SeriousBug

While I do not know much about hearts of these animals, you have a misunderstanding of evolution. Ape is not superior to equus in evolutionary terms, as both have succesfully survived in their own enviorments. Sleeping while standing up is not a strain to the heart, because as far as I know they have some sort of locking system in their leg bones that allow them to stay standing without having to use leg muscles.

Well, using echolocation you certainly wouldn't be able to learn the colors of objects. Other than that, I don't know much about how the echolocation is percieved within the brain. Argh, where is a good neuroscientist when you need them

Because it is not always useful. All animals have different ways of protecting themselves. For example some animals have good camouflage, some can run very fast etc. While having a poison protects the species on a long term by killing the predetors, it does not help an individual's survival. Also, if every animal had some sort of poison in them, we would have to evolve to resist the poison.

Perhaps it increases the chance of survival, since what it does is: 1- Making us push ourselves further to fight these, making us get stronger (other than challenging ourselves, there is not much challenge encountered in life, thanks to technology) 2- Making us more selfish, allowing us to do anything necessary for our survival.

Sorry, I meant the nonresistant ones going extinct(or falling to low numbers, less than the resistant ones) and the resistant ones surviving. I forgot the word for it, I'll edit my message if I do. Edit: I checked it, and I think succession would be the correct term.

The importrant thing is, the bacteria in the culture must reproduce to evolve. Meaning that, after you expose them to meticillin, lets say that one bacteria in the dish managed to produce meticillin resistance. I suppose you can call this one bacteria as "evolved", however to say that the bacteria in the petri dish has evolved, you would need to let it reproduce and take over the previous nonresistant type.

Thanks for all your replies. Looking at Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse, it says that with climate getting colder and drier, the tropical rainforests were devastated, and this caused the oxygen amounts to lower and carbondioxide to rise. Still, there doesn't seem to be anything told about the sizes of plants, and I'm guessing that only biomass changed, not individual sizes. We can't ignore the CO2. If you check this chart(on page 9), comparing those values with current ones shows that during Carboniferous Period the CO2 levels were 2 or 3 thousand times higher than current levels.

Well, I recently learned that higher levels of oxygen in the past resulted in animals that are much bigger than similiar ones living today. What this makes me think are the plants, how were they at pre-historic times? Were the trees smaller when the dinosaurs dominated the earth? Did the trees get bigger as the carbon dioxide levels rose? Or did it only result in a biomass increase rather than individual size?