Question

Q. which one is the correct for the theory of Darwin??
I. struggle for existence
II. survival
III.overproduction
IV. evolution

Answer 1

IV. Evolution

Answer 2

a. I,II,III,Iv
b. III,I,II,IV
c. IV,III,II,I
d. III,I,II,IV

Answer 3

@petiteme

Answer 4

I have to arrange these in correct sequence :
I. struggle for existence
II. survival
III.overproduction
IV. evolution

Answer 5

Ohh.

Answer 6

At first I thought its IV. evolution, but then you posted choices

Answer 7

Just give me a few minutes I'll try to dig into my brain and answer this.

Answer 8

^

Answer 9

all these are related to theory of darwin ..I only need to give these correct sequence ..

Answer 10

I think its C because he thought of Evaluation before the other theory's. That's what I think the answer is.

Answer 11

No I don't think so because starting for evolution is not correct ..Evolution must be at the end ..I think first one is overproduction then Struggle for existence then Survival and last one is evolution .

Answer 12

B and D match you know.

Answer 13

ops sorry ..:) but I guess correct one is B and D both :D

Answer 14

Haha is it like that on the test a typeo?

Answer 15

@karezi-master Do you have any idea 'about Darwin theory ?

Answer 16

Why would I comment on this if I was going to give you a wrong answer? Also I said it was my thought on the question. So you don't have to go with what I said, after all I may be wrong.

Answer 17

which one you think is correct @Cleonideu C ??

Answer 18

Yep but it may be B or D. Go with your gut.

Answer 19

I will think on it some more and let you know my answer again.

Answer 20

ok ty @petiteme and @Cleonideu for showing your concern :)

Answer 21

No problem, I would hate to give you the wrong answer.

Answer 22

Darwin's Law of Evolution by Natural Selection (traditionally referred to as a "theory" to honor Darwin's original treatise, but now confirmed through observation and experiment) consists of five main tenets.

First, he describes how species can change in shape and character through selective breeding. No reasonable person, whether creationist or scientist, doubts selective breeding can morph a wolf into a pony-sized mastiff. Or evolve the same wild animal into a comically shrunk, rat-sized Chihuahua.

Second, he describes how species are neither completely uniform nor immutable, and how these natural variations are the grist upon which human selective breeding grinds. Once a new characteristic is established, these variations persist from generation to generation, and are systematically and predictably passed from parent to child. Again, all but the most radical creationists accepts these facts, widely employed since the birth of animal husbandry and agriculture.

Third, he recognized that Nature, through selective pressures like environmental shifts or changes in predation, can play the role of humans in selective breeding. Whether man selects a long-haired dog for its appearance, or colder winters favor the survival of thick furred over short-haired canines, the result is identical. Again, the power of evolution by Natural Selection is confirmed though field work (such as Darwin's finches), genetic mapping, and the experience of anyone who chooses to listen openly to nature.

Fourth, everyone agrees that, while changes within a species are indisputable and can be observed within a lifetime, no one has ever seen (nor is there a recorded observation after 5000 years of written history) one species transmuting to another. Fish never become fowl, insects never become birds, and monkeys certainly never become humans.

With all this agreement on Darwin's four key tenets, why is there so much fuss about evolution? Ah, but for one small, annoying small point. Modern scientists, following Darwin's last great insight, have proven an accumulation of small changes can lead to an entirely new species, given sufficient time. Creationists deny there is either enough time (i.e. the Earth is only a few thousand years old according to one biblical interpretation), or small changes can never accumulate into a species sized change. Thus, the argument is not over the Evolution of a species by Natural Selection, but the Transmutation between species under any circumstances, including Natural Selection.

Scientific evidence for species-changing evolution was already quite strong in the time of Darwin, but indirect. Now, with the advent of DNA mapping, we can clearly read evolution's history in our genes, and track genetic change and reuse from 4 billion-year-old strains of bacteria to their expression of proteins in modern humans. Yet we still have never seen a species transform.

Thus my prediction. Based on our growing understanding of genetic coding, gene switching, protein unfolding and new observational tools, sometime in the next 25 years one species will be observed to transform into another. And back again- it will be a simple, single mutation which triggers the change. If one had to guess, an insect is the perfect candidate- many already "transmute" from caterpillar to butterfly. Such an observation would solidify Darwin's Law of Evolution's place among the greatest of all scientific insights. Reproducible species transmutation will not convince a creationist of Darwin's validity- loose thinking and bad science provide a convenient escape clause. But most of us can finally concentrate on the future rather than debating the past. And let science and religion coexist in their own, compelling dominions.

I hope this helps you. Source http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/Darwin.htm

Answer 23

ok ty:)

Answer 24

Message me if you have another question and I'll try to answer it. I am better at history questions but I am working on biology answering now.

Answer 25

3 1 2 4