SUBJ1

In the vernacular, that is usually stated as, "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."

Assuming the egg lacks consciousness, it doesn't really care if it makes a chicken. The consciousness is the only thing that gives the egg a subjective purpose (even if there is no free will). (Of course, eggs have a purpose for humans, but in this case we are talking about human chickens.) It seems that you are applying a sort of teleological metaphor to evolutionary "functions".

Where do you get the idea that "way of making" implies consciousness or intent?

When you get past over-thinking, past using words to mire yourself in map/territory confusion, past the whole notion of "cause," be it teleological or effective, then you may get somewhere worthwhile.

Until then, I suspect you may be stuck with making up excuses and reasons you are right.

Well what does it mean? Eggs result in chickens, which result in eggs. We all know that already. I thought, we used to say it the other way around because the chicken seems more human than the egg. And humans do some things intentionally. It seemed you were trying to dispel a myth of free will. But I the more difficult myth that "we" are discussing here (perhaps only me and myself) is that of environment having no influence on a person's intentions, and also that the only essential function of genes is to replicate themselves.

• It means that it is very useful to question the basis of your thought. Examine your assumptions, and when you have found your answer, keep on examining, since it is just about certain that, whatever you may think, you have not found the answer.
• The simple words "way of making" carry a lot of closely related meanings, like a lot of other short common English words. Reading the works of Lakoff, Johnson, Rosch, and others, regarding cognitive linguistics and embodied cognition, will get you a deeper understanding of the particulars of how that works, how the various meanings hang together in a natural way, than I can pass along in a few lines.
• Chickens are animals, with likes, dislikes, and the ability to move around, even to fly for short distances. While I do not see them as anything close to human, they do have a few motivations that we might be able to relate to, and even make use of.
• Trying to split environment from heredity can take one along a path of disconnection from sensible reality. "Sensible" is another one of those words that most people think they understand. Fine, as long as you include things like "palpable," "tangible," "audible," and "visible" in the mix.
• Taking the view that a gene's only "aim" (or essential function) is to replicate itself as widely as possible can lead to some interesting hypotheses, some of them counter-intuitive.
• To be continued. I have more reading to do; give me, myself and Amazon a week or two...