Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? Scientists Might Finally Have the Answer.

Is it time to call up your old biology teacher for a new round of the chicken vs egg debate?

A blown-up yellow baby chicken hovers on a cosmic background of blue and purple clouds and stars.

A chick stares into the cosmos. Mother Jones illustration; Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This just in: The scientists have solved it. After a millennium of taunting young biologists and philosophers as Plutarch pondered: “Which was first, the bird or the egg?” the great chicken and egg debate is perhaps coming to a close.  

The chicken (or, rather its amniote ancestor) has beat the egg. 

Obviously, eggs of some form or another existed long before chickens—they are female sex cells, which evolved somewhere between 1 billion and 2 billion years ago, before even our ancestor’s ancestor’s had adapted their way out of the water and onto dry land. The eggs that these scientists studied are the hard-shelled ones—the kinds that chickens lay—which evolved about 325 million years ago.

These kinds of eggs are called amniotic eggs because of the way they keep the gestating fetus encased in “private pond,” as Professor Michael Benton, professor at the University of Bristol and an author of the new study explains. This adaptation was vital for creatures who crawled out of the oceans, allowing them, Benton continues, to “move away from the waterside and dominate terrestrial ecosystems.”

Jurassic age loading.

Having made the link between hard-shelled eggs and life on land, scientists and reporters thought they had laid the issue to rest, so to speak: The hard-shelled egg appeared on the scene, allowing the ancestor of the chicken to adapt to a new environment, where our fowl friends would later thrive.

But, last week, a team of scientists at Nanjing University and the University of Bristol stepped in and made everything a little more complicated. The researchers examined 51 fossil species and 29 living species all from the Amniota family—which includes mammals, lizards, dinosaurs, crocodiles, birds, and yes, chickens. They found that the earliest terrestrial amniotes may not have first laid hard-shelled eggs: They either gave birth to live young or did a third, strange option, called extended embryo retention (EER).

Unlike with hard-shells, which, when laid, contain an offspring that’s only a bundle of cells, EER allows parents to keep the fetus inside the womb for longer and to give birth to live offspring at different developmental stages—as early as the beginning of limb formation. This flexible gestation comes with evolutionary benefits, says Joseph Keating, one of the study authors from Nanjing University. No hard-shelled, protective egg needed.

In other words: the researchers concluded that the earliest common ancestors of the Amniota family likely relied on extended embryo retention to procreate, throwing a wrench into the established hard-egg theory, which insisted the hard-shelled egg was necessary for the development of terrestrial animals and therefore chickens.

But, before you get too discombobulated or call up your high school biology teacher, do know it’s not a binary issue. Technically, the chicken that we know today came about after our amniote pals switched to laying hard-shelled eggs. 

Regardless of if the chicken or egg came first, these researchers have peeled away another layer of understanding of how animals evolved.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate