Their beaks have evolved over time to be best suited to their function.For example, the finches who eat grubs have a thin extended beak to poke into holes in the ground and extract the grubs. Finches who eat buds and fruit would be less successful at doing this, while their claw like beaks can grind down their food and thus give them a selective advantage in circumstances where buds are the only real food source for finches.
Galapagos finches are the famous example from Darwin's voyage. Some of the finches had beaks adapted for eating large seeds, others for small seeds, some had parrot-like beaks for feeding on buds and fruits, and some had slender beaks for feeding on small insects One used a thorn to probe for insect larvae in wood, like some woodpeckers do. (Six were ground-dwellers, and eight were tree finches.) To Darwin, it appeared that each was slightly modified from an original colonist, probably the finch on the mainland of South America, some 600 miles to the east. It is probable that adaptive radiation led to the formation of so many species because other birds were few or absent, leaving empty niches to fill; and because the numerous islands of the Galapagos provided ample opportunity for geographic isolation. References University of Michigan (2005). Evolution and Natural Selection. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
Finches, through their beak variations alone, provide strong anatomical evidences for evolution and the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Finches, through their Immigration to the Galapagos Islands and the adaptive radiation done there, show the biogeographical evidences for evolution and the theory that explains it.
Short answer: yes. Everything we observe about the shape, behaviour and genetics of organisms in all shapes and sizes can and does provide evidence for evolution.
In themselves, they do not.
They don't. Homologous structures provide evidence for evolution not analogous structures.
That which does not provide evidence for evolution is not necessarily something that tends to disprove evolution. So it is hard to narrow down to something relevant but does not provide evidence for evolution. As for something that actually tends to disprove evolution, this is equally hard but for different reasons - the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there is very little that can provide any form of contrary evidence.
The study of: (i) Cladistics: regional biodiversity, race circles, and geographical isolation; (ii) Genetics: DNA, chromosomes, viral insertions, common mutations; and (iii) Paleontology: fossils. These are some of the types of evidence for evolution.
the beaks were different on every island
that question is on the hw assignment I got today. I didn't really learn it or I wasn't paying attention and there's nothing online...
Short answer: yes. Everything we observe about the shape, behaviour and genetics of organisms in all shapes and sizes can and does provide evidence for evolution.
swag bissh
In themselves, they do not.
Paleontological and archeological evidence about hominid evolution.
Fossils provide amazing evidence for the theory of evolution and the long history of life on Earth.
to provide evidence that supports conclusions.
Camouflage in itself doesn't provide evidence for evolution. However, seen in a large number of species living under varying circumstances, the range of types of camouflage and how they match their environments gives a big clue as to how evolution works.
Establishes relative position of sedimentary rock.
how does the fossil record provide evidence for evolution?!
They don't. Homologous structures provide evidence for evolution not analogous structures.