So Which Came First, The Chicken or the Egg?

You’ve probably heard that timeless question at least once in your life.  Now to the Darwinist/Evolutionist it’s a tough one to answer.  However, if you’re a 21st Century electron microbiologist who looks at the inner world of the human cell with objective eyes the answer is as simple as simply observing the display of creation that only He can provide.

The Egg/Chicken Conundrum

by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

The recurring challenge in the download_Snapseeded Chickenevolutionary community revolves around which came first—the egg or the chicken? Creationists, using the Scriptures as our foundation, see the chicken as being created first, followed by egg production. But there are serious problems on the secular side.

Replication is regarded as a characteristic feature of living cells, and in no known organism can it take place without the involvement of both nucleic acids and proteins. This interdependence between nucleic acids and proteins gives rise to what has been called the “chicken and egg” problem: in evolutionary terms, which of the two came first, or could they have evolved together? From the early days of the debate there has been disagreements: [Some scientists] believed the gene had primacy, whereas [others] considered the process to have been more interactive. Even today, the answer is by no means obvious.1

In 1996 biochemist Michael Behe published a blockbuster entitled Darwin’s Black Box. The crux of this fascinating book is that life—seen specifically in the single cell (i.e., Darwin’s “black box”)—is enormously intricate, having what Behe calls “irreducible complexity.” He discusses, for example, the biochemistry of vision and blood clotting—showing a sophisticated cascade of biochemical events—each dependent on the previous reaction. Behe uses an analogy of a mousetrap showing that all parts must be present and functioning in order to catch the mouse. Just so, all compounds must be in place and functioning in our cells so that we may see and that our blood will clot, not to mention a myriad of other functions [For more google “irreducible complexity and Dr. Michael Behe”].

As expected, the evolutionary community panned Behe’s book. But with all their vitriol Behe’s basic premise not only stands, but has been unintentionally “updated” by two evolutionists in a prestigious publication:

Domain shuffling aside, it remains a mystery how the un-directed process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well-optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts, such as ligands, receptors, and the downstream regulatory factors with which they interact. In these systems it is not clear how a new function for any protein might be selected for unless the other members of the complex are already present, creating a molecular version of the ancient evolutionary riddle of the chicken and the egg.2

Riddle indeed! This riddle of life can only be solved by the Creator of life.


1. Palmer, Controversy—Catastrophism & Evolution, Kluwer Academic, 1999, p. 266.
2. Thornton and DeSalle, Genomics meets phylogenetics, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 2000, p. 64.

Article courtesy of ICR, the Institute for Creation Research.  Visit it at

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s