Mr. Azo.'s Comments
I think that the more appropriate answer to no. 14 would have been:
"A woodchuck could chuck no amount of wood since a woodchuck can't chuck wood."
There, plain and simple.
Whoever tells me where that comes from, and you get... well... international recognition.
"A woodchuck could chuck no amount of wood since a woodchuck can't chuck wood."
There, plain and simple.
Whoever tells me where that comes from, and you get... well... international recognition.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
In fact most evolutionary theories, including the modern evolutionary syntesis (which is WAY more accurate than Darwin's theory, and for good reason, its almost 80 years newer), agree that birds are in fact an evolutionary offspring of reptiles. Of course, the question really is, what could exactly be defined as chicken, since, unfortunately, evolution didn't have a dinosaur lay an egg which gave birth to a chicken. In light of this, the question is almost as easy as answering when does red stops being red and turns to orange.
If that's your cup of tea, then you'd better get studying the quantum theory. I'm sure that the answer lies there, somewhere. :P