As educators we should strive to inform our students, challenge their assumptions, and enlighten their minds. Occasionally educators may fall into the trap of overusing certain inaccurate popular phrases or expressions. At a recent conference, a speaker repeatedly peppered his remarks with the phrase “it’s a chicken and egg thing” to the point of exhaustion of the audience and to the detriment of his intended message. The seeming paradox as to whether the chicken (Gallus domesticus) or the egg (Gallus prezygoticos) first emerged in evolutionary history has become a metaphor for a circumstance or a condition in which no clear causal or temporal order can be determined. As a response, the present paper provides a historical, archeological, evolutionary, and humorous treatise to answer this question in order to resolve this dilemma. Using this amusing debate as a foundation, the author discusses the pedagogical uses of humor and metaphor.
The seemingly tautological question of whether the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus) or the egg (Gallus prezygoticos) first emerged in evolutionary history has often been visited by many speakers. This enduring debate has manifested itself as a metaphor for a circumstance or a condition in which no clear causal or temporal ordering can be determined. In considering the use of this seemingly flawed metaphor, it is astonishing that such a debate could remain contentious, given the shear weight of scientific and historical evidence. In fact, there really is no support for the continued use of this inaccurate metaphor and to do so may demonstrate a lack of logical sophistication.
The conundrum posed by the inquiry as to “which came first the chicken or the egg?” the perceived paradox is as follows. The chicken could not have come first because it must hatch from an egg. Conversely, the egg could not have come first, as it must have been laid by a chicken. While seemingly contradictory, a brief examination of history, archeological records, and evolutionary theory provides the solution.
According to fossil records, the present-day chicken is believed to be a descendent of Archaeopteryx, a creature with sharp teeth and winged claws, found in the Jurassic period and thought to be more than 150 million years old. According to Augusta (1961), Archaeopteryx is “a true bird, occupying the phylogenetically lowest place in the class of birds (Aves) and is the only member of the ancient group of the Archaeornithes (or Saururae); all other birds, whether extinct or extant, belong to the higher group of Neornithes (or Ornithurae)” (p.56). These upper Jurassic birds were not much larger than a pigeon and, like chickens of today, were not good flyers.
More recent evidence (Chatterjee, 1997) suggests that the Protoavis Texenis from the late Triassic period may actually predate Archaeopteryx by some 75 million years. The evidence, however, requires a much more complex understanding of comparative anatomy, as this discovery did not reveal a feather structure found with later fossils of the Archaeopteryx. Fossil records also demonstrate another bird identified as Confuciusornis (so named as a result of its discovery in Northern China) is similar to Archaeopteryx but lacks teeth. Experts believe that Confuciusornis may have occupied this same historic period.
According to Paul (2002) the evidence that birds evolved from small predatory dinosaurs in Mesozoic times is overwhelming. Paleontologists now agree that birds are the direct descendents of dinosaurs. The many inhabitants of the Jurassic era, including the most commonly identified dinosaurs, were egg layers. Even during the Jurassic period there were chicken-sized, egg-laying predators identified as Compsognathus. The similarities in modes of reproduction between avepod dinosaurs and birds extend to the sharing of a distinctive eggshell microstructure not observed in other amniotes (Paul, 2002). Reproduction by means of external egg laying allows the evolving dinosaurs to produce large numbers of offspring without the additional weight (and associated diminishment of mobility) of an internal gestation process. According to archeological theory, birds evolved from dinosaurs, which, in turn, evolved over millions of years from the primordial goo that produced single-cell organisms. Many forms of birds, including the precursor to the modern chicken, continued to develop through the Cenozoic era and by the Oligocene period, over 35 million years ago, most of the relatives of the birds we know today had appeared. In fact, the dinosaur-to-bird lineage can better be divided according to non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.
Consistent with evolutionary theory, Dingus and Rowe (1998) have suggested all living birds belong to either the Neognath lineage, which includes the Gallus gallus (chicken) or the Palaeognath. Further, the Neognath lineage split into two distinct lines during the Cretaceous period. One such split includes the anseriforms plus the galliform birds, such as chickens and turkeys.
Scientists have identified that domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus) and appeared as early as 4,000 BC in Southeast Asia. The domesticated chickens were initially used for entertainment in the form of cock fighting, rather than food. However, by 1400 BC the domestic chicken was popular throughout Asia and Europe and chicken eggs were hatched in mass incubators.
In sum, birds of today are ancestors of amphibian life that evolved from an aquatic existence to survive on dry land during the warm period of Perm. These predatory creatures, or Reptilia, were generally diminutive and slim with elongated posterior limbs. Reproduction by means of eggs is found in all such reptiles and the trait continued during the evolutionary period in which reptilia variants became warm-blooded, developed feathers, and began to master flying. In short, they became birds; that is, including those that we later identified as chickens.
Consistent with evolutionary change, the genetic mutations resulting in the present-day chicken seems to have occurred over millions of years. On occasion the mistakes, changes, or mutations that occur in the evolutionary process produce a creature that is not the same as the parents and others of its former species. Many times these new creatures may be less well adapted to the environment and not survive. However, with changes in the climate and flora and fauna, the addition of feathers, changes in bone structure, and the ability to take flight allowed the new creatures—avian dinosaurs—to thrive, while the less well-adapted ancestor was lost to extinction
Prior to the arrival of the chicken, a pre-chicken creature that was at least one generation away from our present-day chicken, laid an egg that contained an embryo with DNA consistent with the “new” aviary creature known as chicken. Therefore, the egg that contained the newly evolved chicken preceded its hatching. In other words, prior to the arrival of the first zygotic mix of male and female pre-chicken DNA that combined or mutated to form today’s chicken, there were only non-chickens. The DNA mutations occurred at the cellular level in the zygote developing inside the egg. Therefore, the egg clearly preceded the chicken.
A further analysis of Darwinian theory finds that all animals were preceded by, and evolved from, ancestors that were not exactly like them. Changes in DNA as a result of the combinations of mutation, mistakes in DNA repair, ecological affects, and other influences allowed for the development of creatures that more harmoniously coexisted with the changing environment. As a result, with each successive evolutionary change, there is necessarily a creature that lacked the characteristics of that which later evolved. In the case of birds, including chickens, the eggs of the pre-evolved creature contained the newly evolved living animal. Specifically, a pre-chicken laid an egg that contained the newly evolved chicken. Thus, from the Darwinian perspective, we clearly find that the egg preceded the newly evolved chicken.
In simplest terms, we may make several assumptions: a) millions of years ago, ancestors of the present day chicken did not contain the exact DNA or other characteristics of today’s chicken—thus, this was not a chicken; b) this pre-chicken was probably the ancestor of several egg-laying avian dinosaurs; c) each successive generation of these ancestral birds resulted in creatures that more closely approximate what we now know as a chicken. In an evolutionary timeline, we can see the result of our assumptions, and the answer to this alleged dilemma becomes clear:
Jurassic Non-Chicken » Egg » Triassic Non-Chicken » Egg » || History Continues || » Great Grandmother of Chicken » Egg à Grandmother of Chicken » Egg » Mother of Chicken » Egg » FIRST CHICKEN » Egg » Another Chicken » Egg-cetera.
With each successive generation, a nonchicken evolved closer to what became the first chicken. That first chicken arrived into this world from the confines of an egg. So, what came first? Clearly the egg preceded the chicken. Further, it does not matter where you draw the line between what you may call a chicken and a nonchicken. If for example, in the above diagram, you decide that the nonchicken identified as “Mother of Chicken” contained enough “essence of chickenness” to be identified as the chicken, then this creature was still preceded by, and came forth from an egg.
Some have argued that, despite evolutionary history, the mystery to be addressed is to determine precisely when a chicken, as we know it, actually hatched and became a chicken. Further, the diversity of fowl we may classify as a chicken is vast. As a result, these individuals will argue that a chicken only became a chicken once it was so named; therefore, the chicken came first. Once so labeled, all that followed, including eggs, necessarily came after. As interesting as this may seem, this argument is specious, and thus ignores the existence of a creature we later called a chicken until someone so named it. Clearly, such an animal existed before someone identified and called it “chicken.” A chicken is still a chicken whether it was so named or not, regardless.
Some theologically minded individuals contend that chickens were created by God and therefore had to precede eggs. As evidence, they may point to the first chapter of Genesis, verse 20, that states: “And God created…every winged fowl...” Theological issues aside, even if a “fowl” was instantly created at some distant period, this does not necessitate the exclusion of the process of evolution. More to the point, there is no specific biblical reference to an animal that we know today as a chicken. Further, Pope John Paul II issued a papal letter (encyclical) to the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging the possibility that God used evolution as a part of the creation process. It is, therefore, consistent with both a theological point of view as well as an evolutionary position that the bird we know today as chicken evolved from several genetic mutations over many years. That which created what we today call chicken (Today’s Chicken, or TC), was clearly borne by an ancestor of our present-day chicken (Pre-Chicken, or PC). Necessarily then, an evolved TC was a hatched product of an egg (because chickens do come from eggs), laid by the evolutionary ancestral pre-chicken (PC).
Others have argued that chickens obviously came first, as eggs are laid by chickens. They further assert that even if chickens evolved from some non-chicken creature, the first chicken did not come from the egg of a chicken—it had to come from a non-chicken egg. Therefore, the first egg came after the first chicken. This argument fails to attend to the originally posed statement. As presented, the question is “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” It does not say, “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?” Rather than engage in a discussion revolving around the evident conclusion that the chicken, once hatched and so designated, came from its formative home—a chicken egg, we will merely dismiss this inaccurate rendering of the original question.
Those who are more philosophically minded may wish to further examine the true meaning of the essence of chickenness. Existentialists might scrutinize the circumstances of the pre-chicken, prior to it becoming fully actualized as a chicken. How did the pre-chickens exist without enough “chicken essence” to be identified as chicken, and what does this mean? Whatever it may mean, the egg contained the essence that eventually became the chicken. The egg was first.
Of course one of the weakest arguments offered to support the “chicken-first” movement involves a catalogue contention. These supporters call attention to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2001). Upon careful examination of the entries and accompanying definitions, one can accurately assert that “chicken” is found on page 232, while “egg” is not found until page 398. Therefore, according to this argument, chicken clearly comes before egg. Of course, this ridiculous argument omits all practical evolutionary consideration and would be offered as evidence by only the most feebleminded.
The question is: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Unmistakably, the egg! Given this discourse, it seems to be the only plausible, accurate, and reasonable conclusion that can be reached. Probably the more troubling question is why this debate seems to interminably continue. The overwhelming and compelling evidence from the historic, archeological, and evolutionary records is clear. Given the sheer weight of the data involved, we as educators should remove this misplaced metaphor from our collective consciousness and vocabulary. Those in positions of leadership and learning must correct those who might wish to continue this mythical paradox. As we enlighten minds and challenge assumptions, we should use the example of this misleading phrase as a rallying cry to correct inaccurate impressions and enhance our instructional precision. Henceforth, we should recognize that those who continue to support, exploit, or utilize this inaccurate and deceptive phrase to be astray of an attempt to unscramble this metaphorical mess. We should egg-spect more from our egg-steemed colleagues to no longer egg-acerbate this problem. The debate on this topic should be concluded. The answer is: The Egg—the whole egg, and nothing but the egg. The conundrum has been resolved, and our educational mission requires our attention in eliminating this fallacious phrase.
At this point, I wonder whether you are in any way convinced? The above delineation was designed to provide a bit of fun for the reader and offer insight into the use of humor and metaphor in our teaching. In making the point that the chicken and egg metaphor has outlived its utility (can we say: ‘extinct’), the support was offered in a nonthreatening and humorous way. A number of studies have identified that humor can have a positive effect on learning (Berk, 1998; Glenn, 2002; Hill, 1988; Pollio & Humphreys, 1996).
Psychologically, humor can enhance self-esteem, increase self-motivation, and reduce anxiety and stress—all are factors that can facilitate the learning process (Berk, 1998). According to Glenn (2002), humor helps a person learn by creating a positive emotional climate in which they can feel emotional safety and are better able to focus. Shared humor can also be viewed as an outward expression of a bond between the educator and their students. From a physiological perspective, humor can enhance learning through improved respiration and circulation, lower pulse and blood pressure, exercise of the chest muscles, and a greater oxygenation of blood and the release of endorphins into the bloodstream as a result of laughter (Berk, 1998).
The use of humor has its share of cautions, however, as it can be either a potent social catalyst or social impediment in pedagogical settings. Humor can be tricky because it can be highly personal, subjective, and contextual and we do not always know the way it will be received. For example, the kinds of materials that I might view to be humorous, ironic or funny can be observed by others as trite and uninteresting. Every person has a unique perception as to what is humorous, so prudence should be the guiding principle. We identify it as a “sense of humor” and, like other senses such as the sense of taste, people have many different preferences.
Unfortunately, some educators believe their role is too serious or their topic is too important to engage humor and may view the use of humor as little more than a disruption. However, the use of appropriate humor has been shown to enhance the classroom environment and grease the skids of learning. It allows us to view information or circumstances with a new perspective that might lead to novel insights. Importantly, students and colleagues often value humor. When properly used, it can be an effective tool to make a class more enjoyable, reduce anxiety, and improve the learning environment. Several studies (e.g., Berk, 1996; Brown & Tomlin, 1996; Bryant, Comisky, & Zillman, 1997; Bryant, Comisky, Crane, & Zillman, 1980; Pollio & Humphreys, 1996) and my own observations as the Chair of the University Excellence in Teaching committee finds that students strongly value the use of humor in the classroom. A check of the teaching portfolios of highly-rated college faculty frequently finds the use of humor as an important contributor in their teaching philosophy.
However, it is not the humor per se, it is the effective use of humor that is key. Rhem (1998) reports that instructors with average student ratings used twice as much humor as compared to those faculty members who were more highly rated but their two-fold use had less effect. To be most effective humor should be appropriate, targeted, and related to the issue at hand. Mere joke telling is not equivalent to the well-planned use of humor in the context of the course.
Glenn (2002) has also suggested that there is often a linkage between humor and the use of metaphors in learning. In fact, he suggests “that metaphors and mnemonic devices can increase retention by as much as 40%” (p.1). Hill (1988) found humor coupled with the use of analogy and metaphor provided students with more positive associations and they were more likely to remember information. Korobkin (1989) found significant content retention rates among students when information was presented using the pedagogical tools of humor and metaphor.
More specifically to the ‘discrediting’ of the chicken and egg metaphor, several studies caution against the careless use of ‘automatic’ metaphors or ones that may send an incomplete or incorrect message. While the literature is replete with examples in which the use of metaphor can be helpful, most grammatical and style manuals caution in its overuse or utilization in misleading comparisons. In the above article, I have attempted to interweave the idea of humor as a pedagogical tool with the ‘revelation’ of the potentially misleading “chicken and egg” metaphor that we use in a rather automatic fashion.
While I sincerely doubt that anyone’s educational growth will be seriously impacted or stunted by the use of the “chicken and egg” metaphor, the treatise provided does raise the issue that we should be judicious in our use of metaphor and analogy in our pedagogy. The very interest in examining this particular metaphor was initiated by my attendance at a seminar where the speaker not only used this incorrectly; he used it incessantly—much to the detriment of his presentation and the audience’s attention. In a recent visit with a panel of Distinguished University Professors from a major academic institution, the use of metaphor as a pedagogical tool was discussed. In particular, the use of the “chicken and egg” metaphor was identified by one of the professors who related that its use prompted a contentious classroom debate in one of his graduate courses—not about the topic at hand, but on the merit and accuracy of the metaphor itself. Clearly, this was not the desired result, and did not provide the pedagogical boost that was intended. He related that he had instructed his department to avoid the use of this metaphor—except to demonstrate its alleged fallacy.
The importance of a good metaphor or analogy cannot be overstated. Lakeoff and Johnson (1980) argues the fundamental importance of metaphor as a basis for everyday cognition: “In all aspects of life, …we define our reality in terms of metaphors and then proceed to act on the basis of the metaphor. We draw inferences, set goals, make commitments, and execute plans, all on the basis of how we in part structure our experience, consciously and unconsciously by means of metaphor” (p.158). Bowers (1993) offers that all human thinking is both cultural and metaphorical at the core. The essence of metaphorical thinking is to comprehend a new concept or occurrence by relating it to something else. However, Bowers cautions that educators must be aware of the importance in using accurate language to help students gain a better understanding. In the case of metaphor, however, the relationship must be clear and accurate.
Metaphors can provide a type of shorthand to help define the intangible or abstract. However, this process is necessarily constrained by the perceptions of learners and teachers who must insure that the logic of the metaphor is accurate and clear. Otherwise learners’ understanding is not effectively facilitated, and the intended result of the metaphor is obstructed.
According to Glynn and Takahashi (1998) analogies and metaphors must be used with care because of the preconceptions that students posses. Glynn and Takahashi caution that an incorrect use of analogy and metaphor can lead students to draw the wrong conclusion or unintentionally turn their focus onto the pedagogical tool, instead of the topic itself. To be most effective, an analogy or metaphor must clearly transfer ideas from a familiar concept to one that is less familiar.
Metaphors must effectively and accurately communicate meaning. If the meaning of a metaphor is abstract, complex, or must be inferred, interpreted or is subject to debate, then its pedagogical potency can be significantly diminished. Earle (1995), for instance, cautions against the use of imprecise metaphors. The unconscious allegories and metaphors we use can drive our understanding, perceptions, and actions. As a result, our selection of appropriate metaphors must be scrupulously evaluated, lest we find ourselves perpetuating inaccurate comparisons and creating unintended consequences as in confusing our students. A good metaphor is a light that illuminates the mind. As for the “chicken and the egg” metaphor—I think it might be best for educators to shelve it to extinction.
Augusta, J. (1961). Prehistoric reptiles and birds. London: Paul Hamlyn LTD.Westbrook House.
Berk, R. (1996). Student ratings of ten strategies for using humor in college teaching.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 71-92
Berk R. (1998). Professors are from mars, students are from snickers. Madison, WI: Mendota Press.
Bowers, C. (1993). Critical essays on education, modernity, and the recovery of the ecological imperative. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brown, W. & Tomlin, J. (1996). Best and worst university teachers: The opinion of undergraduate students. College Student Journal, 30(1), 431-434.
Bryant, J. Comisky, P., & Zillman, D. (1997). Teachers humor in the college classroom. Communication Education, 28(2), 110-118.
Bryant, J. Comisky, P., Crane, J. & Zillman, D. (1980). Relationship between college teachers’ use of humor in the classroom and students’ evaluations of their teachers, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 511-519.
Chatterjee, S. (1997). The rise of birds: 225 million years of evolution. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Dingus, L. & Rowe, T. (1998). The mistaken extinction: Dinosaurs evolution and the origins of birds. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Earle, R (1995, July / August). Teacher imagery and Metaphors: Windows to teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 52-59.
Glenn, R. (2002) Brain research: Practical Applications for the classroom. Teaching forExcellence, 21(6), 1-2.
Glynn, S. & Takahashi, T (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science texts. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1129-1149.
Hill, D. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas
Korobkin, D. (1989). Humor in the classroom: Considerations and strategies. College Teaching, 36(4), 154-158.
Lakeoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (2001). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Paul, Gregory (2002). Dinosaurs of the air: The evolution and loss of flight in dinosaursand birds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pollio, H. & Humphreys, W. (1996). What award-wining lecturers say about their teaching: It’s all about connection. College Teaching, 44, 101-106.
Rhem, J (1998). Humor in the classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum,7(6), 10-12.
© Radical Pedagogy