The primary difference between Darwin's and Lamarck's approaches to evolution (if I remember correctly) was that Darwin believed that evolution operated primarily through breeding and death: members of a species that have unproductive characteristics tend to die early and have less opportunity to produce offspring, and so their characteristics are not passed on to future generations. Lamarck, by contrast, thought that environmental conditions could exert a direct (if slight) influence on the genome, so that parents would tend to produce offspring that were better suited to the environment they lived in. For example, Darwin would explain the thick fur and subcutaneous fat deposits of cold-climate animals by saying that members of the species with less fur and fat would die more easily and earlier in cold weather; Lamarck would explain the same result by saying that the cold climate induced the organisms to produce more fur and fat, and their offspring would be born with a greater capacity to produce those things than their parents. Lamarck's theory has not been disproved - scientists still do not have a clear understanding of the process of evolution - but for various non-scientific reasons it is less accepted in the scientific community (primarily, I think, because it opens the door to a teleological argument abut the nature of species that most scientists find distasteful). It is important to point out that Darwin's theory was that of Natural Selection and The Origin of Species, and he was not proposing any system separate from or one that discredited classical Creationist theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, however, coined the phrase Evolution.
Darwin accept that organism, including bacteria, are always changing.
They both attempted to explain the same phenomena by natural means. Both theories also used inheritence of parental characteristics to explain how species might evolve.
They both propose that organisms are not immutable, but changes over time. However the mechanisms of the two theories are very different.
Both a hypothesis and a theory offer an explanation of some observed phenomenon. The difference is that a hypothesis must have confirmation to become a theory.
classify
Darwin's theory of evolution went against the Bible and Freud's social science of psychology made people reject the idea that people could use their reason to build better lives.
Comparative anatomy is the investigation and comparison of the structures of different animals. Scientists use comparative anatomy to study the difference between species and how they are alike in other ways. ~ann :]
how are fifteen and flatter alike and different
Not at all alike. Evolution is an observed and observable fact. The theory that explains much about evolution is well supported by the evidence and has been repeatedly tested. It also has made many testable predictions. Flood myth? Whose flood myth? These myths are legion and many cultures have one. Not one of the myths has ever been supported by the evidence though.
Convergent evolution means that different species have evolved to do the same sort of thing. Those two animals show convergent evolution. Convergent evolution explains why they look so much alike.
Divergent evolution.
Convergent evolution.
Convergent evolution.
Phione does not have an evolution it is a rare. P.S. the closest thing to an evolution would be Manaphy, they look alike.
they both can be changed in time.
It's called convergent evolution.
Fossils If they look alike
cells are alike in structure and composition
Both a hypothesis and a theory offer an explanation of some observed phenomenon. The difference is that a hypothesis must have confirmation to become a theory.
That's what they say, but that theory has yet to be proven.