I’ve always interpreted this as more of a metaphorical question.
However, this general response is where I usually take things if pushed for an answer. Meaning, egg laying species existed for hundreds of millions of years before chickens and chickens evolved from egg laying species, so the egg came first.
A lot of people try to interpret this on the micro scale view: The idea that there was one specific event (place, time, individual) where a non-chicken laid the first egg that hatched out to became the first chicken.
The reality of the situation is counterintuitive, though. Life, nature, and even taxonomy are so much more complex that this situation. It can be hard to conceptualize, but there literally never was a case where a non-chicken laid an egg, and the resulting offspring was the first chicken ever.
The species concept really only applies on a population level (barring exceptions like cases where there’s literally only 1 known living individual remaining of a soon to be extinct species). And furthermore, taxonomy is an artificial, human concept – nature does not abide – and a bit of an art at that. Even if we could somehow scale back in time and view every individual in the chicken lineage as far back as we desire and in much detail as we desired, there would be no consensus on where in that mess chickens emerged from non-chickens.
So, this is one of those cases where I would actually advise – don’t think too hard about it or take it too seriously and accept the question for its metaphorical nature.
And there is evolution to take note of too. The chickens that were alive back then could look very different to the chickens we have today. We say the word “chicken”, and we think of the chickens that you see at farms, or sometimes in the wild, with no thought at all to the details. True, one could argue that chickens have not undergone any evolution, and were as they are today, but there are several flaws in that reasoning. First, every animal has been a certain way, but, as time passes and their environment changes, they must change as well. Here’s an example of natural selection, for those who are not as well versed in the matter of evolution.
Say there are white squirrels. They have lived there for hundreds of years, and therefore adapted to accommodate the forest. One day, a paper mill is built next to the forest where they reside, and spews pollution out. Over time, the trees of the forest, once elm white, are not soot black. The white squirrels are then hunted because they can no longer blend in with their environment. Soon, black squirrels are born. They can now blend in with the trees, and are killed less often. The white squirrels are hunted until there is no more left.
I’ve always interpreted this as more of a metaphorical question.
However, this general response is where I usually take things if pushed for an answer. Meaning, egg laying species existed for hundreds of millions of years before chickens and chickens evolved from egg laying species, so the egg came first.
A lot of people try to interpret this on the micro scale view: The idea that there was one specific event (place, time, individual) where a non-chicken laid the first egg that hatched out to became the first chicken.
The reality of the situation is counterintuitive, though. Life, nature, and even taxonomy are so much more complex that this situation. It can be hard to conceptualize, but there literally never was a case where a non-chicken laid an egg, and the resulting offspring was the first chicken ever.
The species concept really only applies on a population level (barring exceptions like cases where there’s literally only 1 known living individual remaining of a soon to be extinct species). And furthermore, taxonomy is an artificial, human concept – nature does not abide – and a bit of an art at that. Even if we could somehow scale back in time and view every individual in the chicken lineage as far back as we desire and in much detail as we desired, there would be no consensus on where in that mess chickens emerged from non-chickens.
So, this is one of those cases where I would actually advise – don’t think too hard about it or take it too seriously and accept the question for its metaphorical nature.
See also Sorites paradox / paradox of the heap
And there is evolution to take note of too. The chickens that were alive back then could look very different to the chickens we have today. We say the word “chicken”, and we think of the chickens that you see at farms, or sometimes in the wild, with no thought at all to the details. True, one could argue that chickens have not undergone any evolution, and were as they are today, but there are several flaws in that reasoning. First, every animal has been a certain way, but, as time passes and their environment changes, they must change as well. Here’s an example of natural selection, for those who are not as well versed in the matter of evolution.
Say there are white squirrels. They have lived there for hundreds of years, and therefore adapted to accommodate the forest. One day, a paper mill is built next to the forest where they reside, and spews pollution out. Over time, the trees of the forest, once elm white, are not soot black. The white squirrels are then hunted because they can no longer blend in with their environment. Soon, black squirrels are born. They can now blend in with the trees, and are killed less often. The white squirrels are hunted until there is no more left.