anotherfilthyape

Anyone knows a gas that is denser/heavier than air at room temperature (at 20ºC, add or substract 5ºC) and which isn't lethal to humans? (preferibly it gotta be translucent, but even more important, it gotta be cheap and safe for people to walk through it as long as they keep their nose well above it in order ot breath real air or only sink their noses in it as much as they can hold their breath)?

Wikipedia claims that a horse's neck length is a third of the horse's body length but data on horse size rarely ever mentions horse body length... They mention body height only... Anyone knows the length? Ocrrectionn; Bravant heavy horse or Belgian heavy horse or bravant or belgian horse... Besides the Shire horse

When I search fo the body length of the Chaco golden knee, Brazilian Salmon Pink Bird-eating Tarantula and Goliath bird-eating spider all I find is the length of their lengths, their legspan... but no data on their body length... Could anyone help?

In the mus genus... which is largest? And how large? anyone knows? (size in cm or inches, not weight in grams or the like)

You weren't the author so why are you answering on his name? "useful theoretically implication" is not the same thing as "theoretically useful implications" just like "4 elevated to the power of 9" is not the same as "9 elevated to the power of 4" "what is the ultimate purpose of evolution" is not a philosophical question; Loaded questions are never philosophical questions and this is a loaded question... Learn what is philosophy before leaving yourself in ridicule... A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. This does not applies to what you criticized Zapatos for. Likewise "theoretical" refers to "predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect" which are never useful as they are just predictions that have not been used... However let's assume that your wording is valid, that "useful theoretical implications" does mean "a useful concept that could assist in the development of a theory"... How can there be any such concept if scientific theories must be based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed threough observation? Concepts are not observations, they are abstract fantasy... Remember that the map is not the territory and when you draw the map before going to the territory what you are actually doing is putting the carriage before the horse, that is what astrophysicists and theoreticaly physicists have been doing in the last century resulting in the creation of quantum mysticism and the Schrödinger cat fallacy or the "time was created at the big bang fallacy" (I am not saying the big bang didn't happen, I am just saying that saying that the big bang created time is imposing physics on metaphysics). this brings me to your next statement A "meaningless philosophical question" is a question that cannot be answered by science, yet people attempt to answer anyway. It's a question where even if someone had the right answer, they could never know for sure. It's a question that's pointless to attempt to answer. The demarcation problem is a question that cannot be answered by science yet it is the foundation for science, you cannot accept science without having an answer for the demarcation problem... There are other such problems... Are they meaningless philosophical questions? On the other hand "what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?" is a scientific question as it could be falsified if a method of falsification for it were deviced.

The afore-mentioned definition does not specifies which are the wavelength intervals at which colour vision peaks for these anomalous trichomat humans... Elsewhere wikipedia says but does not specifies any better... Could you specify the peaking (in wavelength) for these anomalous trichomats?

What is the etymology of the subspecific epithet "cassiquiarensis"? What is the differences between the Saimiri boliviensis boliviensis and Saimiri boliviensis peruviensis? Besides the names Bolivian squirrel monkey and Peruvian squirrel monkey do they get any unique subspecific names? Maybe something realted to titi?

I cannot find the common name of the Peruvian night monkey (or Andean night monkey) or the etymology of its species epithet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_night_monkey

Haven't you heard that the moth is attracted to the candle flame? I guessed those ants where moth-like then

Yes I think that would work... What I wanted with this term is describe a fictional character who can transform a subhistic level, but not at a subcellular level, into a limited set of inorganic substances and in this form transform into organic form again but for an instant when going from inorganic to organic she would be a mass of totipotent cells... So I had to make it clear that thereafter she would no longer had permanent shapeshifting power... I write science fantasy (to put it simply) and I like to stick to science as much as I can (if I am gonna take an unscientific route I want to know I am doing so)

I guess then I could call them "differentiated cells"? Thanks for that but I saw it in wikipedia too and it claims unipotent cells are just hypothetical and that they are kinda like decayed multipotent cells, they still qualify as stem cells... I guess "differentiated cells" would be the proper term then... Since you agree on the fact that this involves "terminal differentation" or, in less words "differentiation"...

Elf you are funny with such nonsensical constructs like "useful theoretical implications" or "meaningless philosophical questions"... "Useful theoretical implication" is meaningless... Theory is useless if it does not applies to reality... On the other hand there is no such thing as a philosophical question that is trully philosophical and yet meaningless...

I understand that stem cells have different degrees of cell potency... But I do not understand this; What is the name for an animal cell without any potency? I mean... What is the name for an animal cell that isnt a stem cell? There must be a name for that... I mean... they behave differently, they do not transform into new cells, they just continue as the cells they are and maybe split into more cells like the ones they are but their structure does not changes... So... Any answers please? Wikipedia doesn'ts gives all the answers!

Never knew of google scholar, thanks for that...

I never meant "new eagle species" maybe I should not use the word "found" I meant... Anyone knows of an eagle species that is endemic or indigenous or xenobiotic