Darwin tried to explain how the observable (current) life forms
were tied to past life forms through a steady change
of forms that could be documented. Dammit.
2007-06-10 09:44:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I GOT THE ANSWER FOR YOU!
Darwin's observations
1. Species have the ability to produce more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves (superfecundity)
2. There is a finite pool of resources that is smaller than necessary to allow all offspring to survive
3. Natural populations are of constant size (over the long term)
4. Individuals within a species vary in many characteristics
5. Much of that variation is heritable
Darwin's inferences
1. Individuals compete (or otherwise struggle with each other) for limited resources
2. Only some individuals survive to reproduce
* those that more successfully obtain resources are more successful
3. Over many generations, a population will consist of the most successful kinds of individuals
2007-06-10 17:05:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by [[La La La]] 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
if we "no-nothin" then obviously we can't tell you about Darwin's "goddarned observatIONS", look it up, or if you're so smart then you tell us. apparently we aren't too bright.
ok before you blow a gasket or something Darwin observed birds in the Galapagos, specifically finches, he noticed that there were many different types of them on the islands and each one had its own little job to do. he figured out that they probably all came from one type of finch originally but over time evolved into all of these different finches.
he used this basic idea to form the basis for his ideas on evolution.
he did observe other animals of course, but the finches were the main thing.
2007-06-10 16:55:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tim C 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Darwin observed that those species which had traits allowing them to survive long enough to reproduce would tend to pass on their traits to future generations.
As an example: Humans often pick intelligence and social skill as desirable traits. You, as an rude, uneducated buffoon, are less likely to breed with the opposite sex and thus pass on your genetic material to future generations.
Of course, the prolific nature of idiots in the world leads me to believe that natural selection doesn't work as well for humans as it might for other species.
2007-06-10 17:02:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joe B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
One more time? Ah, I see you asked this question under the heading: "Should I sacrifice a goat to Darwin or God for a good harvest?"
When you ask questions like whiney child, you pretty much scream that it's a massive waste of time to answer.
2007-06-10 17:57:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by secretsauce 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
he observed that "no-nothin punks" arent good at answering questions that jerks ask
2007-06-10 16:45:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by sellasell 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
He suggested that humans evolved from simpler animals. You are living proof that some evolved less than others.
2007-06-10 19:47:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Labsci 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
He observed that you should do your own homework
2007-06-10 16:45:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dave 4
·
1⤊
0⤋