Evolution

Macro-evolution. Or, more accurately, speciation.

Yes, the ratios of genotypes for a specific trait can change if allele frequency changes.

Because having an idea is good, and having it work is better, but knowing the possible problems with it and outlining how it could be tested (and therefore falsified, or - but more importantly - validated) is how science must work.

Although it is established fact that humans share a common ancestor with the other Great Apes, and together with them share an ancestor with all the other apes, primates and mammals, and so on, it is also accepted fact that the details of any hypothetical phylogenetic tree will remain fluid as long as new data is being made available.

In other words, the details of hypotheses over the exact line of our descent, and those of our sibling ape species, will continue to change as we learn more.

It can be taken as a given, however, that among our ancestors were species like - or at least very similar to - Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

There's actually no good answer to this question, because we don't know whether it was very fast or not. We are the only species to have evolved speech, so we really can't compare to see whether we were fast or slow.

As it is, we'd expect cultural evolution to be many times faster than biological evolution, because it doesn't follow the same rules. Biological evolution is limited to vertical gene transfer; culture can spread its memes - ideas, habits, language patterns, etc, far and wide without having to wait for a new generation to emerge.

The definition of population is how many people are in a specific area. You can find population numbers for the entire world, specific countries, and single states.

I'm assuming that you mean to ask when it becomes clear that a particular population has evolved, right?

The answer to that depends on the level of detail at which you observe the population in question. If you're observing on the genetic level, then a single generation worth of observations would suffice to show that evolution has occurred. If you're limited to the level of morphology and behaviour, then more generations might be required for the changes to become visible. Each of these findings would be equally certain.

However, if you are looking to point out an example of evolution to a layman, then an instance of speciation would probably be the clearest, specifically an instance of speciation that has led to a near complete decline in interbreeding frequencies and is also associated with a divergence in behavioural and morphological features.

Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms is a fact and is only controversial among a vanishingly few ideologues and practically no scientists. The theory of evolution by natural selection is supported by over 95% of all scientists and is not controversial among the scientific community because it has been observed and tested for 150 years. There are some religious ideologues who can not accept the evidences that refute their creation story, so they make evolutionary theory only controversial politically.

Yes, a theory should be supported by evidence in order to be considered valid and credible. Evidence helps to substantiate the claims and predictions made by a theory, allowing for testing, verification, and refinement of the theory as needed.

Yes, mating within a population is random. However, it is possible for non random mating to occur within a population.

These two processes sserve up the variation in individual organisms that natural selection selects from against the immediate environment. So, the individuals selected, on the basis of greater survivability and reproductive success, over their conspecifics are the individuals that pass on these traits tp progeny and when evough of these traits become represented in the populations gene pool allele frequency shifts and evolution occurs.

They have kept the traits that they need in their environment and that same environment has caused them to lose the others. They fit the niche perfectly without any excess traits. Thus saving energy and reproducing more efficiently.

The term natural selection was given by sir.Charles Darwin.....according to it nature selects the organism to sustain in the following environment..variation in genes also plays a vital role in natural selection as well as in evolution...

VARIATION->NATURAL SELECTION->EVOLUTION

for ego's herbivorous animals had short neck and some with long neck (due to Variation ) the grass fields vanished due to over grazing by herbivorous animals but leaves on trees remained..Then every herbivorous animal tried to eat the leaves but they failed and died because they couldn't reach the leaves as it was in greater heights but the animals with longer neck ate the leaves and sustained..

the above example shows the function of natural selection..The animals which were capable to eat leaves of trees the survived while the animals with shorter neck were eliminated by nature

When we examine the fossil record we see that the Earth has not always had the same living organisms living on it that it has today, but rather, there have been many changes, some gradual and some abrupt, over the past few billion years, and those changes show progressive alterations of exactly the kind that evolution would be expected to produce. The fossil record tells us that yes, life has evolved.

In small, isolated populations.

You can see that chimps are related to humans from DNA. We share about 98% of the nucleotides with chimps. The ERV's between chimps and humans are reverse transcripted into both creatures in the same spots and that is not plausible by anything but a relationship with them. The Chromosomes are identical except for chromosome #2 in humans and that shows a fusion of two chromosomes from our ancestors.

Chimps along with all of our primate cousins are going extinct.

Like in comparative morphology, comparative genomics shows that in the nested hierarchies, chimps have the most homologies and the fewest differences in a nucleotide by nucleotide comparison of the genome.

Could you? We have done that already,and salmon are a recent example of that

Yes, absolutely.

Non Random 'Assortment' [during zygote formation] is responsible for most of the rest.

Males and Females 'Differentiated' 555 Million years ago.

That being said, Humans and Hydra Share Biochemistry and an immense pre-History.

You must mean.....,

Crassulacean acid metabolism plants. Cam 3.

These plants are adapted to arid areas and keep their stomata closed during the day to conserve water. At night they take in CO2 and fix it in a form called malate. Then during the day they run the photosynthetic process.

No. Evolution is the change in allele ( different molecular forms of the same gene ) frequency over time in a population of organisms. No equilibrium there.

The allele frequency changed.

The fight or flight response is coordinated by a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is responsible for emotional processing and memory. It triggers the release of stress hormones like adrenaline to prepare the body for action in response to perceived threats. Additionally, the hypothalamus and the autonomic nervous system play crucial roles in initiating the physiological changes associated with fight or flight.