“It’s an age-old puzzle that’s stumped generations of scientists. But now they believe they have cracked the conundrum of what came first: the chicken or the egg. British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries. As a result any papers have been reporting this proves the Chicken must have come first. But according to this article this seems to be a typical case of poor science journalism.
‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University. ‘The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process,’ he added.
The protein – called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) – acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell. Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to ‘zoom in’ on the formation of an egg. It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation – the early stages of forming a shell. The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grammes of shell every 24 hours.
Prof John Harding, also of Sheffield University, said the discovery could have other uses. ‘Understanding how chickens make shells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues towards designing new materials,’ he said.”
Read more at The Metro (Thanks to Ellie for the update here)
That’s assuming early proto-chickens didn’t lay soft-shelled eggs, like crocs and lizards, which wouldn’t require a crystallisation protein. Not convinced.
Strictly speaking, eggs had been around for millions of years before the first chicken.
So the chicken did not evolve from an egg laying species? Because if it did, the egg had to come first.
…nobody came until the rooster did!
Okay, that jokes a bit fowl…
What this study proves is that protein found in the chicken’s ovaries produce eggs. The first egg contained a chicken which had the protein in her ovaries to produce eggs but this does not change the likelihood, that that egg came first.
This is genius! I love Derren Brown and his amazing mind and theories! I have followed his work through television, the web and his book, but this tops it off for me :L
xxxx
Weird. I thought there were many documented discoveries of dinosaur eggs. Therefore the ‘eggsistance’ (sorry) of something that could be described as an egg would pre-date the existance of something that could be described as a chicken. Could the Metro have gotten it wrong?!
Until they rule out that OC-17 (or similar) was not present in other animals I’ll remain confident that the egg came first and chickens evolved from other species.
This old chestnut again, albeit with a different ‘proof’. I may be going out on a limb here but from a purely logical standpoint the egg must have come first. Birds are widely thought to have evolved from dinosaurs and reptiles, both of which are predominantly egg laying, therefore the first chicken must have been hatched from the egg of some earlier species. Now the eggs of reptiles are not like bird eggs, having leathery as opposed to hard shells, but are eggs nonetheless. The protein to produce hard eggshells may well have developed in an earlier soft egg laying chicken, but the old riddle isn’t ‘Which came first the chicken or the hard shelled egg’. The first chicken to posess the protein must have come from an soft egg, but still an egg.
This sort of reporting does irreparable harm to the reputations of scientists and the public understanding of what we do. I’m mortified to see Derren spreading this pseudoscientific claptrap, which is the product of shoddy reporting and not the research itself. I’d expected him to be giving a link to one of the many debunks that have already been written elsewhere not promoting the original tosh.
Here is a good one: http://goo.gl/nDFs
Summarising: the research paper this is all based upon is a perfectly good one on protein crystallisation that does not mention the sodding chicken and egg problem anywhere. Scientists really do have more important stuff to spend tax-payers money on than this and it hacks us off when journalists leave us open to accusations that we do not.
- Please note that we do not write these articles and they are not posted by Derren, that’s quite clear. I’d hate you to commit the same offence by saying he’s spreading it, then where would we be? This is also legitimate science (with an incorrect assumption) as opposed to psudeo-science like, say Reiki. We’ve updated and corrected the article and will always do so when we see any story debunked. Thanks for putting us all straight Ellie – Phillis
I’d like to see some proof that all creatures gave birth like mammals until the creature known as chicken mutated into an egg laying thing. Then all other non mammals go “Oh right” then get on with what ever freaky reproduction techniques they like.
That would make me believe the chicken came before the egg, but even then I’d say “exactly where did you get this proof?”.
What? The egg came first. Whatever evolved into a chicken, laid an egg and a chicken hatched from it. This is common sense.
The scientists used a popular riddle to present a discovery hoping to grab headlines to highlight their research, it worked. Unfortunately they failed to realise in doing so people would only concentrate on the way the discovery was presented and not the discovery itself.
- A very apt statement in the light of claims of “bad science PR”. – Phillis
@Gerard
if something evolved into a chicken then laid an egg, then the chicken came first! This is logic.
Sophie, where did you get the idea that Derren had anything to do with this article? It’s just an interesting piece of news that Abeo posted on the blog, like she and Phillis do all the time. That way we’ll have something to read in between Derren’s posts, and won’t just sit here obsessively refreshing our browsers.
Posts by Derren are always under the DB Direct heading.
Dan, how do you think evolution works? Hint: Not the way it works in Pokémon. It’s a gradual process. The chicken came from the egg of a not-quite-chicken, it wasn’t another creature that just decided one day that it was ready to be a chicken now. Of course, it’s debatable whether the egg it hatched from was a chicken egg (as there was a chicken in it), or a not-quite-chicken egg (as that’s what laid it).
Of course, the question that has been answered is not the chicken-or-egg question at all, but rather the question of why birds lay calcified eggs (as opposed to reptiles, amphibians and insects). Chickens have nothing to do with that.
@Dan
He didn’t say that though, did he? He said something laid an egg that contained a chicken. The emphasis is on the fact that eggs existed before chickens, so how would it be logical to state the chicken came first?
I was browsing the Daily Mail page the other day to demonstrate how poor their articles all are and noticed this one there. I was initially disappointed to see it here, where I usually expect a higher standard of selectivity in the articles, so I was very pleased to see that you had already taken criticism of the piece on board and posted an update.
Well done, Phillis.
Eggsactly @Berber Anna (sorry couldn`t resist) We all have our own views on the different topics and its great to see the discussion that come from them very interesting. and it fills the time while we wait to see what Derren is up to next and very soon I hope getting withdrawl symptoms now. time to get the DVDs back out xx
i’m just amazed at the kind of things which get study grants these days…
Why on Earth is this nonsense still up here? Ellie has already debunked it. Someone has replied to her saying that it has been updated – but it looks the same to me. This nonsense article should be deleted. Do we really want the public (such as “roz”) to think that research money is spent thoughtlessly on stupid riddles? Isn’t science doing badly enough at PR as it is?
- We have updated it and linked to the article – all you need to do is re-read it. It’s actually a case of poor headlining, but that is all. The science is very sound and interesting and shows how the research may lead to new and interesting materials. Aren’t conspiracies doing well enough without spreading your own? – Phillis
I’ve been saying that the chicken came before the egg all along. (Ha take that people of the egg variety!)
I read an article about this in BBC Wildlife. The egg definitely came first. Evolution doesn’t happen by the animal itself changeing and morphing within its lifetime (like you see in Walking With Dinosaurs when they leap forward a few thousand years,) the changes happen to the original animal’s offspring. So, a lizard once laid an egg, and that egg hatched in to a lizard with wing-flaps (or something,) then the winged lizard laid an egg, which hatched in to a winged lizard with feathers, then the feathered lizard laid an egg, which hatched in to an early form of bird, and the birds kept on going, until one day, a half-parrot-half-chicken laid an egg, which hatched in to a full chicken. (Although I do remember hearing somewhere that chickens are more closely related to the T-Rex. So maybe >
> we started off with some really massive chickens, and they eventually shrunk down.
)
Gil, if people choose to read a headline instead of the whole article, that’s hardly Phillis’ fault. You could equally make a case for removing articles about UFOs and conspiracy theories and such, because some people may see them as evidence for their woo beliefs. Removing anything that might be misunderstood would make this blog a rather boring place, imho.
the egg must have come first because other animals that lay similar eggs must use the same protein and so evolved from the same ancestor unless they all evolved from chickens which i doubt.
@iHeartDerren – I too say the chicken came first. One would have evolved during its lifetime and the egg would then be the second chicken having inherited the (mutated?) gene.
Phyllis,
Thanks for taking my criticism on board and for updating the article, but I do have another couple of comments based on your responses…
For regular readers and fans it may be clear that Derren didn’t write that article but for passers by and casual visitors like my self it is his name on the mast head and so the assumption is going to be first that he wrote it. I note I am not the only person to make that mistake amongst these comments. Even knowing he didn’t write it, it still appears on his site and so I think it is entirely reasonable that readers associate the content with his opinion.
Secondly, I don’t know whether it is intentional or accidental, but your replies to some of these comments are coming across as defensive and accusatory.
- We do post the users name in bright red letters at the top of the post and always link to the original article. As you’ve seen we update and correct as well. We really can’t do any more than that to make it obvious that we are linking to someone else’s article – a large flashing red arrow maybe?
– The blog comments are here for debate and to discuss the article. To isolate the headline, the corrections then ignore all comments and further ignore the fact it clearly wasn’t written by us we feel is a little unfair. We have posted several thousand articles over 2 years and we’re not perfect but to claim we’re “spreading negative PR in the name of science” is in my personal opinion an irrational knee-jerk reaction next to the 1000′s of other article we highlight. So sorry if I’ve come over defensive but we stand by our actions. – Phillis
Phillis and Berber,
The article has indeed been changed – the sentence “But according to this article this seems to be a typical case of poor science journalism” has been added. This is really an insiginficant. Would you host an article espousing the reality of psychic powers, telekinesis, or alien contact , and consider it no problem so long as you dropped in a solitary sentence stating it’s actually nonsense?
If you want to discuss this news story without spreading BS, why don’t you make like the wonderful Pharyngula blog and get straight on debunking?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/chickens_eggs_this_is_no_way_t.php
- What about the heading in bold capitals that says “or do they?”
– I’ll let you guys get upset about this and post your updates – anyone coming here and ignoring the updates and flurry of comments and links we ask them not to go to specsavers where they’re doing 2 for 1 right now 
– Phillis
There’s no mention of chickens or eggs here? whats the debate about again? I thought it was about new materials. And do you people really think DB writes all this stuff? What a tiny world you must live in. Slap wrists Phillis for linking to the Metro of all places.
- It says ABEO in big red letters at the top – are you ALL blind?
– agreed Metro links should be cut out – sorry about that. God forbid anyone should head over there and comment! It’s sunny outside don’t you lot have anything better to do? 
– Phillis
Phillis you do make me laugh. Who would have thought the chicken and egg debate would result in so much “discussion”.
I am not not as bright as most on this site and enjoy reading the different articles and the healthy discussions they produce. I do like to then go on and find out more about that subject as I do not take the one article to be gospel, since coming to the site I have learnt a lot about various different things. I can feel my brain expanding
So keep them coming. x
i think that is fantastic work done by him because this always a tricky question……………………………………………