At some point everyone has heard the question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg.".  What is surprising about this question is that it can still produce any debate.

It is surprisingly obvious yet one wonders what has contributed to its longevity and its countinued appearance in various arguments.

Why obvious?  Well, let's consider the premises.  Unless one is predisposed to believing that animals simply appear, then we must reject the premise that a chicken can exist as a fully formed adult without any previous existence.  As a result, the only element left to examine is the egg.  Yet, an egg doesn't spring into existence fully formed either.

I recently watched a program on the Science Channel entitled "Human Nature: Born to Kill".  In this episode, part of the objective was to explore humans killing other humans.  Of course, the usual array of topics were raised, from evolutionary psychology to genes [i.e. the "warrior gene"] and even the "nature vs nurture debate".

However, there were a few points that I felt were muddled and confused.

A recent article entitled "Monsanto v Monarch Butterflies" begins by examining the argument that GMO foods are impacting the population of Monarch butterflies.  There are enough references and quotes that indicate that this assertion isn't particularly viable and that it isn't likely that Bt toxin plays any role in the issues facing Monarchs.

So far so good.

I recently came across some articles, again, that were focusing on human adaptive behaviors regarding our concept of beauty and attractiveness.  All manner of considerations are mentioned from facial symmetry to female hip-to-waist ratios, etc.

However, I would argue that these are precisely the wrong questions to be asking.