What is the world record for longest finger nails
Lee Redmond has not cut her nails since 1979. Shehas grown and carefully manicured them to reach a total length of (28 ft 4.5 in) [ Source: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-world-record-for-longest-finger-nails ]
More Answers to "What is the world record for longest finger nails"
- What's the Guinness World Record for longest fingernails?
- http://askville.amazon.com/Guinness-World-Record-longest-fingernails/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=10777754
- "The Guinness World Record for longest fingernails is 7 m 51.3 cm (24 ft 7.8 in)." The picture was posted in the Guinness web page. The woman, her name is Lee Redmond was smiling and her hands were arranged in such a way that it d...
Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers
- ok i am going for the world record of long finger nails...?
- Q: but they are really annoying and hard to wright with. should i chop them off i have already grown they 8 inches
- A: Kick them out of the house!
- Guinness World Record Day - 9th Nov?
- Q: If you were to attempt to break a record for world record day what would you do?Also which is your favourite record or attempt that you can remember seeing. I've always been fascinated by the eejits who grow their finger nails so long that they can't even think about scratching an itch (clean version I hope you'll notice)pe l. Well done! World's biggest dufus goes to you I think.
- A: I was involved in one - most jack o lanterns in one place.
- Why do people continue to deny evolution?
- Q: It amazes me that some people believe evolution is a lie and here are some of the better arguments that have have been used and my responses to themAccording to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation. The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966 Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." No this process can be seen on base elements combined to form larger molecules and combined with more molecules to form chemical structures these chemical structures capable of reacting with one another join to form basic processes as one absorbed heat the other used such heat to fuel its own processes etc and because of such a large way chemicals can react and how many atoms collide to form molecules that then become chemical chains this is very likely to happen and continues to happen all the time and has been reproduced by scientists creating basic chemical “proto life” which is base chains of proteins and lipids the list goes on all of which can react with one another directly or indirectlyUnder normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favoured by natural selection. NO the mutations happen also to the parent throughout its life from what it eat to where it is affect it and change and affect the DNA and how the embryo develops allowing it to better suit the environment it is being born into because of the parent these changes do not have to be coursed through damage that proves to beneficial Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: Scales had to have mutated into hair, Breasts had to have evolved from nothing, externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen. these things are observable on a genetic level Breasts did not evolve from nothing they are mammary glands which are modified Exocrine glands which are present in reptiles and can be used for other secretions such as yoke have some reptiles have a few mammalian characteristics despite being reptile such as ear bones and scales are basically the same as finger nails and fingernails are basically hair and these evolutionary developments do not change species of a animal but the genus which is the family type at first this is seen in dogs all the same species deferent breeds There are many creatures that defy evolution. And illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive. Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example: The Fossil Record, Living "Fossils", The Cambrian Explosion, New T.Rex Discoveries, "Missing Links" NO the fossil records so evolutionary progression even in dinosaurs, these living fossils this supports evolution not against as one speices declines another fills the gaps if there i
- A: It's sad both how people misinterpret the meaning of scientific theory and refuse to look at the obvious evidence available. It's a human condition to see truths that you believe are true and ignore the other stuff. It is almost a pleasure for the brain to find evidence to support what you believe. However, when evidence comes along that goes against what you believe, it almost hurts the brain to accept these beliefs. You know how you get a "knot in your gut" when you witness something that you cannot explain? It is kind of like that. People just don't respond well to stuff that goes against what they believe. This is a common human condition and it is evident throughout history. It is exactly why people have a hard time accepting new theories.And theories are defined as commonly accepted scientific principles that are backed up by a bunch of evidence. This is what the theory of evolution is. Much better than the so called "Theory of Genesis" which has no evidence other than a single passage in the bible, which was written over 2000 years ago by people who had no concepts of modern human biology, embryology, or any other type of modern scientific subject that helps to explain evolution pretty clearly. Examples: Look at the heliocentric theory. It took centuries to finally catch on. And it only did when it was proven 100% true by Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus. Beforehand, the geocentric theory seemed more plausible because it made more sense to people that god would have put us at the center of the universe.Even though i pretty much know (to a degree of about 99.999999%) that evolution is a fact, it will take more evidence (or perhaps people to actually look at all the evidence present) and more time before the whole world jumps on the wagon. It will happen within our lifetime that the majority of the world accepts evolution.
Prev Question: How do you remove a tattoo
Next Question:
Next Question:
People also view