Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Age-old debate is over: it was the egg that came before the chicken

Chris Greenwood
Friday 26 May 2006 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Head shot of Andrew Feinberg

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

It's a question that has stirred pub debates through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg? Now a philosopher, backed up by a geneticist and a chicken farmer, claims to have found the answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, said the pecking order was clear. The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it turned into.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he said. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and Charles Bourns, a poultry farmer and the chairman of a trade body called Great British Chicken. Professor Papineau, whose subject is the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He said people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" parents.

"I would argue that it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said. "If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Mr Bournswas also in the pro-egg camp. "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived," he said.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in