Want this question answered?
homologous structures
The last universal common ancestor (or LUCA) for all known life would have been some single celled organism similar to prokaryotes. It might have been an RNA or DNA based organism, but it would have used more or less the same genetic code as all modern organisms (with a few minor variations) today. It will probably have lacked a true cellular nucleus, and many of the organelles that modern organisms have, but it would still have used ATP as a key factor in its metabolism. Note that, like with all Most Recent Common Ancestors for any group, it is not necessary that a single species of organism is the sole ancestor for all modern life. It may well be possible that different species contributed to modern life (see also: multiple origins hypotheses). There will be one single ancestor common to any specific set of traits in all the diverging lineages, but, depending on the set of traits examined, they may lead to different origins. Compare, for instance, to mt-DNA Eve and Y-chromosome Adam: there is one most recent common ancestor for all surviving variations of mitochondrial DNA via matrilineal descent, but there is a different ancestor, living in a different era, for all variant Y-chromosomes surviving through patrilinial descent. It is, however, likely that there was, at some time, indeed one single species or closely linked collection of species of organisms from which all modern life descends. Also note that LUCA concerns only the most recent of such ancestral organisms: it itself would have had ancestors, and shared ancestors with other lineages existing at the time.
It is a Vestigial Structure - a body structure in a present day organism that no longer serves its original purpose, but was probably useful to an ancestor.
It must be homologous to some feature in an ancestor.
A producer (e.g. a plant) is an organism with chloroplasts. An organism with chloroplasts is a photosynthetic organism. Plants and algea have chloroplasts while some protists also have them.
DNA can be used to match two species and determine if they are related or share a common ancestor. In addition, the existence of DNA itself is proof for evolution on a large scale - virtually all organisms share the same nucleic acid as the genetic code, leading scientists to the conclusion that all species shared a common ancestor at one time.
A group of species that consists of a common ancestor and some but not all of its descendants.
homologous structures
descended from a common ancestor
To evolve from common ancestors is the way of evolutionary processes. Not so much in a linear fashion as in a " bushy " fashion. All organisms are evolving at all times and every organism is transitional. A common ancestor of lobe finned fishes gave rise to the amphibians and the lobe finned fishes we see today. One did not proceed in a linear fashion from the other, but both arose from a common ancestor.
Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather both humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. A division happened with this common ancestor....some went on to become chimpanzees and some went on to become modern humans. There are common ancestors to both humans and chimps, but they are long extinct.
Seahorses evolved their upright posture some 35 million years ago. The pygmie pipefish is a common ancestor to the seahorse.
You will have noticed that the great apes are similar in some ways to monkeys, but also similar in some ways to humans. That is because we are more closely related to the apes than we are to monkeys. Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived around seven million years ago. This common ancestor was, in turn descended from an even more remote ancestor of all the apes. And, going back even further, there was indeed an ancestor common to both monkeys and apes.So the evolutionary gap is explained by the remoteness in time of our common ancestor. The process of evolution simply took us in quite different directions.
The process by which different species can be descended from a common ancestor. The idea is that as genes are passed from an organism to its children to its children's children, accidental modifications to the genes (errors in copying) can accumulate to such an extent that after many thousands of generations some of the descendants no longer resemble their ancestor of thousands of generations before. As Taken from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938439522.Ev.r.html
Most families would use the first name. There is no real relationship with them as there is no common ancestor. But some families might refer to them as cousins or even nephews, though they aren't.
NO please read the bible ======================== No. The closest primates to humans are chimpanzees. We all (humans, chimpanzes, gorillas, and other primates) evolved, over millions of years, from some common ancestor, but anthropologists have not yet identified that common ancestor.
Maybe. They are only related if they share a common ancestor. There are lots of possibilities and some of them will be related and some will not.