Evolution is the changing of a species over generations. Survival of the fittest, or natural selection, is where individual organisms who are fitted to survive in their environment live, and those who aren't don't survive. Natural selection affects evolution by keeping some genes alive and losing some.
No. ' Survival of the fittest ' is an euphemism that was generated by Herbert Spencer for the process of natural selection. It is very inaccurate.
evolution is how we as humans(or animals) changed over a long period of time to be able to survive easily in our environment. 'survival of the fittest' is like that TV show lost. If you were a 4ft tall human with heavy fur and one leg you wouldn't be able to survive as easily as an average football player. there is a big difference.
hope i helped! :)
If your four foot tall human with one leg left children and your football player left none then the four footer would be reproductively successful and the football player would not be. This is why ' survival of the fittest ' is a inaccurate phrase. It is reproductive success that counts in evolution. Being healthy enough to reproduce may be important, but there are many roads to reproduction.
These two things are both theories that are pretty much the same thing.
No. Evolution explains how and why organisms change over time. It makes no difference to evolution how organisms are generated.
No, the Chloroplast is the same thing as the plastid.
'Macro-evolution' is not a process in itself. Rather, it is a perspective on the effects of evolution. 'Micro-evolution' is those effects seen from close-up; by 'zooming out' one sees those same results in a wider scope called 'macro-evolution'. All evolution is driven by genetic variation and natural selection.
Not quite, but almost the same thing.
According to evolutionary theory, natural selection is the principle that directs evolution.
The same thing that its supposed to evolve into.There is no evolution cheat in existance
This is equivocation between the word "stronger" in terms of "more adaptable to the environment" and "stronger" as in "has more physical force". A physically weaker lion may be able to endure a harsh drought more effectively than a physically stronger lion, so natural selection would select for the weaker lion because it will have children. Additionally, natural selection and evolution are the same thing. Evolution is the long-term change in populations driven by natural selection on individual organisms.
These two things are both theories that are pretty much the same thing.
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.
Survival of the fittest. Only the strongest/healthiest of a species survive and reproduce. This means that their genes are passed along to the next generation resulting in more animals with the same health/strength traits. Thus weaker animals slowly die out.
Micro-evolution is not only a part of macro-evolution, it is the same mechanism as macro-evolution. Macro-evolution includes speciation, as a result of continuing micro-evolution.
Evolution results in organisms that are best-suited to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Another way of saying the same thing is that ecological (environmental) pressures "choose," by Natural Selection, the direction of evolution.
Plant leaves that carry out photosynthesis absorb light energy for the same. By this, plant can synthesize the nutrient needed for its survial.
The same thing it says has happened for millions of years, and the same thing that will happen in millions of years to come. Organisms which can survive better will pass on their genes more often, until the species is suited to the environment.
Warrior has both the Evolution 2.0 and the Revolution 2.0. They are pretty much the same thing except for some small head designs. Personally I think they are both good. The Evolution is designed more for attack and midfielders. The Revolution is designed for defence and center-midfielders. I dont think its called the revolution 2.0, I think its called the evolution 2.0 even though on google images it shows the exact same thing. If you want go to LAX.com and look up the evolution 2.0, im getting one.
Amino acids are not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much of the mechanism for evolution. Alleles are different molecular forms of the same gene. This means different alleles could code for the manufacturing of different proteins, or proteins with different functions. Proteins are made of amino acids, which is as close as amino acids get to the theory of evolution. If it were some other molecule then the theory of evolution would still be explaining much the same thing.