The egg came first

The way I've always answered the question:

quote:

---

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

---

is it depends on your definition of a chicken egg. Is it an egg that came out of a chicken or an egg that has a chicken in it? You've defined the chicken egg as an egg with a chicken in it, so I'll agree that the egg came first. But that egg was laid by the something else that was its immediate predecessor, so it could be considered to not be a chicken egg, which could be used to say the chicken came first, but whatever.

I don't get it.

Which is exactly what you did in the opening post.I think the question is intended to be paradoxical and is asking how can you have an egg without a chicken to lay it and how can you have a chicken without and egg to hatch from. When you start talking about evolution and completing a set of DNA you've already gotten too technical.This is why, when confronted with the question, I ask for some clarification in the definion of the word egg(I know what they mean by chicken) because it can be ambiguous. Is it, which came first:the chicken or the chicken's egg?orthe chicken or the egg's chicken?The answer to both of these questions is obvious. Leave out the clarification and the question becomes ambiguous, as it is trying to be a paradox.