Okay, i just don't understand how you can write a supposedly intellegent legitimate article about something as this, and then, when talking about the Squibbon, just say that they would "tend to evolve" and have legs. Are you kidding me? Things do not just "tend to evolve". You cannot just say that something evolves, and then leave no evidence to back it up. Evolution is only a theory; you cannot just assume that it is fact, when there is absolutely no proof for it other than minor speculations and "educated guesses". You need solid fact before you start throwing around such a term as evolve without any proof. Not to mention, how, in the history of this universe, is any soft bodied creature going to grow bones and extra appendages? Will it just slide around on the ground until part of its soft muscle hardens, and that creates a bones structure by random circumstance? No, the animal would die even before natural selection gave it the bones and appendages it needed. If it needed the arms and legs to get away from predators, and it supposedly takes thousands or millions of years to evolve that, what is it going to do until then? If the problem is that it is being eaten, what is it going to do for the thousands or millions of years it takes to grow legs, as a species? All it will do is become extinct. Otherwise, if it had the ability to survive while awaiting evolution for millions of years, then there is no point in the evolution in the first place, because it has succesfully survived, and in some way, the original problem was already solved to begin with. So where are the facts? Do not just say that it would tend to evolve. Technically, there is no such thing as something 'evolving' because all it is is a highly misconceived theory. 16:15, January 18, 2011 (UTC)Cody Stallings.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.