Well, be careful with that one, because I usually hear that one in the context of denigrating paraphyly, and paraphyly is a useful and valid method of taxonomic classification as long as there are also equivalent monophyletic words.

Come on, you have to understand that's not the whole point of the question. When you eat whole wheat bread, you taste and feel that it's not the same as white bread, and OP wants to know what the difference is; it's not health, okay, but what is it?

The benefit of processing the flour is that it tastes better to most people, and they're more likely to buy it.

Your point is that the label isn't regulated in the way it should be, and that's true, but it's not true that the whole wheat label is just nothing.

Whole wheat products are qualitatively way different than other products, and OP just wants to know what that difference is.

Well, two things:

1. Their colors only stand out compared to other reptiles and mammals. Amphibians and nearly every kind of invertebrate come in just as many spectacular colors. The better question is "why don't mammals have such a spectacular variety of colors compared to other animals?"

2. Their variety in shape doesn't really stand out amongst anyone; obviously invertebrates all have enormous variation, but even boring old mammals have everything from tiny/round mice to lanky/springy deer to weird long ferrets to giant stocky rhinos.

It's also worth noting that fish in particular may be so widely varied because they're miscategorized; there's a push among some biologists to split up "fish" into several differently groups because there's so much more variation among "fish" than among equivalent groups.

Mammals don't have as much color variety because our color comes almost exclusively from melanin, which can only do shades of tan/brown/black. Most other animals can synthesize more pigments than that.

But birds in particular do have some other tricks up their sleeves:

Some birds, famously the flamingo but also plenty others, can absorb pigments from their food that their body can't make by itself.

Most green and blue birds actually don't use specc pigments, but their feathers structurally create that color (which is why they're so iridescent).

I don't know if either of those apply to fish.

I assume each junction is opposite a single number, rather than another junction. I hope so, at least.

In the case of a plane crash, it's caused by human effort. A plane crash is much deadlier, so we regulate airplanes and pilots way more than we regulate cars and drivers and force it to be less common.

This isn't a universal law by any means, but most of the time it's true it will either be confirmation bias, normalcy bias, or a case of humans forcing it to be true because extremely common horrible things aren't good.

It's also caused by how you construct the question. Pairing plane crashes and car crashes together is completely arbitrary. I could pair watching a movie (a common experience that elicits a strong emotion) with watching the paint dry (something extremely boring that I never do). I could pair going on a run every day (which gets my heart and lungs pumping) with going on a plane ride (which is honestly pretty boring). But there's no real reason for me to do that, I'm just creating whatever picture I want.

How do we know that the shrimp doesn't do that? We can't observe their qualia obviously.

Not useless, just not universal either. Like the article suggests, there's enough selenium to use it in planes-- yknow, if it works out-- just not for cars, phones, everything else in the world that needs batteries.

Being poor is effectively criminal in most places. It wasn't literally illegal in Delaware.