Evolution

i dont no It was at the Galapagos Islands where he observed finches andd marine iguanas.

The fossil record is skewed in favour of marine or freshwater organisms because those are the most likely environments to preserve signs of lifeforms.

Even animals living on land are mostly found as fossils in water-lain sediments after they were swept into water. That is why fossils of humans are very rare, if we lived in the sea there would be many more to find.

Also, the chances of any animal or plant being fossilised is very, very rare, even in the sea.

Lamarck proposed a scientific explanation for evolution because organisms evovled through the inherititance of acquired charactaristics.

A typical leaf has a blade (broad, flattened portion) and a stalk called the petiole. Some are directly attached to the stem of the plant.

family

It simply highly suggests that all organisms going through this developmental phase have common ancestry, thus are related on the tree of life.

Biological molecules are considered evidence for evolution include

a. DNA

b. amino acids

c. porteins

d. all of the above

Answer: D. All of the above

A scientific theory, in order to be accepted by scientists must fits the facts as we know them, and be capable of predicting results not yet known. There should not be another, conflicting theory that better fits the known facts. The Theory of Evolution meets these requirements - it fits the facts as we know them, subsequent research results are consistent with the Theory of Evolution, and there is no other theory that better fits the facts known to science. The principal driver of evolution is known to be natural selection, but other, more specific drivers include sexual selection and so on. Just as natural selection results in the survival of the fittest, sexual selection results in attractive individuals being more likely to pass on their genes to the maximum number of offspring. Natural selection and sexual selection are both complementary and at odds. For example, if a male bird with an attractive, longer tail is less likely to escape its predators, then it may not have many offspring.

Evolutionists say that the purpose of life is to simply reproduce and reproduce. The theory tells us that we originated from a single bacteria to what we today know as homo sapiens. Yet bacteria are the BEST reproducing organisms in earth - it can reproduce MILLIONS in so little time. We humans reproduce after 9 months. In that way, evolution makes no sense. We should've remained as bacteria then, if reproduction really was the purpose.

The above answer is full of non sequiturs and illogical arguments. Example: The piece about reproduction is terrible confused. The coin evolution pays in is REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS, not just a greater mass of reproduction. Both bacteria and humans are reproductively successful, which shows that there are many strategies practiced by various organisms that lead to individual reproductive success.

The word evolution has grown to be rather over-used and sometimes even misused, and is commonly used to refer to non-biological systems when talking about them in a sense of their changes over a period of time. For example, while computer systems do not evolve in the way biological organisms do, they have changed drastically over the years through a series of smaller changes. Outwardly this system appears very similar to biological evolution, and so evolution phraseology is useful in this context.

Geologic evolution refers to a system of changes within a geological system. An example would be studying how a specific area has changed from ocean to mountains to desert over a period of time. Once again, geological systems do no progress in a "natural selection" sense such as true evolution, but they can change in drastic ways via a series of smaller changes over a very long period of time.

Organic evolution presumably refers to a system of changes within a biological range. This could refer to the evolution of species or traits within a species, or may even relate to pre-biogenesis evolution of basic amino-acid strands.

Yes.

Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.
It was just too difficult for people to understand. They didn't the background to understand that things just weren't that simple and things like this too a very long time. It would be like trying to understand just how the universe began and how long ago it was. And they really didn't like the idea that humans an apes are related. In the long run, all organisms are related but it took a long time to go from single celled organisms to walking, talking and thinking humans.

Where are you people getting these ill posed questions? What level? Transitional forms!

At the species level this would be explained as a rapid (geologically rapid) speciation event followed by years of stasis, where little morphological change is taking place.

Perhaps you are referring to "uniformitarianism".

Allopatric Speciation (geographic isolation) can lead to the formation of a new species because the population is split in two smaller populations by a physical barrier (river, canyon, mountain...).

Intermediate species forms, yes. A the taxa level, no. Still, not all taxa evidence is supportive of punctuation and stasis. Punctuated equilibrium is only one explanation of how evolution occurs in some species, not all species. The little shellies evidence gradualist processes very well.

It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. Some Evolutionary apologists, notably Richard Dawkins, have down played this aspect of Neo-Darwinistic theory.

yes

After being found in fossils, angiosperms were claimed to be 135 million years old

They didn't.

What you are speaking of is called social Darwinism and it should have been called social Spencerism because Herbert Spencer mistakenly applied the theory of evolution by natural selection to social theory and thus committed the naturalistic fallacy and Lamarckism at the same time.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is good and how this " superior " social class viewed hereditary was straight out of Lamarck.

Darwin wanted nothing to do with this mistaken notion.

Animals: Motile heterotrophs that are multicellular and widely dispersed over the earth.

Plants: Sessile autotrophs that are multicellular and dispersed widely over the earth.

Protists: Comprising both autotrophs and heterotrophs these, generally, single celled organisms are usually found in a watery environment.

Fungi: These decomposing, multicelled detritovores are only found on the land where they are reasonably well dispersed.

A mutation is a change in the genetic code of one allele of your genetic code. ( rarely does mutation affect both alleles ) Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious, but sometimes a mutation in the germ line can convey some slight advantage to progeny. An example of this is lactose tolerance in some peoples of the world.

According to the theory of Evolution by Darwin: Human evolution, or anthropogenesis, is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominans, great apes and placental mammals. It is the subject of a broad scientific inquiry that seeks to understand and describe how this change occurred. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, most notably physical anthropology, primatology, linguistics and genetics. The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 Ma in Africa. Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees-the only other living hominins-about 5-7 Ma. Several typological species of Homo, now extinct,evolved. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) that H. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. Scientists supporting the alternative hypothesis on the multiregional origin of modern humans (MTO) view modern humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population from existing Homo species, particularly H. erectus. The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate,while studies of human population genetics have largely supported a recent African Origin explanation.