Who really came first?

Variation and socialization.

If it was a reply to my comment, refuting evolution is still viable, as it is widely believed, but still able to be questioned, so that will remain on my side, if you are speaking words of science, then one of the most fundamental foundations of creating science is to be open towards new possible explanations, it cannot be classified as the absolute 100% theory that everyone believes in. While the theory of evolution is widely believed, it is not of proper conduct to use it in this context of calling myself out on refuting evolution as it is in my right to do so as it is not 100% fact(yet), it would be pointless to address that.

As for your previous comment on the female being the base template, it is fair to say that you and I are pointing towards the same thing, which is that B requires A, and that without A, B cannot exist, it is just differing in that of what we're defining as basics, as in this case, the chicken or the egg, while you could say that the chicken came from the egg, the egg originally and still does, come from a chicken. We currently cannot say that the egg came first as that would be disputing evolution, accusing that the infant came first rather than the first basic organism.

I agree with the point that you are trying to present, as it isn't really much of an answer, but the start of a new topic(jeez, maybe we should just go off into starting a new one) You would have been able to detect hints of this particular view in, I'm sure, one of our comments with the basic templates, and then the variations, we're not denying that the human male has a Y chromosome, but the point that I am trying to present is that in this issue, it is logical to say that the female having two of the same gene, and males having both one of the gene and another, that both sexes share a common gene, which could then be defined as the basic as it is present in both genders. We might not exactly know how the X gene came into being in females, but it is known that the Y gene in males is slowly dying out, and if male were genetically stronger, it wouldn't fade, otherwise the X gene would be slowly dying out as well(which it isn't).

If anyone bothered to read in between the lines to my previous comment, basically what I'm saying is that the "egg" and the "chicken" came about simultaneously. Think about it; if the most oldest and earliest microorganism reproduced by asexual reproduction, why bother creating sexes in the first place? Genetic variety. (Now I'm following the evolutionary theory.) Earth went through many radical changes through each era, and more often than not, there were probably many species that were wiped out. But those that weren't had to find some way to cope with each environmental change, and asexual reproduction bascially cloned the same genetics over and over again - that was no good. Mutations came about, and I'm hypothesizing that to create even more diversity in order to survive the climate and its changes, organisms created the sexes "male/female" in order to create that diversity which was far more effective in producing different traits that enabled them to survive for better or worse. (Obviously those that had bad/unecessary traits died off by now.) This egg/chicken were mutations created from the genetic code, and the byproduct of that were two gender-type organisms formed out from the mutated organism. Ultimately, this is just an educated guess based on my knowledge of evolution and genetics. I mean, you didn't have all females organisms rampaging on the Earth and then the sudden advent of males, but most likely you had one organism that went through mutation and most likely changed into a hermaphrodite, which then separated again into the two sexes we know today.