The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The egg came before the chicken.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 33463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




For this debate there will be a 5,000 character limit and will be solely on the fact of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Before we begin the debate I would like to clear up especially one thing,

    • I believe the definition of 'the egg' would be the egg that a chicken will hatch from. If my opponent has a better idea for the definition of 'the egg' than he may offer that up in his Round 1 argument.

I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate and that the actual debating will begin in Round 2.


I am happy to accept this challenge.

The definition of the egg given by my opponent is impossible for my to accept. The definition of the Egg should be as follows: "The egg that contained all the genetics necessary of a chicken."
And chicken: "The bird capable of laying such an egg."

Thank you, I look forwards to debating.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to Formic for accepting this debate and I am very happy to accept my opponents definition of the egg because I know realize how flawed I was in my original definition, a mistake I am willing to admit. But besides that, let us carry on with the debate.

The egg that contains a chicken could be layed by 2 chicken-LIKE egg-laying creatures and, from gene mutations, those 2 creatures could then lay an egg that contains a (by today's standards) chicken. To have a chicken come first is quite preposterous, how did that chicken come to be, from and egg, which means that the only probable explanation would be that the egg came before the chicken.


Despite being an Atheist, I would like to quote the Holy Bible.

Genesis: 19: 20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

If the Bible is accepted as true, it means that the Chicken came before the egg. Also, while I would like to agree that the idea of two egg laying creatures mating is possible, it is not probable that they would mutate into the Chicken. Possibly the mutation was that the creature would lay an egg. Perhaps the chicken was originally a mammal, not a bird. The chance that the egg came first is slim.
Debate Round No. 2


First off, I do believe that my opponent here was believe to be quoting Genesis 1:20 not Genesis 19:20.

Next is the plausibility of my previous statement that chicken-like (or what are now going to be refereed to as Proto-chickens) created the first chicken egg. It is actually highly plausible and accepted among a vast majority of the scientific community as factual information.

Chickens became chickens through a long process of evolution and at a point proto-chickens produced an offspring that had mutation within its DNA. This DNA mutation made this proto-chicken offspring into the chicken we know today. What I am saying is that proto-chickens gave birth to an 'official' chicken. And since that chicken came from an egg that, even though laid by a proto-chicken, did not produce a proto-chicken means that it is a chicken egg not a proto-chicken egg. And since that egg is a chicken egg, that means that the egg did in fact come before the chicken.

What I am saying revolves around scientific facts, what I do not want this debate to turn into is creationism vs. evolutionism. You may believe that God created chickens that then laid chicken eggs, but that is not fact, that is opinion.


The idea that an egg laid by a proto-chicken is ridiculous and untrue. A proto-chicken egg, despite being a chicken, would still be a proto-chicken's egg, not a chicken egg.

Firstly, the material OV-17 is only found in the ovaries of a chicken. Thus, to have a chicken egg, it would have to have been born from a chicken. Thus, to have a true chicken egg, a chicken itself would have to lay it. While the egg that gave birth to a chicken might have been the first "Chicken egg" it wasn't the first true Chicken Egg, the egg capable of laying a chicken. The defintion of Egg should be as follows: The egg that a genetic chicken is born from, AND containing all the charisterics of a chicken egg."

Secondly, the process of evolution is so slow, no single generation would make a new species. It takes millions of years for a truly new species to evolve. Thus, one generation would not truly be a new species, or the chicken, in our example.
Debate Round No. 3


You cannot change the definition of the egg the round before the debate ends. The definition of the egg should be as previously agreed upon. If we believe this definition to be true, then the egg did indeed come first. It is also not "ridiculous and untrue" that that the egg was laid by proto-chickens. And even though proto-chickens laid this egg, it was in fact the first egg. By your definition of an egg (the original one), it does not matter WHO laid the egg, but the fact that this egg contains all the genetics necessary to create a chicken. I would very much like you to read this article and WATCH this video and you will completely understand my argument and WHY it is true.

Also to address your point that since this evolution process is slow than one generation would not make a new species. It is in fact true that the process is slow, but TECHNICALLY genes would change in each generation making it so that eventually there WOULD be one single generation that held all the genetics that created a TRUE chicken, and that chicken would be laid by an egg. The first egg the contains all the genetics necessary to create a, by today's standards, chicken. Which means that the egg came first.


Firstly, thank you to my opponent for debating this topic. I hope that after I have posted, the audience will be able to make an accurate and informed decision.

The point I mentioned the last round about OV-17 only being present in a Chicken's ovaries is true. The keyword in the original definition is "ALL" of the genetics necessary to make a chicken. Can a chicken without that chemical truly be a chicken? The answer must be no, as it does not not have all of the necessary genetics to create a chicken, until it becomes the chicken itself. I direct you to this link:

Next, I would like to pose a question. Say an alligator lay an egg. This egg is an alligator egg, as an alligator laid it. Say a lizard hatched from it. Is it now a lizard egg? No.

Finally, I would like to flesh out my argument from last round. One single evolution/generation of a species does not create a new one. The change is gradual. Thus, in a single generation, the new "chicken" couldn't have been born.

Thank you to my opponent for debating with me on this vital topic. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Devonal 4 years ago
You do realize that the video you linked me to says that the Egg came first right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gaurdian_Rock 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't even know anymore, all I can say is that Con should never have changed the def, is was rude and frivolous.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate felt like it revolved around one key question: Does what lays the egg or what hatches from it define what type of egg it is? I feel Pro argued this point substantially better than Con.