Mokele

Well, most cells contain more than one mitochondrion, and all muscle cells have a lot of them simply because muscle cells are very large and form by the fusion of embryonic myoblasts (which is why they also have multiple nuclei). However, among muscles, endurance athletes will typically have a higher proportion of Type 1 fibers (slower and weaker, but greater endurance), supported by lots more mitochondria than a sprinter. Mostly - the lysosome is actually only there to destroy degraded/old proteins, and most proteins go elsewhere (all over the place, even out of the cell). Also, RNA forms in the nucleus, rather than moving there, and the movement (both of the RNA nucleotides and the complete strand) is due to diffusion. Basically, there are two sorts of proteins - those that are anchored in cell membranes, and those that aren't. Those that aren't are constructed at any of the ribosomes simply floating in the cytoplasm. However, to make a protein that's embedded in a cell membrane (in any form of embedding), you need to build it into the mebrane, which is what happens in the rough ER. The resulting protein + membrane buds off and is sent to the golgi apparatus (a sort of sorting center), before being sent to merge with another membrane, such as the cell membrane.

They're peripheral, and innervate the body wall (as opposed to the viscera), so yes.

Actually, biological armor can be remarkably effective against firearms - crocodiles are notorious for deflecting small-arms fire via their dorsal osteoderms (plates of bone under the large back scales). Remember, bone is a composite material with exceptional strength, resistance to fracture, and durability (not to mention healing). However, biological armor is also very heavy, limits flexibility, and does not seem to be "easy" to evolve in lineages without scales.

It's just an oddly formed rock.

Well, you could give them an infection, which would result in a temporary surge in white blood cells.

Um, plenty of things are impossible, scientifically speaking. It's also worth nothing that many things are impossible in biology simply because living things lack 'the right equipment' at some level. In the case of flight, the limited power of muscle and limited strength of bone make it difficult for organisms to achieve the extremes of performance found in machines such as jets.

You're correct - same muscles on the other side.

I don't know about 1%, but there is an awful lot of DNA that's not used to code proteins. As for "macroscopical data", I'm not sure what you mean.

Diastolic blood pressure (the second, smaller number) would influence the distention of veins, yes.

Do you have congestion or a runny nose? The mucus frequently winds up blocking up the Eustachian tube (a gill-slit remnant that connects your middle ear to your throat), preventing pressure equalization from occurring.

Welcome back!

It's mostly Aplysia, the 'sea hare', because of its simple nervous system and the fact that its ink reflex involves electrical synapses (rather than chemical ones). Technically, they're a type of gastropod. This is actually quite common. For instance, the famous poison dart frogs of South America (and their convergent cousins, the Madagascan mantellas) acquire their toxins from the ants and beetles they eat. Monarch butterflies are toxic due to the plants they eat as caterpillars. I can't find anything about the age of the particular group, but there is actually a general trend towards shell reduction within the Opisthobranchia. Speculating, I'd say that some species have lost it in order to fit into tight crevices, while others have lost it in order to increase mobility (many nudibranchs are active swimmers, something impossible with the massive shell of most snails). Not a clue, sorry. Even weirder is that they can ingest and process nematocysts without triggering them. Mokele

Some of it is likely due to blood volume in the veins, particularly when a given body part is below the level of the heart (causing blood to accumulate there). However, a major factor is just the level of sub-cutaneous fat. We all have veins under our skins, but often they're submerged in fat, so the bulge isn't noticable.

It's also worth noting that vaccines are not just used on humans - domestic dogs and cats are vaccinated for a wide variety of diseases, as are agricultural animals such as sheep and cows. These animals are all mammals, thus share pretty much all of their fundamental, cell-level biology with humans, but are kept in carefully controlled environments in very large numbers over many, many generations. If there *were* a problem with vaccines, we'd see it in animals too, and probably more easily due to the above list of factors.

It's unlikely - the blood-brain barrier generally keeps big things like large proteins out of the brain and CNS.

Well, actually, they'd tell by cutting up its brain (Alzheimers is associated with distinctive plaque structures in the brain). That's why rats are so useful - they progress through the diseases fast (due to short lifespan), can be reared in controlled identical environments, can be as close to genetically identical as possible, and, most importantly, can be killed in order to perform more invasive tests. None of these are possible with humans.

They genetically engineer rats to exhibit Alzheimer's, then try whatever treatment they like.

Glider's correct, it's undoubtedly Pipa pipa, part of the family Pipidae, a large group of purely aquatic frogs which also includes Xenopus laevis, a common experimental animal.

Not unless hybrids were naturally possible between those species.

Life is not a videogame - people don't just die instantly no matter where they're hit. The human body is amazingly resilient, especially if medical treatment is available.

What if, however, we do grant the supposition that firearms are a strong selective influence? Would small size still be better? Sure, it reduces your chance of being shot, but wouldn't large size mean better resistance to damage?

What's good in the future and for the whole isn't what drives evolution - evolution is driven by what's beneficial to the individual here and now.

Weapons don't factor in to the lives of most humans. Mate choice, however, figures into almost everyone's.

It could probably be done, but at potentially serious cost. Allowing cells to replicate so rapidly and to differentiate so easily would make cancer much more likely.

No. Plenty of organisms can heal amazingly well, but nowhere near that fast.