How did religious belief help early humans find mates and reproduce? How did ritualistic belief in a supernatural power help cave-dwelling primates pass along their genes? It would seem that, if anything, such "illusory" beliefs would be a hindrance. How come no other other mental "illusion" seems to help species propagation?

The human brain is hardwired to see patterns everywhere. Before anyone had an explanation for anything, the fact that putting manure near crops would make them grow better would be ascribed to some supernatural agency. Putting "magic herbs" on a wound might make it heal better. The more humans saw patterns and were able to apply them to their lives, the better they were able to survive, and therefore reproduce.

Seeing patterns everywhere has a lot of unintended consequences. Supersitions and religion are among those. These definitely are not enough a hindrance for natural selection to work against pattern-seekers.

Peter couldn't fly for any number of reasons, but let's just say he was too busy holding off the big boom to concentrate enough to fly.

As for why DL didn't phase out the bullet, well, damn, the whole point was that he was trying to protect *his wife*. It wouldn't have done much good to jump in front of Nikki and let the bullet ass through, hitting Nikki! After the fact he might have been able to phase out the bullet, but he still has the effects of getting hit by the bullet...

Heroes does have plot problems, and I was the first one to groan when Mohinder left the defenseless Sylar alive in his apartment, but I thought the finale was reasonably logical.

It's not the Greatest Show Ever, but I'll take what I can get, Sci-Fi wise.

As for Peter surviving the explosion, Ted didn't seem to suffer any ill effects when he nuked the Bennets' house, so I imagine the power includes suviving giving off massive amounts of radation and causing an explosing. Of course, then Pete would fall out of the sky, but his regeneration can handle that, as long as his brain doesn't get skewered in the landing.

We've already established that Peter can call upon the powers of those he's already been exposed to at will, the first of which was his brother, Nathan. So, then, why did the Flying Senator need to swoop in and sacrifice himself? That makes no sense!!!!!!

Just like the time Invisible Claude pushed Pete off the building and he flew away and saved himself? Oh, that's right, he took a header into a Taxi. Peter's control is far from perfect, and it's unreasonble to expect he could whip out flight when he's trying to keep from exploding.

Does Sylar have a power I missed where when he falls down no one can see him?

There is a character who can turn invisible. Perhaps Claude wanted to recover Sylar's body for some reason.

It's about the only thing that makes sense, but I agree that Sylar's possible survival is annoying.

Having children is always selfish, so that's not the issue. We like to think that prospective parents at least have some thought as to what's best for their children rather than what feels good for them, however.

For the record, I'm also opposed to 80yo men fathering children.

She totally looks like Lily Tomlin.

I didn't mind Rebecca's editorializing, perhaps because I agreed with her on most points. It's refreshing to see someone who's passionate about the subject matter and not afraid to tip their hands, so to speak.

In my experience, the deep dark untold problem of polyamory is that it makes people BORING AS HELL because once they're polyamorous that's all they talk about.

The same can be said for most subcultures, and many hobbies.

It's no fun until the Young Earth Creationists show up!

I'm amused by the disdain for "canon" from the fanfic fan. After all, if Rowling hadn't come up with the Potterverse in the first place, the fanfic writers wouldn't have had this great source material to work with!

For example, she's probably not going to write Harry and Draco as a couple, nor is she going to write Dumbledore as (at the very least) an enabler of child abuse.

She's not going to do those things because they don't make sense for the characters as she wrote them. I'm not sure why a homosexual relationship would make for a better story, and they seem to come up unusually often in fanfic, but whatever.

The series certainly started off as a children's book, but it's definitely matured as the story progressed. We've had torture, murder, madness, the works! Perhaps it does lack brutality of a sexual nature, but again, I don't see that as a weakness of the work.

Is it improving on Rowling's work or is it appropriating something from another context to make people feel good about their gender/orientation/ethnicity/etc.?

What bothers me is that some fanfic writers seem to claim this deeper, hidden knowledge of the text itself, instead of admitting they're just writing what they want to write.

I could write something about Hermione and Cho getting down, but I'd be honest and say it's because I like the idea of Hermione and Cho getting down, not because it's more true to their characters or it's a more interesting possibility.

As far as saying that Dumbledore enabled child abuse, that's a tautology. Of *course* he did! However, it was in the service of a greater good. For reasons that have not yet been explained, Harry was required to stay with the Dursleys each summer in order to protect him from some much worse fate. Someone had to make the call whether or not it was better for Harry to be maltreated or killed, and Dumbledore did it. That's a lot more interesting, and real, to me than to say he gets he's jollies seeing Harry abused.