An Egg-istential Question

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

A classic philosophical conundrum, intentionally baffling and likely argument-provoking.

“You need a chicken to lay an egg, but chickens come from eggs, so you need an egg to get the chicken… to lay the egg, from which to get a chicken to lay an egg…”

This can (and often does) go on forever, an endlessly frustrating loop of logical fallacy.

I was pretty surprised  then, when the answer was suddenly provided in one of my classes, a course on evolutionary ornithology. We were discussing a phylogenetic tree,  when my professor casually pointed out an easy, glaringly logical, loophole in the age-old query.

So, scientifically speaking, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Egg Timeline:

The amniotic egg, or cleodic egg as it is also sometimes called, is thought to have evolved between 340-370 million years ago, and is highly conserved across many classes and families, from mammals like us to crocodiles. The classification of amniotes includes all vertebrate animals with four limbs and amniotic eggs, so think all mammals (Synapsida), and reptiles/birds (Reptilia) (Sander 2012).

What exactly is so special about this egg?

The amniotic egg is characterized by its complex of inner membranes. The allantois, which is directly attached to the embryo, primarily holds the waste products, while the yolk sac contains all the nutrients the embryo will need for development. The embryo is bathed in a stable fluid environment, surrounded amniotic fluid and enclosed in amnion membrane. The outermost membrane, the chorion, provides close contact between the eggshell and its internal contents, allowing for the necessary gas exchanges of O2 and CO2, and holding the other structures together. Finally, there is the outer shell layer, which can be leathery (as can be seen in some turtle species) or calcified, like the hard eggshells of birds and crocodiles. This outer shell is semi-permeable, again to permit the gas exchanges needed for respiration, and to keep moisture in and harmful microorganisms out (Sander 2012).

Quick aside- yes, mammals generally don’t lay eggs (excepting the monotremes such as platypuses and echidnas). However, the eggs that develop in the uterus before live birth are still considered to be amniotic eggs, since the embryo is surrounded by necessary membranes to encase fluid. They simply lack the outer eggshell and remain inside the mother’s body.  It is also worth noting that while the placental organ does perform some of the functions internal membranes have in other animals, most noticeably the nourishing role of the yolk, mammal embryos still have a yolk sac in early stages of development, as well as the other characteristic structures of the amniotic egg.

This general structure of the amniotic egg is a major landmark in the evolutionary history of life. By providing a way to contain fluid, it eliminated the dependence of reproduction on bodies of water to lay and incubate in, and thus opened up a whole world for vertebrates to expand into. In fact, it’s considered the most defining development allowing for the evolution of life on land! And these eggs are quite old, evolving no later than 310 million years ago with the last common ancestor of mammals and birds. Most estimates place the appearance of the amniotic egg between 340 and 370 million years ago (Sues 2016).

Chicken Timeline:

Alright, now let’s consider the chicken. The modern common domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus), what we know as chickens, have a long and storied evolution like all birds, stretching back into the age of dinosaurs, and more specifically, the therapods. Therapods are thought to have first appeared in the late Carnian age of the late Triassic period, somewhere around 232.4 million years ago, as a clade of saurischian dinosaur. They were a widely diverse group, but main features included hollow, light-weight bones, and bipedality, and they were generally carnivorous. Within the more specialized subsets, there are the Tetanurae, which are further subdivided into Megalosauroidea and the Avetheropoda. The Avetheropoda, contained Carnosauria and the Coelurosauria, from which birds are direct descendants!

If we jump ahead a few million millennia, we can track down the last relative from which our favorite bird diverged. Gallus gallus domesticus, is a subspecies of the junglefowl, Gallus gallus, of the order Galliformes, suborder Galli, and family Phasianidae. Galliformes are originally from Southeast Asia and have been around for an estimated 50 million years. Although there are other jungle fowl with whom the chicken may share genetics, including the gray jungle fowl, Gallus sonneratii, that likely contributed the trait of yellow skin on their feet,  it well accepted that the chicken diverged most directly from the red junglefowl (Potts 2012). In one study by Sawai et al (2010), an analysis of DNA from 19 birds (including red and green junglefowl and several breeds of chickens), found that that the domestic chicken diverged from the red junglefowl  58,000±16,000 years ago, which had in turn diverged from its last common ancestor with the green junglefowl around 3.6 million years ago. This places our oldest chicken between 42,000 and 74,000 years ago (Sawai et al 2010).

The Results are in…Eggs are way older

Compared to the egg’s minimum of 310 million years, the chicken is practically a baby in evolutionary terms, somewhere around a mere 58,000 years old.

When you set the comparison in these terms, it is an easy landslide. Of course, you may very well be thinking, “that’s great and all, but that’s not technically a chicken egg. Surely you need a chicken for the egg to be a chicken egg, right?”

And you are not wrong- there are specific enzymes and other proteins that only chickens have which play a crucial role in their eggshell formation, with most people citing ovocledidin-17 as the primary example of this.

When you think of an egg, a hard-shelled egg, the kind of egg  one might decorate at Eastertime, or buy by the dozen at the supermarket, however, the defining features are not of a chicken egg specifically. First and foremost, you are thinking of the massively distinct amniotic egg, which has existed before birds, much less chickens, were around to lay them.

Yes, the question is rigged. It is a false dichotomy, and not meant to have a clear solution. If you are like me, however, this is the most satisfying ending; a supportable conclusion and some great practice in phylogenetic problem-solving.

References:

Amniote Egg. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.biologyreference.com/A-Ar/Amniote-Egg.html.Emma.berthold@science.org.au. (2019, September 19). Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Retrieved from https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/which-came-first-chicken-or-egg.

Potts, A. (2012). Chicken. London: Reaktion.

Sander, P. M. (2012). Reproduction in Early Amniotes. Science, 337(6096), 806–808. doi: 10.1126/science.1224301

Sawai, H., Kim, H., Kuno, K., Suzuki, S., Gotoh, H., Takada, M., . . . Orban, L. (2010). The Origin and Genetic Variation of Domestic Chickens with Special Reference to Junglefowls Gallus g. gallus and G. varius (The Origin of Domestic Chicken). PLoS ONE, 5(5), E10639.

Sues, H.-D. (2016). Amniotes, Diversification of. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 56–62. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800049-6.00279-1

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.