23Likes
April 19th, 2014, 04:03 AM
Dear friends I am sorry if I have posted in wrong sub-forum.I have really very less knowledge about science.Can someone please explain me evolution in simple words with examples.I would really appreciate any replies.I have many questions but will ask it later this question.thanks
I tried Wikipedia and others but it is in really complex language.I mean I understand English very we'll but can't understand those scientific terms.
If you find wiki hard to follow, you might like a more gradual introduction designed specifically as being suitable for schools.
(That's not quite true. A lot of these Made Easy videos were originally put together for debunking creationist stuff. Schoolteachers asked if they could be remade without all the bad language so that they could be used in classrooms.)
None of them is longer than 10 minutes. And it's easy to go back and check if you find yourself getting lost in the next one along. Number 7 on this list - The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - is one of the most viewed on the whole site. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...dupAKFWKjtMhTe
I'd suggest Numbers 6 and 7 on the list, plus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aofdCJsY5BQ if you want to do a quick rundown before getting into the subject more deeply.
This should probably be in biology but never mind ...
First, note that evolution is a fact that has been known for thousands of years. Since the earliest humans started breeding plants and animals to improve them. What you are asking about is the theory of evolution; i.e. why it happens.
Think of it this way, in any population of a single animal species (the people in a country, the birds on an island, etc) there will be variation. Some people will be taller than others, some smarter, some have red hair, some are allergic to this planet, some are immune to that disease, some can sing well, ... Similarly among birds of a given type some will be bigger or smaller, some will fly faster, some will have slightly larger beaks...
All of these things are (partly) due to their genes and will be passed on to their children (mixed with the genes of another parent).
Now what happens as these animals live their lives? Maybe one bird has wings that are too short and he can't fly well so he gts eaten by a predator. The gens for short wings are not passed on to children. Maybe another bird has a stronger beak and so is able to open more types of nut and seed than others. She is healthier and lives longer - so she has more offspring and the genes for the stronger beak is passed on to more offspring.
That is it:
- there are variations in the population
- some of these make it more or less likely that the genes will be passed on
- the beneficial genes increase and the unhelpful ones disappear.
Over time the whole population becomes more like the individuals with the beneficial variations. (There is more to it than that, but I hope that gives you a flavour.)
Also note that new variations are introduced all the time because the "copying" process when genes are passed on to children is not perfect. Sometimes there will be a disastrous change and the offspring will die. Sometimes the change is neutral: it just introduces more variation into the population.
As long as you have:
(1) characteristics that will be inherited
(2) a source of variation of those characteristics
(3) something (the environment) that makes it more or less likely for some characteristics to live and/or have children
Then: evolution is inevitable.
It is such a simple and clever idea, some people believe it must have been created by God!
Yeah, Strange, you're right.
Shifted to Biology.
Remember that evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and why plants and animals have particular features, it is not the explanation of what sparked life on Earth (a misconception still widely held).
Life forms appear similar but there are many genetic variations, most of the time the variations have little to no effect, but sometimes a change in the environment makes some variations either advantageous or disadvantageous, when its advantageous these variations will be reproduced and often will have variations/different configurations of that difference.
Easy example: You have a cold/infection, the doctor gives you antibiotics and says take it for 10 days even if the symptoms are gone in 2 days. The antibiotics will randomly kill the bacteria but at some point most of the more vulnerable bacterias will have died and those whose variations make them more resistant will not yet be dead. If you stop before the 10 days, you may be at a stage where you will have eliminated those bacteria that die quickly when the antibiotic is in your system and where most of those that remain are more resistant to that type of antibiotic. Then if these spread to other people odds are the antibiotic will be less effective.
Or:
You could look at evolution as a series of mistakes. Some of those mistakes work better in our symbiotic shared co-evolutionary biom, and some don't.
The biom changes over time, so some of what worked well at one time, fail to adapt when the environment changes(both "natural" and "man made"(anthropogenic changes).
During and after mating, some genes are compatible, and some aren't. As is the case when sapiens neanderthalensis mated with sapiens sapiens, the incompatible genes didn't survive.
What is left over, is what evolved.
Think of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer. How many kids would he have had if Santa Clause hadn't encountered fog on one fateful Xmas eve? But thanks to that one evening of fog, all the does (by which I mean female deer) now realize his big red shiny nose is actually a benefit, rather than a horrible deformity.
In nature, a fish might not be smart enough to analyze things that way. Suppose you live in a world where the only animals are fish, and they eat all the seaweed on the ocean floor and are constantly going hungry. But there's plenty of un-tapped seaweed close to shore if only a fish were able to avoid getting caught in the tide when they go to try and eat it.
Now suppose a horribly deformed mutant fish is born with front fins that can be used as hooks to grasp into the dirt and pull him around in the shallow tide pools. Most of the female fish would refuse to mate with him because of his obvious deformity. He's a quasi modo, hunchback of Notre Dame freak. But if he lives near the tide pools, he can go into them and out of them and eat all that food nobody else is able to get at. He comes back into the ocean plump and happy and well fed. The female fish would fortunately have an additional instinct that weighs plumpness into their "will I mate with that guy?" calculation. Now he's having all the kids he wants, sought out far and wide by females who can virtually smell his success and want their offspring to be a part of it.
Thanks everyone for replying.Can anyone give name of a book which which would perfectly explain me evolution from base and perfectly.Will understanding evolution perfectly will take a long time?
Last edited by Lawman; April 21st, 2014 at 01:45 AM.
can anyone tell me what was the first species to come into existence and how it came?.
I understood that now there will be two species of fish .First the mutant and the other who already existed.Then after same processes only different fish will come into existence .How did we evolved?
How did science came to know what was the first species that evolved Lakhs of years ago?strange.
Will understanding evolution perfectly will take a long time? Seeing as professional biologists still have a lot to learn about parts of it, the obvious answer is no.Thanks everyone for replying.Can anyone give name of a book which which would perfectly explain me evolution from base and perfectly.
Will understanding evolution perfectly will take a long time?
However. It's not at all hard to get a good enough, working familiarity with evolution concepts along with quite a few facts for general purposes.
1. My suggestion would be to start with Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Why? because it focuses on parts of the human body that you should be reasonably familiar with, so it's easy to relate it to existing knowledge. (There's also a 3 part documentary series to go with it which is a worthwhile bonus.)
2. Anything by Stephen Jay Gould - bearing in mind that some details might have been changed due to subsequent research. But only the details, he's pretty good by and large.
3. One item I've only glanced at is this 8 page pdf books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf Only mentioned because it's actually background reading, but for someone who's trying to sort out the competing claims of evolution and creationism, it's a handy summary.
Other people might have other suggestions for different reasons, but this would be a good start.
You might want to try The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has gained (justifiably, in my opinion) a bad reputation for his jingoisitc, emotional and dogmatic attacks on religion. However, in this book he tells an eloquent story of evolution in a clear and exciting way. It is a long read and you might need to go over some passages more than once to fully grasp them, but it would - I think - be worth the effort.
I have to disagree with adelady's suggestion that anything by Gould is worth reading. adelady, you obviously have not read, or have forgotten his magisterial The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Scholarly and dense it would have benefited from an editor who realised that complex, multiply claused sentences, while they may contain a high density of information, are not necessarily, in particular circles, the most efficient way of communicating information, if information transfer - in an educational sense - is the objective of the written transcription, and if not then why would this even be attempted. (You get my point, I think.)
Yeah. I'd sort of remembered the best and blanked out the worst.
(Or perhaps it's more that I was more tolerant of that sort of thing 30+ years ago. I'll openly admit I've not read anything but quotations/citations for the last 20 years or so.)
Don't get me wrong. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is a masterpiece. I got amazing insights into all kinds of things unrelated to evolution before I had gone through five pages of the book. It is just way to dense for any beginner. I still haven't finished reading it because it is so incredibly rich I need to take it in small doses.
My book recommendations:
1. THE textbook on the topic used by undergraduates worldwide:
Evolution by Douglas Futuyama
2. Another textbook, easier than the first:
Evolution: Making Sense of Life by Carl Zimmer & Douglas Emlen
3. One by a philosopher, which takes a wider view and tackles the questions most people tend to ask:
Understanding Evolution by Kostas Kampourakis
4. A personal favourite:
The Logic of Chance by Eugene Koonin
5. One from the molecular perspective. Not everything is adaptation.
The Origins of Genome Architecture by Michael Lynch
You can't go too much wrong with books 2 and 3 from my list.
No one knows. And we will probably never know. But we have a good idea of the likely processes that could have led to the first life.Originally Posted by Lawman
It didn't!
The first "species" probably wasn't like life as we know it. All it needed to have was the ability to harness energy from the environment and self replicate.
No complicated proteins, amino acids, or anything like that. Once about a bazillion of those had been made, it was just a matter of waiting for them to begin mutating, and then stealing each others' hydrocarbons, and competing for hydrocarbons, and etc....
A lot like Cryptography. The art of writing a message so you can read it but nobody else can. Except in this case it's about storing hydrocarbons in a form where you can use them but nobody else can. Every time you come up with a better code, your competition comes up with a better way to crack it, so then you have to make your code more complicated, and they find a more complicated way to crack it.... and so on and so forth.
Will these book help me because keep in mind I just don't knowAnything about evolution.
If you're really trying to find your way starting from nowhere, I'd seriously suggest looking at those few videos I mentioned at #3.
1. Not because they're wonderful - though they're pretty good - but because you need a mental framework to put things in when you're reading. Getting a reasonably quick, less than half an hour total, fairly painless introduction/ overview is a handy thing to have.
2. As for reading, that's really up to you. As a tutor, I always like to get students to take their first step into something new while the other foot is still on firm ground. So think about what you know. Given that this is biology and you have a body, you might find an approach based on the development of organs useful. Or you might prefer something based on botany if you know something about plants or if you're interested in agriculture. Look at the various lists of books here, though I'd agree with JG about skipping Stephen Jay Gould for now. The only way to start is to start. Most of these are available cheaply, either second hand or as e-books, so you're not going to be wasting $60 or a $100 on a book that's no use to you.
3. If you're looking for it to be easy, it's not really there. There are just some ways that are easier than others. In the end, only a reasonable amount of work, some note-taking - especially a glossary or dictionary of terms as you come across them, some revision of what you've noted and then some time for it to sink in. Then move on to more complex or interesting aspects of the topic that you've come across. Every now and again go back to those wiki entries you found so intimidating and see if they make more sense with more background to draw on.
If it all seems too hard, look at some more of those videos at potholer's channel for a bit of a brainbreak.
4. There are also a few biology/evolution blogs at ScienceBlogs like this one EvolutionBlog - Science, Religion, Math, Politics and Chess .
Just look at the dropdown list in the top right corner. Apart from the obvious evolution and biology blogs, there's Aetiology, erv, Page 3.14, Pharyngula which are not so obviously biology to people outside the field. I'm partial to Zooillogix though I don't read it often. Reading blog entries and skipping the ones that don't interest you is not a bad way to get comfortable with the language even if you don't understand what they're getting at. Quite often they're directing the content at college, or post-grad, or professional researcher level, so there's no reason to feel left out if you think they're talking over your head. They very well might be talking over all our heads. Just as often, they're giving good information in an accessible way.
I bet you do know something about it. It is a very natural process.
Think about breeding dogs or cattle, for example. The breeder chooses the specimens with the best characteristics (most likely to win a show, for dogs; most likely to give good milk for cows) and breeds form them. In this way the create offspring which are more likely to meet their needs. (But not guaranteed to, because there is a lot of chance involved). Over several generations, you get an animal which is "better" (bigger, stronger, more beautiful, more productive - whatever the breeder is trying to achieve).
This is how we have maize, wheat and rice: bred from original wild grasses that we would consider inedible today. And this is how we have domesticated cats, dogs, sheep, goats, cows, etc.
The only difference is that in nature, there is not a goal in mind Nature isn't trying to produce particular "better" animals or plants. But natural selection (the hazards of the environment) mean that the animals which are the best fit for their environment are most likely to survive and breed.
By the way, when Darwin and Wallace came up with their theory of evolution by natural selection, they didn't understand the underlying mechanism. Since then we have learned a lot about how genes carry information from one generation to the next and enable evolution to take place.
Dear Adelady,
is it that starting from nowhere is not possible?So do you people started.You are a tutor so please tell me what do I do.I will surely watch those videos.Im just not understanding what should I do.I thought that there will be some books which would start from zero.I remember my school text book that there was just two three pages about evolution.Ill find it from somewhere.How did you people learned it.you too must have started from somewhere
Is it also that it's just a theory and may not be true and after sometime a new theory may come up?Sorry if I am irritating you all but please cooperate with me.One more question-how must have first human mated.there will be either one male or female.is it that first waited for opposite to come?
Evolution is a theory. So is gravity. Why deny evolution and not gravity?
You're not irritating anyone, but you are asking some presumptuous questions. You need to take some time and read the material suggested to you. Your questions can be answered with even introductory material.
We all start from nowhere at some time in our past. I never even looked at biology until I was in my late twenties. (In my school we were "streamed" into subject groupings. I scored Physics, Chem, French and Latin as well as English and Maths - no history, geography, social studies, biology, botany or any subject regarded as "lesser" by the education authorities of the time.)is it that starting from nowhere is not possible?So do you people started.You are a tutor so please tell me what do I do.I will surely watch those videos.Im just not understanding what should I do.I thought that there will be some books which would start from zero.I remember my school text book that there was just two three pages about evolution.Ill find it from somewhere.How did you people learned it.you too must have started from somewhere
Just get started. Follow what interests you but keep an eye on whether you're going along with non-scientific or anti-scientific writers or presenters. That's where we can help. If you find something contradictory or strange, just ask. But it's up to you to watch, listen and read whatever you can.
There is no one best way. There's only what works for you when you're not following a school curriculum. Work. Work is the appropriate word for you though. I never really worked at it, so I don't really know what that would be like. (Though I did put my head down and work pretty hard to learn about a different topic that I was keen to understand.) I just collected scattered biological knowledge along the way from science magazines and books. I probably ignored the subject for years at a time. But I wasn't trying to gather any specific knowledge as you are.
Note that evolution is a fact; it has been known about for many thousands of years. This is what enabled mankind to domesticate various useful plants and animals.
The theory explains how evolution happens. This started out with Wallace and Darwin's insights that it was natural selection acting on populations. Then the genetic mechanism was understood. Since than, it has got a lot more complicated as we have learnt more about genetics, different forms of selection, how variation can be produced, how genes can be exchanged between different species, etc.
The theory will continue to change. But evolution will always happen.
In the same way, gravity is a fact we are all familiar with but there have been many different theories attempting to explain and describe gravity.
This seems to be based on the idea that one day there was suddenly a human. Evolution doesn't work like that. There was continuous gradual change in our ape ancestors. There were always both males and females. They gradually became what we consider human.One more question-how must have first human mated.there will be either one male or female.is it that first waited for opposite to come?
The first creature possessed of homo-sapiens intelligence might have ended up mating with an ordinary hominid, and some of his/her offspring might not have inherited the sapiens intellect, while others did. The ones that did kept mating. If each brood had an average of 4 kids, and 2 of them inherited the trait, then the number of creatures with the trait would double every generation. 10 doublings and now there are 1024 of them. 20 doublings and now there are 1,048,576 - so over a million. You see how this keeps going? Once the population of them is big enough, they no longer have to mate with hominids. They start mating with each other and producing whole broods where all 4 have the trait.
"Species" is defined by populations that have drifted far enough apart that they can no longer mate. But Neanderthals, Denosivans, and other Hominids could still mate with Homo Sapiens. They're different subspecies of human. But there are also some primates that are too far away from sapiens to be able to mate with a sapiens. They might not be too far away from a neanderthal.
Just remember that it's about traits, not archetypes. The archetypes only emerge once the creatures drift too far apart to be able to mate with the species that spawned them.
The first species, is also known as the first actual self replicating organism. We don't know what it is, or what it would have looked like. It also has nothing to do with evolution. The first species was an ultra anomalous combination of biochemical reactions. This first species will most likely not be able to reproduce on its own, and would have "died". I have "" the dead part because i think this first species would have been almost unrecognizable from inanimate matter, and for something to die, it must first live.
Evolution in a nutshell btw.
Animal A is faster than animal B from the same species. Animal A catches more food, animal B will preserve more energy. Whichever property is most useful in the climate, or situation, will become the more dominant mutation in the species, as it will have more offspring. Multiply this same situation a billion times, using other properties, and more climates and changes, and you have basic evolution.
Your statement is a bit ambiguous. LMAO!
Why don't humans evolve?If they mate with any other animals they just don't conceive and humans get disease like AIDS, HIV etc.Please explain me if If I have written something horrible.
They do.
But evolution takes a very long time for major changes to become apparent - so we can't just look 1000 years ago and expect there to be anything other than very minor changes.
No, relative to what we were like 30.000 years ago, we don't. Evolution has stopped because of our consciousness of evolution. Some preference/changing does take place but this is not about survivability nor is it about getting most offspring. It is about economic viewpoint, and a little bit about just wanting to have kids, which some just don't.They do.
But evolution takes a very long time for major changes to become apparent - so we can't just look 1000 years ago and expect there to be anything other than very minor changes.
We do however rather have sex with someone attractive, then someone who is not. This is sexual selection, but not necessarily evolution, even though it is a part of evolution. I doubt our genetic changes about stamina, intelligence, or even immunity will have a large impact on our reproductive capabilities (as even some forms of infertility can be cured). Technology does "evolve". And may be our alternative to genetic evolution.
So - 30,000 years ago we knew about evolution?
Citation please.
Could you clarify that please?
Natural selection is also only a part of evolution. Is it also "not necessarily evolution"?
Ok tell me how did fish evolved to human beings?
Hi Lawman, I understand that you do not currently possess a huge body of knowledge on the subject of human evolution, and to be honest, neither do I. However, from what little I do know on the subject, your above quote is evidence on why science education is important in clearing up popular misconceptions on the topic. Perhaps the following link to a wikipedia entry deserves some of your time in reading, and should you have further questions, I'm pretty confident some members here will be willing to help you out.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks for such a kind reply .I surely will read itHi Lawman, I understand that you do not currently possess a huge body of knowledge on the subject of human evolution, and to be honest, neither do I. However, from what little I do know on the subject, your above quote is evidence on why science education is important in clearing up popular misconceptions on the topic. Perhaps the following link to a wikipedia entry deserves some of your time in reading, and should you have further questions, I'm pretty confident some members here will be willing to help you out.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They obviously do. Look at all the different varieties of humans around the world living in different environments with different body shapes, skin colour, etc.
Also, until recently (the domestication of cattle) most human adults could not drink milk without being unwell. Now the majority of humans in areas where dairy products are used can happily drink milk because they have a different gene that makes them lactose tolerant. This is an example of recent evolution.
You want another example? In many tropical and semi-tropical parts for he world, it is common for people to have a disorder of the red blood cells. There are many varieties of these genetic diseases. You might wonder why evolution hasn't eliminated these, as they call cause quite serious problems for the people who have them. They can even lead to early death. BUT it turns out that it also gives people some protection from malaria. So, these blood diseases are most common where malaria is present. The protection from malaria gives a greater survival/breeding advantage than not having the blood disorder.
This has nothing to do with evolution, which is about change within a population of a single species.If they mate with any other animals they just don't conceive
I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. (I really hope you are not implying that AIDS is cased by people attempting to mate with animals. I suppose there might be some religious bigots who say that sort of thing.)and humans get disease like AIDS, HIV etc.
But it brings up another example. There are a small proportion of people who are largely immune to the HIV virus. There is some evidence that they may be descendants of the survivors of an early plague (possibly Black Death). So, another example of evolution: a plague kills off a lot of people, leaving a population which is now more likely to be immune to another disease.
There is absolutely no reason to think that evolution doesn't happen in humans as it does in every other species.
http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Books/102...rful-Creatures
Remember I said in one of my thread that what causes me to think of god is sooooo precise universe so others said that it is nothing like this or it evolution etc.Just PLEASE READ IT ONLY 15 MINUTE.Please reply.Is it possible that so perfection is caused by evolution?
Harun Yaha is absolutely someone to avoid if you wish to learn anything meaningful. Every one of his documents that I have read has been filled with gross errors, blatant misrepresentation, appalling misunderstanding and what seem remarkably like cynical lies. Please discard this biased, self-indulgent filth at once. (Filth is not to strong a word for this corruption of thought that Yaha spouts on the internet.)
Let's take a look at some of the nonsense in this particular source:
The bees do not carry out any calculations at all. When you throw a cricket ball, or baseball, do you carry out a series of calculations that involve highly complex calculations of velocities, mass, accelerations, muscular power, hand and arm positioning, etc. To replicate this would require software that handled a multiplicity of equations and variable inputs. You, on the other hand, just throw the ball .... naturally.From pets such as cats, which we come across every day, to animals inhabiting virgin forests, every species has wondrous features and amazing skills. For example we are surprised to see how bees can build such perfect honeycombs and can do calculations as if they were expert mathematicians.
Let us set aside the argument as to whether or not this is affection (or just exactly what affection is). If the parent does not display this affection then the probability of the offspring surviving to adulthood is greatly reduced. If the parents are not instinctively directed to behave in this way they are unlikely to have offspring that survive to reproduce. Therefore it is completely to be expected that positive survival behaviours, arising from genetically directed instinct, will persist. In contrast in creatures that lack these tendencies their genes will be lost as they will have no surviving offspring.As we see how considerate a crocodile or a lion is to its young, we wonder how such wild animals can behave so affectionately.
The vast majority of fish do not have lungs.It (the fish) has the lungs, eyes and skin that enable it to live underwater.
Absolutely correct. Chance had very little to do with it. Natural selection of useful survival features and behaviours is what led to these abilities.They could not possibly have learnt the tasks they carry out by chance either.
This is an unfounded assertion. Yaha claims this to be true, but his sole justification for it is incredulity. Because he does not believe it is possible it must, therefore, be impossible. This tells us about his limited knowledge and imagination, but nothing about the real world.It is not possible for them to know all these things unless there is someone who taught them everything they do.
That's some of the nonsense in the first two paragraphs of his book. I strongly urge you just forget about his biased, close minded preaching. However, if you insist that some of it makes sense to you then please choose one of the Chapter headings and I'll show you, in detail, why his arguments are totally flawed.
Really thanks for your replies.I had doubts about its authenticity therefore asked here .In future I will read some more of his books and will ask you questions.Please try to reply if you will have time.
You really are wasting your time with anything by that charlatan. Please use that time, instead, to read one or more of the excellent books suggested by members earlier in this thread. But if you insist on reading his nonsense I shall certainly take the time to answer any questions you may have.
what I don't understand is this, if we are supposed to be closely related to chimps and the great apes why did we climb down from the trees and evolve into humans and the others didn't?
I have a sister. She moved to Nairn. I moved to Aberdeen. Shit happens.
Climate change, opportunity, hunger, other drives.
Say, you are a chimp. But all the trees, which you need to survive, vanish slowly over time. And you start to need to walk, from tree to tree, instead of jumping (distance is too great to jump). Then the better adjusted apes, say standing straight, or quadrupedal with long thin arms and legs. (the latter one never evolved for some reason, probably because of the intelligence of the ape, and the need to use its arms for dexterous movements.)
A chihuahua and a great dane are the same species.. Let that sink in for a moment..
Eurasian Blue Tit
Great Tit
2 different species, while very similar. Not always the looks that give away the species..
If Americans are descended from Europeans then why are there still Europeans?
The whole point of ecology is that different species exploit different opportunities. You might as well ask why we didn't all grow long orange hair and long arms.
A tree grows many branches. One may grow toward the sunlight and thrive, another may grow toward the shade and die. Regardless, when a new branch forms, the trunk of the tree may still exist.
Evolution does not require a new organism to replace an old one.
I tend to think of it as watercolor. A couple drops of water and different streams of colors might emerge on paper. Some colors are distinctly different, others of similar shades, some never progressing into streams, whereas others do, and sometimes these run parallel with each other depending on the conditions.
Speak for yourself.
Ah, but you're Scottish, you see...Speak for yourself.
Truly Scots are the Master Race.
I'm half Scottish myself but I couldn't resist. The description perfectly fitted Donald McAngus, 4th Duke of Argyll.
Today the World, tomorrow Arbroath!Truly Scots are the Master Race.
Look up stated cleary on youtube it contains very well explained videos on the subject that anyone can understand
Evolution is the development of an living organism. But there are multiple mechanisms that drive the evolutionary process.
You can view a simplified explanation here -
Evolution - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| « Evolution | Fossilization of animals » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
