>

So we are in agreement, the egg is not a chicken egg, but gives rise to a chicken.
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

These are my summed-up thoughts that I couldn’t sum up because of my English. Thanks >

I've never in my life heard someone specify when asking this question chicken egg or chicken so given the actual question being asked the egg came first. No egg no chicken therefore egg came first >

If a non-chicken (the immediate ancestor to chickens) lays an egg, it’s not a chicken egg though. Or at least, certainly not before we know whether or not a chicken came out of that egg. Put differently, there were certainly eggs on earth before chickens—dinosaurs were lying them—but the question is about whether a chicken egg existed before chickens.
Like if a chicken laid an egg, and then eventually that egg gave birth to a snake, we would be calling the egg a chicken egg until after the snake came out of it. >

It doesn't have to be a chicken egg, just an egg, from which the first chicken emerges. >

I'm with you OP idk why these people are adding things to the question that aren't there. >

A chicken would be a mutated version of the direct ancestor. So the ancestor laud an egg of its own kind and the embryo that developed was developed "improperly" resulting in the chicken. 
I vote the chicken came first >

The egg that the first chicken came from was created by a non-chicken. >

Which makes the egg not a chicken egg. I rest my case