AzurePhoenix

Any animal that can display behavior as complex as twisting open the lid of a jar' date=' showing clear curiosity in unusual sights, plus have the brain power to control it's skin color and texture with that level of dexterity is pretty darn clever ([i']granted the color-change is likely innately instinctual[/i]). The mimic octopus can imitate the shapes and movements of a range of other creatures to discourage predators, they can traverse mazes with ease, in addition to other complex behaviors. They've got highly developed brains and nervous systems, and I don't believe there's any real doubt about their smarts. Hell, teach it math and it's us with extra limbs and a handy ink-sac.

In warmer, sunnier climates, it benefits to have lots of melanin to block out excess UV rays that cause skin cancers. On the other hand, dark skin can cause a problem in northern latitudes where sun-light isn't as strong or prevalent, because the heavy pigments block out enough sun to cause a vitmain D defficiency and cause rickets. However, hair seems to be a less specific trait. Basically everyone in afirca, the middle east and asia, and the americas had/have dark hair, while the paler europeans and the dark skinned australian aboriginees have/had a greater range of hair colors.

Oprah... I hate her because she's just the paris hilton of the more classy world of mindnumbing boredom. Why is she famous? Because she's famous of course. Or maybe it's for her magical ability to drastically shift in mass several times in the span it takes michael jackson's face to change once. Oprah, Martha Stewart, others like them; it's clear that they're all part of a conspiracy to turn the housewives of America into something unlike anything we've ever seen before, hybrids of good baking, dull literary preferences and the illusion of elegance shining through a blubber-padded exostructure.

1. Bettina maybe it's been a while, but I remember her being exceedingly sweet 2. IMM so many people in so many categories, but Memsy is always golden 3. Couldn't judge this if I tried 4. IMM never at a loss for words 5. I like too many peoples 6. can't say three outa six.... I feel so unfulfilled. Maybe if I could see their dueling techniques in a life or death battle match I could come up with more definate choices. Combatants, choose your weapons; we've got whisks, bug-zappers, hooked fishing rods and a Bible soaked in napalm.

That's one of the "speculations" I was hoping to find out by posting this thread, I still haven't been able to find any quality scientific articles or serious theories (besides the UK "big squid" proposal) Bah, nothing refutes the Bloop claims, but it's like no one seems to care enough to mention it at all.

Indeed, and that's only one of a range of the waterbear's gifts - they tolerate intense heat and radiation, high pressure and low pressure as well. One was dormant for over a century and almost revived. Died partway through though. Through and through these little guys take the cake when it comes to the potential for survivability under adverse conditions.

"Peewee Hermin was such a terrific rolemodel" "Those Twin Towers were blocking the view anyway." "I'm sorry, I'm so incredibly sorry" From Me even when I am "I'd prefer if you just left your toenail clippings wherever they happened to land."

And here I was fearing that'd I was the only one with a primary interest in the animal sciences beyond the same old evolution debates! The Scaly Sage has not forsaken us! All is well once more! Gah! I have to prepare! Would mokele prefer platters of pinkie mice, waterdogs, nice fat nightcrawlers or goldfish for his welcome-back buffet? Ah hell, I'll get um all.

Well, as an active animal of higher complexity, Ice Worms actually live in ice and can survive below zero degrees celsius, and they actually melt at much higher temps. Water bears on the other hand can go into a variation of hibernation that lets them surivive temepratures lower than negative 250 degrees celsius for a while. Real tenacious little buggers. Snakehead fish can survive being frozen as well, as can a variety of frog, but at nowhere near the temps a water bear can.

Unfortunately the python reported to be 48 feet was a hoax. I was psyched about it, but when researchers went over to check out the claims they found it wasn't even thirty feet long, though it was particularly girthy for its size. I guess the main thing is that I can't picture any snake adapting itself to such bitterly unsurvivable depths, including the breathing mechanisms and the fact that it seems to use vocal communication. At least it wouldn't have to come to land to breed considering many snakes give livebirth. I guess my biggest issue with the idea is that there simply isn't anything to support the idea besides one of the many offshoots of sea monster sightings. Hell knows you could be right, but I'm of the mind that the fewest and simplest steps will lead to the most likely answer. Giant mammals are already prevalent, giant marine reptiles once were, fish used to get enormous and we know invertebrates get quite large in the deep. And from there we could narrow it down enough to exclude the first two based on what we do know. It doesn't eliminate any possibilities of course.

Wow, in my sarcasm I didn't expect something quite so convoluted.

where'd they get the humans to hybridize with if earth was just a game?

Aren't there supposed to be procedures to follow regarding cases of mistaken idenity or misplaced records? It's clearly an oversight, so there must be someone you can approach to look into it.

Under normal circumstance I would suggest kidnapping the bank manager, threatening him, then shooting him in the chest several times with a very realistic red-paint paintball gun. As it is, you might prefer something less... prosecutable.

Well' date=' mice or shrew-like critters, but neither directly. I think it's more an insult for the pigs to say we're related to them Natural selection is an observable phenomenon, so it's a raw fact. It's many aspects of evolution as a whole, some facts and others hypothesis, that combine to make the "theory". While it is true we can't say that our evolution from fish is observably confirmed fact, we certainly have enough to at least know it's true whether or not we have the "legal requirements" so to speak.

That'd be a very hard thing to say considering the rarity of dinosaur fossils and how few of the species we actually have. Tyrannosaurus rex supposedly survived for a known 3 million, and I don't believe that that was unsual. Indeed it goes extinct in the traditional sense, but for many I wouldn't say it necessarily "dies out" especially regarding isolated species with small populations. I know what you're saying and you're not wrong, it's just that I see a minor variation that I think warrents a different term. It's a slight matter of semantics, gah, I can't word it right

I really can't imagine this being a possibility for a number of reasons, mostly that the largest known snakes are just over 30 feet long, while sea-snakes aren't very large at all. For something to evolve to be more massive than a whale... I've considered whether or not some giant marine reptile or mammal could evolve to take oxygen directly from the water, otherwise I don't see how something so allegedly huge could not be seen surfacing to breath. The breathing thing would be unprecedented, so I have to wonder if its a fish or invertebrate. Bah, I have sinking feeling we'll never know, if it even exists in the first place.

Not really true, just consider that the human Homo Erectus itself lasted more than 1.5 million years, and plenty of species are scarcely different from their most ancient ancestors from before the time of the dinosaurs. Also keep in mind that while many do go extinct in the traditional sense, many other species don't die out so much as evolve into something else. I do agree that we may not be prone to the same circumstances that other species are vulnerable to; the old rules don't seem to apply to us.

For a long time now I've heard stories about a peculiar sound emanating from a mysterious deep-water source that marine scientists confidantly believe to be produced by a very large organism that they're calling "Bloop". Apparently some years back a series of sounds of very low frequency of a strength that suggests a creature much larger than a whale were recorded by submarines at a certain depth where sounds carry particularly far. I haven't been able to find anything but laymen articles, recordings of the sound, and a short reference in a documentary about whales, (nothing that I'd consider official), but what I've heard doesn't sound like some Big-Foot or Nessie Report. Some UK scientists supposedly think it might be an enormous squid, while others claim squid likely wouldn't be large enough or have the anatomy to produce the sound, but I haven't heard anything outright denying the idea of a creature in general (unlike stories regarding most cryptids) Has anyone else heard anything about this or have any idea about the validity of the story?

The guy's taking a little bit of real theoretical science, and is using it to make up a completely random and utterly unsupported idea simply based on what he wants.

"open a few windows to let in light and air, but leave the front door wide open and all your stuff will be stolen" open mindedness is the same concept. It's okay to let a little imagination filter through the windows, but evidence is the key to the front door, but be sure to close it up before just any hobo walks in

I wonder if the same reasoning can be applied to Satan

Who'da thunk it, a science that actually disturbs me...

We're very resourceful. If anything can survive an ecological breakdown, we're ranked among them. Will society collpase? Perhaps, but I see that as beneficial to us as a species; get us out there, back under the influence of real nature, albeit with a more precarious perch in the world.