsible for negating the scientific explanation I have stated in the last round which so far he has not.

Pro writes, "My opponents' claim fails to prove the fact that there are essential proteins found in a non chicken." This has no bearing on my case. I never 'failed to prove' anything because this was never an element of my argument, but does not negate my case anyway - nor does it establish any relevant point to Pro's case.

In fact, BOTH websites my opponent cites poke fun at the idea that the chicken must have come first as Pro asserts. If you watch the video from the second website, host Brian Williams says "Their conclusion, by the way, the formation of an egg is only possible with a protein found in a chicken's ovaries, thus the chicken must have come first... No word yet from the UK on where the chicken came from." In other words, Williams is poking fun at the fact that this discovery does not remotely answer the question (of where the chicken came from) and in fact reiterates MY case - that the chicken must have evolved from somewhere, and of course, evolution as I've explained in the last round posits exactly how two of 'somethings' evolve into something else. In other words, two non-chickens evolved to form the chicken. The egg (zygote) came first.

Pro's conclusion does not even make sense: "So for the chicken to have some second, another non chicken type bird must have had similar proteins in its ovaries to then create the egg well, and this was not found in other animals, hence the chicken obviously needed to come first." Okay, so if the chicken must have come first, then how was the chicken created? Obviously this doesn't make sense. Anyone who understands evolution can see that. So again, Pro must challenge that. He cannot say "science has proven" otherwise because BOTH of my opponent's sources negate the idea that his side has been scientifically proven.