Evolution

Herbert Spencer was the early sociologist who applied the concept of evolution to societies.

You explain to them how evolution is thought to work, and what, based on that, we should expect to find in biology, genetics and palaeontology. Then you allow them to see what we actually do find in biology, genetics and palaeontology. If they're able to understand what has been explained to them and shown to them, they will subsequently accept evolutionary theory (ie. common descent and natural selection) as the best (and indeed only available) explanation.

Without variation what is there to select? If you do not have variations to be selected by natural or sexual selection on their superior abilities to survive and reproduce successfully then nothing can be naturally selected against the immediate environment.

Live to improve yourself, live to become better than who you were yesterday.

Don't just live to live like sheep :)

Unanswerable.

First, there is no "the correct sequence". There is the most likely sequence of key historical developments as best as can be established by science.

Second, there is no "the brain". There is a wide variety of more or less complex central nervous systems, most of which have a focal node of some sort that can be called 'brain'.

The simplest of such central nervous system, and most likely the first type to emerge, is no more than a chord of nerves along the length of the organism, with or without ventral extensions, terminated by a 'knot' of nerves forming the 'brain'. Such simple nervous systems can still be found in flatworms.

Arguably the most complex brain known to us is the human brain. In the structure of this brain we can see something of the evolutionary development of brains in our lineage: layered from the basic 'reptilian brain' to the most recent development, the neocortex. (Note that referring to these layers as the "reptilian", "paleomammalian", or "neomammalian complex" can no longer be considered scientifically accurate, given that recent findings have pushed back the development of complex behaviour and associated neural structures much further back in time.)

Evolution doesn't have a constant rate because it depends on environmental factors and reproduction frequency.

They theorize that during this period the first of three gill arches on a jawless fish evolved into the first jaws.

That would be Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace who came up with a theory of evolution by natural selection concurrently, at least it was presented to the world concurrently.

All animals share the same genetic code, the same, or very similar biochemical pathways. All animals share physiological similarities from the cell to the epidermis. All animals share behavioral similarities.

Answer

All animals have similar traits. All have the same sorts of cells (no cell walls, centrioles, only small vacuoles if any) for example. This is evidence that all animals have a common ancestor. It fits the model of animal common ancestry, it fits the hypothesis. Since animals breed using DNA as a hereditary material, then their offspring are capable of inheriting traits. If the common ancestor of all of a group has a trait, then we can reasonably assume that all its descendents should inherit that trait. And that works in reverse too. If all members of a vast group share a character, then it is violently possible that they all inherited it from a common ancestor. Take the homology of limb bones of mammals to illustrate this principle in a tiny subset of mammals or the shell-possession of molluscs as another homology (yes, all molluscs have shells - even squid). It is easy to see that mammals should all have a common ancestor. It is (relatively) easy to hypothesise that all molluscs have a common ancestor. What about all animals, ALL animals? We have forgotten, by the way, the most modern way to examine relationships - DNA analysis. DNA analysis shall confirm that all animals form a clade, a monophyly, a single group arising from a common ancestor. That must be the greatest vindication of the animalian hypothesis for biologists - that DNA can confirm that all animals have a common ancestor.

Novelty, Entrepreneurial, and Mass Media

genetics

no

Yes, the evidence from systematics, paleontology, botany and field biology plus the findings of the founders of population genetics.

Eevee's evolution are not legendary.

It is not linked to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Can not put it any simpler than that Eugenics, " good genes " was linked to early geneticists who though that it would be simple to promote breeding among those " genetically favored " and repress breeding among those " genetically disfavored. "

The obvious mistake was group selection as opposed to the individual selection of Darwin's theory. For straight additive traits eugenics might work, but all the " interesting " traits in humans are the result of polyploidy. So, one would not real;ly know what is being selected for when so many genes contribute to a trait. This does not even get into sexual recombination which we see putting out many variant siblings in the same family, so eugenics fails on several fronts. So far.

Charles Robert Darwin, of course!

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection does not incorporate theories about geological change. Those are the domain of geology, not biology.

Adaptations

1). Mutations supply new traits.

2). Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.

3). Selection allows only those with the best traits to survive.

They don't, Homologous structures, such as the bones in your forearms and the bones in your cat's and dog's forelegs are that similar because you and your pets are mammals and closely related on the evolutionary tree. Before modern genetic showed this to be convincing the study of morphology was showing us pretty much the same thing; homologous structures support evolution.