Reptiles (I think)
Yes. Animals are composed of chemicals. Chemical evolution typically refers to stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of elements by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars, and the synthesis of elements heavier than iron via star bursts--supernova. Biochemical evolution would refer to the formation of more complex molecules, such as the spontaneous generation of amino acids from less complex molecular arrangements.
they produce more urine than saltwater fish..
An example of a place that fits this description would be the Amazon rainforest in South America. It is a vast area of dense forest that has not been extensively developed by humans and is home to a wide variety of plant and animal species.
If endosymbiosis did not occur, it is likely that eukaryotic cells would not have developed organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts. This would have hindered the evolution of complex multicellular organisms due to the lack of efficient energy production and synthesis of essential molecules. It is possible that life on Earth would have remained dominated by simpler prokaryotic organisms.
Evolution doesn't necessarily produce incomplete or half-developed organs because intermediate stages can still provide a survival advantage. Incomplete structures, like half an eye, could provide some function, such as detecting light, which could be advantageous in survival. Additionally, many transitional forms with different stages of organ complexity have been found in the fossil record.
Reptiles (I think)
It was thought Arbok would evolve into a Seviper but No, Arbok is the last evolution of the ekans evolutionary tree
He might not of if Malthus had not been around but he depended on the works of Lyell.
He believed in neither, he thought that a species would continue not in its own form, rather a form that experienced evolution
Many men developed the steam engine. It was a process of evolution, so that it would be difficult to pin down to two men. I would think that Newcomen, Watt, Boulton, Leupold, Smeaton and Trevithick all played parts in this.
Yes. Animals are composed of chemicals. Chemical evolution typically refers to stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of elements by nuclear fusion in the cores of stars, and the synthesis of elements heavier than iron via star bursts--supernova. Biochemical evolution would refer to the formation of more complex molecules, such as the spontaneous generation of amino acids from less complex molecular arrangements.
Lamarck believed that evolution occurred through the inheritance of acquired characteristics, meaning organisms could pass on traits they developed during their lifetime to their offspring. For example, he thought that if a giraffe stretched its neck to reach higher leaves, its offspring would inherit longer necks. This idea was incorrect because it does not account for genetic variation and natural selection, which are fundamental mechanisms of evolution as understood today. Modern genetics shows that traits are inherited through genes, not acquired characteristics.
It is against us. Evolution is a mindless process that depends on death and survival. It has resulted in a chaotic and cruel world, in which animal and human alike suffer unnecessarily. Had I the power, I would abolish evolution, and design life in more elegant and less cruel manners.
To discern "Double Speak" it would require the reader to have developed critical thinking skills .
if you are talking about what animal Andy thought that Bryan would be it was a Jackal-Penguin
they produce more urine than saltwater fish..
Because how would you be treated that way , thought so. Also animals are good to the enviorment . THEY ARE LIVING THINGS