This one has been around for a while, but it’s still funny.
Everyone knows Smarties® are the superior candy species.
Mike P, Steve LaBonne, and King Aardvark: You know what’s also less sweet than Smarties? Lemons. You should all go suck one.
I’m especially ashamed of you King Aardvark. You just lost your Canadian status. Turn in your toque and your ketchup chips to the nearest RCMP station, pronto.
Smarties aren’t nearly as good as M&Ms.
Hah! You’re just overloaded because the mighty US sugar companies put sugar into your so-called “bread”, and into the cornflakes, too.
Smarties are way better because they don’t contain useless peanuts. Who needs peanuts? (Not an allergic like me…)
But did you consider that the harder M&M’s may play a more active role in the gene pool? For instance, perhaps the optimum fitness per bag requires that the hard-to-soft M&M ratio remain within certain thresholds. Too high, and the consumer is unlikely to buy more M&M’s due to cracked and chipped teeth. Too soft, and the user may as well buy Skittles. So the hard M&M’s do piggyback on the fitness of their softer cousins, but they also serve as genetic repositories for hardness that keep the M&M population distinct from the Skittles population, thus allowing it to exploit a particular confectionary niche.
Where’s Pivar? I have an idea for a book he may be interested in….
The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!
I think the engineers are just trying to wind me up, again. Joe Felsenstein tackles…
New genetic disorders pop up all the time — each one represents a child who may…
This flower, over many generations, has warped the poor buff-tail sicklebilled hummingbird’s beak into that bizarre…
I’m suddenly seeing more to admire in the beautiful octopus.
In case you hadn’t heard yet, Science magazine is making a play to reach the supermarket…