AzurePhoenix

This is so insanely stupid I'm surprised I could muster up the will to respond. 1) a theory is NOT a hunch, guess, assumption or sketchy idea, is a well-supported and consistantly testable, confirmable model, built up from observed and tested phenomena in. Theories are made up of many definitive facts in addition to the slightly less definitive guesses, guesses that I might add are only inlcuded in the theory when there is plenty of evidence to support them. 2) mutations can be beneficial, they're just rarer than the other two. to say otherwise is simply a straight-out lie. 3) Please explain this to me, as it doesn't make any sense whatesoever. 4) the earth and sun ahve a good extra billions years tacked on in addition to the span needed for evolution. 5) carbon is largely accurate, and rest assured inconsistencies are taken into account by scientists. Carbon dating isn't even the only method for dating, and is almost always only used when taken in concert with other dating methods to get a more accurate idea. Besides potassium argon dating more effective for more distant time periods. 6) any refusal to accept a logical and supported explanation simply because it doesn't conform to whatever washed-out doctrine it is that you might believe only shows how completely ignorant and frail-minded you are. It's exactly like claiming Canada doesn't exist because you once read it scrawled on the back of a cardboard box by a schizophrenic hobo.

I'd say the change in brain size and structure is a gain, ability to regulate breathing, a shift in posture, gaining the tissues that allow speech, subcutaneous fat, sweat and tears, etc etc etc. We didn't even lose hair, it just got shorter. Just what exactly did we lose? --- edit --- I'm sorry, I assumed you must have been talking about humans specifically, but I just realized that you must have meant mutations observed in labs in general rather than the processes that happened to have definately shaped us.

My field is zoology (paleo too), and since Mokele is off being reprogrammed by a creationist terror faction, I'd say I'm as close to an expert as you're gonna see here. and there's that of course

right, because so many snakes eat dust (ignoring the fact that there are plenty of other belly crawlers who don't seem to have earned the "curse," a punishment that is a large part of what makes snakes so succesful I might add )

This Article has two good ones, one of the fossil and an illustration of what it might have looked like alive

I don't imagine hidlegs would be all that important as a snake would still have to use at least a bit of the modes of locomotion legless snakes use to get around. If anything they might get in the way more often than not, sort of like a random and not terribly useful attachment sticking out from a streamlined vehicle. They can climb, "crawl", swim, hunt and mate just as well without them.

As well adapted as the animals are, it's the plant adapations in swamps and marshes that are truly staggering.

Pfft, genetic tests show that Oli was all chimp, no matter how... atypical he was/is

I say, as long as you're secure in your reasons for it as well as considerate of the potential risks, you are open with your partner about your intentions and they are likewise honest with you and ar ethemselves prepared, then you've got nothing to worry about on the moral/ethics scale. However, this being a pagan holy-day of spring and fertility, I suggest you avoid the sheets unless you're looking forward to a bouncing blessed-baby

Glider, you're just putting frosting on the cake

It just gives me headaches. A cat in a blender is more musical.

That might depend on how big a parade we threw in Thor's honor

Well, the giant tortoise Testudo atlas seems to be a possible victim of humans, and i believe it was Asian in the Indian region. A race or two or three of Galapagos tortoises have been wiped out in that particular island chain, with one race represented today solely by Lonesome George, and I'm certain there are others, I just can't remember them.

I don't bleieve there would be anything to cause it to escape the pull. Whether or not the sun expanded enough to consume it entirely, nothing would happen to fling it from orbit so much as spiral it into the sun itself.

Not sure about the layer, but as for other characteristics, dicots typically have two embryonic cotyledons in the seed, while a monocot has one (this being the source of the terms monocot and dicot). There are more differences, but the ones I know all have to do with the plant itelf rather than the seeds.

They're amzing little things, relying on so many tricks to get to where they need to go to get the right type of yummy animal juice. Then when they put it altogether to get where they want and using that little swiss army-knife proboscis of theirs. Gotta love the litte malaria-bags.

Their eyesight is pretty underdevloped, but they are sensitive to light levels. As for the CO2 thing, it seems that they might track CO2 over distances and then hone in on particular scent cues specific to their desired "prey," so their smell seems to be pretty good. Don't have a clue about other senses though.

Oxygen... feed the fire baby!

I've known some shrubs with more personality than their human tenders, and if you ask me, "anyone" makes for less stringent criteria

For a reference to the largest organisms on the planet, whether fauna, flora or fungi, read This page. It also talks about groups within animalia, and addresses different "types" of largeness.

Well.... some trees.

Actually, many of the biggest discoveries have all been very recent, and it's likely that we've only scratched the surface. Then you have to consider that perhaps there was a true monster of a giant that simply never fossilized.

Well, Argentinosaurus weighed about two thirds what the average blue whale does, and there seem to be a new species or two that are marginally larger than it. The big question marks go to Amphicoelias and Bruhathkayosaurus. If accurate, the former would rival an average blue whale in wieght, and the latter mught even exceed the biggest blue whales in mass. However, evidence for either has either been lost or is scant and inconclusive. It's undeniable that blue whales don't eat giant squid, Kenshin's post was a simple misscommunication. He meant to refer to whales in general, and I pointed out the sperm whale specifically.

Actually, I should mention that a number of land animals are often larger than giant squid, even the largest squid being outmassed by elephants, rhinos, hippos, estuarine crocodiles, etc. Average sized squid may be lighter than brown and polar bears, cattle, big cats, etc. Eh, no big deal.