General Discussion

If you define "chicken" closely enough to be able to say, "This is a chicken, while these few genetic differences make this fowl a non-chicken," you're pushing the limits of sanity. But at the same time, you get to answer the question.

I'm not going to use the phrase "chicken egg" because in daily life it can mean "egg laid by a chicken" or "an egg that produces a chicken" (at least if fertilized). There's a 100% overlap between the two, so there's no need to distinguish. In this case, that distinction is crucial.

Genetic mutations happen in eggs, in sperm, and during the genetic recombination that is fertilization. Those changes can happen in a hypothetical not-quite-a-chicken so that the fertlized egg that results is a chicken. A non-chicken lays an egg that produces a chicken. Where there was no chicken there is an egg that will produce a chicken. No chicken can still lay an egg that will produce a chicken.

Once fertilized, that embryo's genetics are set. That egg, if its genetics say "chicken," will either fail to develop or will produce a chicken. If the genetics say "not quite a chicken," you get no chicken. No egg = no chicken.

The egg came first.

Of course, Tyson is far from the first to point this out. He's just the first person that some will notice pointing it out, and people assume that if they don't have information it doesn't exist. They didn't have information that somebody else came up with this argument, so that information can't exist.