Evolution

Aside from artificial selection humans are a large part of all other organisms environments. So, any barriers humans erect could bring about allopactric speciation, though I can not think of any specific examples there.

Also, human caused extinctions can cause adaptive radiation of a species into the niche of a species driven extinct by humans.

As part of the environment of other organisms humans can have great effects on speciation. Especially adaptive radiation. As we contribute heavily to the extinction of some species other species flow into those open niches and radiate outwards to possible speciation.

Lamarck Posited the concept of acquired characteristics being heritable and the organisms " need " to adapt physiological parts, such as giraffes " needing " longer necks. Needless to say both of these main concepts of Lamarck's were wrong.

Darwin posited the theory of evolution by natural selection that saw selected variations of organisms evolving over time by their progeny inheriting favorable characteristics. Darwin had the evidence that Lamarck did not and his theory, with modifications, is still the best explanation of evolution and the origin of species extant.

the beaks were different on every island

Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms. By sequencing genes one can see this happen. Also just observing the morphological and behavioral changes in populations over time can lead to evidence supporting evolution. Check Lenski and his E. coli experiments. Over 20 years evolution was observed in these microorganisms. Fairly easy Google.

Yes, I would use milliliters.

The most primitive form of human speech is believed to be nonverbal gestures, facial expressions, and vocalizations that conveyed basic emotions, needs, and intentions. These early forms of communication likely evolved into more complex languages over time.

Basically, he was rich! He had an income per year and did not have to do any work but the work he wanted to do, naturalism.

Darwin's explanation for the fact of evolution was better than Lamarck's explanation and fit the fact of evolution. Natural selection solved much of the species problem, but acquired characteristics did not have the empirical support and explained nothing in the end.

Yes

Lamarck led the way for and had ideas that helped Darwin. However, his observations regarding the mechanisms of evolution were, with the exception of one, totally backwards.

To summarize Lamarck, he hypothesized that organisms somehow had a choice in their traits and could change to fit the environment (he called these ideas his theories of need and his theory of use and disuse). The part he was correct on was that should an organism change, they would pass the traits on to their offspring.

Darwin said, basically, the opposite. Darwin observed that organisms were born with slight differences (variations) and those variations might give some members of a species an advantage in the struggle to survive in the environment. The reward for survival was that the organism got to reproduce and pass those traits on to their offspring. Of course, the offspring might show some variation and the whole process would continue to repeat.

However, the bottom line with Darwin (and contrary to Lamarck) was that an organism had no choice in its traits as an organism is born with or without the advantage. Darwin, without knowing its mechanisms, recognized that genetics played a part in evolution.

Darwin died not knowing of Mendel's work on genetics which, of course, substantiates Darwin's theory.

That species arose by mean of natural selection. The independently come up with a theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858.

Lamarck's father was Philippe Jacques de Monet de La Marck. His mother was Marie-Françoise de Fontaines de Chuignolles

I have never known it to be called anything but "The Devonian", but one might speculate it could be called "The First Flowering", as the Devonian was when there was the first massive increase in sea creatures, as well as the first heavy vegetation on the surface of earth. The Devonian ended with a mass extinction event that is still not understood. There is some discussion of the "Alamo Impact Event" being connected with it, but most scientists believe that was too small, and too far before the mass extinction (3.5 million years) to have been the cause.

Piplup evolves level 16 to prinplup!

Natural selection.

All reproductively isolated populations diverge genetically. Even in cases where convergent evolution occurs, this is only at the behavioural and morphological level. At the molecular and the genetic level, even these instances still diverge at the genetic level.

the major trends were loser hair styles and Prohibition people couldn't drink because alochocol was outlawed and they wore hip-pi clothes and they wore flappers

Polygenic?

Natural selection usually acts on the phenotype of polygenic traits as they are suites of genes acting in concert to form a trait. If you had a trait, such as height, in two variant brothers then the aggregate would need to be selected for as the genes working in concert, but not equally well, would render different heights in the brothers which would be then visible to natural selection.

Well scientists believe that we evolved from the Apes, think of the era of the cave men that might give you some idea of what i mean.

It's not. " Missing link " is an inaccurate concept that originated in 19th journalism in reference to human evolution and creationist latched on to it and have made it some kind of creationist mantra. The term has no meaning in biology as the correct term is ' transitional form ' and all extant organisms are transitional. It is supportive of evolutionary theory to find ancient morphological transitions. The whale is a food example of an ancient transitional form.

Not sure. The biochemicals produced to stimulate other plant growth is seen often in invasive species and corals. Crop plants and weeds seem to have this phenomenon going on. In coral you can understand why coral would want other species to form a foundation for them to rest on, but otherwise I do not think this is all that well understood.

The two reasons for vertebrates to evolve from oviparity ( Egg-laying) to viviparity (Giving live birth) are :-

1. To increase the number of successful births as in viviparity the offspring is protected by the mother whereas in oviparity eggs laid can easily be eaten by other animals. Hence viviparity is selected by natural selection and they evolved to viviparity.

2.In oviparity the youngs developed are mostly poor as no care is given by the mother. In viviparity the youngs get full care from the mother in terms off oxygen and nutrients so the youngs developed are more healthy in viviparity. So they were selected by natural selection and were evolved to viviparity.