The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,407 times Debate No: 22724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I am for that the Chicken came first. There are many reasons that I believe this.
1. The egg needs the warmth of the mother to survive. An egg can not survive alone without the warmth and protection of the mother.
2. An egg unfertilised won't grow to become a chicken. The rooster needs to exist for there to be fertilization of the egg.
3. An egg, whether you're an atheist or believe in a God, can't just appear out of no where and then become a chicken.

Now let's look at these topics more closely.

The Egg needs it's mother. There can't be any argument against this point. The Mother chicken must keep the egg warm for it to fully develop and to guard it from predators. And after it has hatched it still needs it's mother for warmth and for food. The baby chick can't fend for itself. It needs to learn and to adapt the lifestyle of it's mother. The chicken must also produce the egg and it must also be fertilized by a rooster for to develop to become a baby chick. To be able to produce a fertilised egg requires both a chicken and a rooster. An Egg can't be fertilised by itself nor by other animals. For an egg to be fertilized it is necessary to have both the rooster and the chicken. Also an egg can't just appear out of no where. Whether you believe God created it or it came from Evolution, eggs can't appear out of no where. Even if they did, my previous points explain that the egg needs the parents. It would also make more sense if God created the chicken and rooster to be able to make the eggs. It also says in Genesis 1:24 (NIV) 'And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.' End quote. As you can probably see, it says let the land produce living creatures, not, let the land produce the eggs for the soon-to-be living creatures. And Atheists believe that everything just happened so therefore as I have stated earlier the egg needs the parents, so the parents would have come first.

That is the end of my first argument.


I accept your challenge and will be arguing that the egg came before the chicken.

Different species are created through genetic mutation.[1] Mutation occurs when "a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene."[2] Whatever mutation caused the first genetically-identifiable chicken, then, must have been created when DNA was damaged or changed before it began to actually grow; i.e., in the egg. The chicken's genetic parents were of the same species and could thus reproduce, but the first chicken came about when the offspring's genetic code was mutated to form the first actual genetic chicken. Thus, the egg of a chicken came before the actual chicken, because the chicken's parents were just evolutionarily related to the chicken and not of the same species themselves.

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has brought up some quiet valid points, unfortunately his only argument can be used in my favour as well.

What if two birds (or any other animal) suffered genetic mutation quickly and changed while they were still that animal and became chickens. That would mean that they could breed and produce more chickens with the same genetic code. This is very unlikely but according to the websites my opponent has supplied in the comments section, genetic mutation happens in one of every million of those species. This also needs to happen to twice the same way for better results for when they breed to produce a chicken. The overall results include the mutation process (1:1000000 or 1:2000000 if it were to happen to two animals of that specie) then the passing of those genes to the egg (1:4 or 1:2 if there were two of that specie) and then the egg accually forming and surviving after the mutation (unknown). Overall the likelyhood of this happening is OVER 1:4000000. To put that into perspective. That is the chance of dying on a typical car trip in America. Very lttle chance, but still possible, just like my suggestion of the genetics changing the animal to become the chicken while alive.

My opponent has not fought any of my claims so I will preceed with more evidence on why the chicken came first.

There is a specific protein that is found only in the ovaries of a chicken that acts as an essential ingredient to building the formation and structure of an egg. This was found by a few British scientists while testing their new super computer called, HECToR (High End Computing Terascale Resource). An article will be posted below. Without this protien the egg could not exist. This proves that eggs can not form without the help of a mother Chicken. No other animal has this protein, so the egg could not of been genetically mutated because it would be missing an essential ingredient, the protein.


I thank my opponent for his thoughtful arugment and will now proceed with rebuttals.


My opponent claims that there is the possibility they could have mutated while they were alive. While anything is possible, this is far less likely because most mutations happen before birth in the egg. It is pretty safe to say the current, genetically-identifiable chicken existed as an egg before birth. My opponent even agrees that it is "unlikely" this would happen after birth, and proceeds to list mathematical possibility.

A response to the rest of your argument

If my claim is true, then the rest of your argument is irrelevant. All I need to prove is that the mutation was more likely to occur in the egg, and I believe I have.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for repeating certain points in his previous argument, that draw my attention.

He stated, -quote- 'If my claim is true, then the rest of your argument is irrelevant.' -end quote-
This tells me that he hasn't paid any attention to my last argument. So let me repeat that certain point with more hard evidence and resources.
The fact that a chicken egg needs a specific protein, that can only be found in previous chickens, is undeniably true. Here is some hard evidence supporting this claim.

(Website - -quote- 'The results showed that a particular protein in chickens acts as a tireless builder, placing one microscopic section of shell on top of the other. It initiates this building process before going off to start on another part of the egg. Without this builder protein, the eggs would not exist. And yet it is only found in a chicken's ovaries. This means the bird must have come first.' -end quote-

(Website - -quote- 'Researchers at the Universities of Sheffield and Warwick, in northern and central England, say the secret lies in the eggshell, and specifically in the vital role played by a chicken protein in forming it.' -break quote- 'It showed the protein OC-17 kickstarts the formation of crystals that make up an eggshell.
The OC-17 protein then dropped off when the crystal nucleus was large enough to grow on its own, freeing up the protein to start the process again.' -end quote-

(Website - -quote- 'The protein called "ovocledidin-17 (OC-17)" acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell. Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to "zoom in" on the formation of an egg. It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation" the early stages of forming a shell. The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grams of shell every 24 hours.' -end quote-

There are many pages on the Internet that say the same basic thing.

This proves that the mutation of an egg is irrelevant unless this protein (OC-17) already exists. This protein is only found in the Ovaries of the female Chicken and no other animal. Proving that the parents to the first egg must of been chickens.

I have also explained in my previous arguments about, how the chicken looks after an egg is important and fertilization is also important. Without these an egg can not live and develop by itself. An egg needs the warmth of its mother to develop and to be fertilized by the father to be able to develop.

Mutation is very unlikely in general as I stated, the chances are OVER one in four million. It is also impossible for chickens to have come from mutated eggs because a chicken egg must have the protein (OC-17) to actually build and construct the egg. Without the egg nothing can develop.

In conclusion I leave everyone reading this with a statement. All of the evidence I have presented shadows my opponent's claims and he had still not questioned one of mine. However, I thank my opponent for a good debate and I can't wait to see his rebuttal, conclusion and who won.


I thank my opponent for his contribution to the debate and will present my final rebuttal.

The reason the rest of your argument is irrelevant is because if my argument about the mutation is true, it would not rely on the examples of parental dependence you have provided.

Let's call the genetic parents of the first chicken, a chicken-like species evolutionarily related to the chicken but not a chicken itself, the "CP." Let's call the first genetically-identifiable chicken the "FC."

In the world immediately before the FC, the CPs existed. Because they were the same species they could reproduce with each other.

When two CPs mated, they fertilized an egg. While mutations do occur very very rarely, a mutation must occur in order to produce a new species, as my opponent and I agree, therefore a mutation must have occured to produce an FC from the CP. This moves the question from "did a mutation occur?" to "when in the FC's lifetime did the mutation occur in order to make it an FC?"

Since almost all mutations occur before the FC actually grows, the mutation must have occured before birth, and thus in the egg. Thus my opponent's argument regarding the protein is negated because this first FC would have been the result of mutation and would not require a protein from another chicken (which just moves the question of the chicken to the parent that gave it its protein).

Thus, due to the occurence of mutations in an egg, and due to mutations developing new species, the first genetically-identifiable chicken must have evolved in the egg.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Multi_Pyrocytophage 6 years ago
Very interesting read despite the brevity of the debate. Sources go to Pro, since he backed up his argument more with his sources.

Now comes the interesting part: the arguments. Pro makes an excellent case with the protein and fertilization argument. However, Con brings up a really good point: mutation. This mutation could explain a pre-chicken species that gave the egg, and it is likely this pre-chicken species had the protein needed to fertilize the egg. Con also explained how the modern-day chicken would have evolved inside this egg. Pro really was unable to refute this argument, nor show why this argument was invalid. Thus, I feel Con ultimately deserves these points.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 6 years ago
Ugh I hate when sources don't work...

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tarkovsky 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shows that it is more likely that genetic mutations will occur at the level of the gametes.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.