Natural and Bilogical Selection?
958096
I think its true. The human mind cannot be compared to those of animals and therefore the simple view of the natural selection in which the idea of selecting mates on the basis of physical attributes as in the case of animals cannot be applied here.For the world that we have created around us there is no place for those who are mentally weak. This is natural selection at its best. It shows how complicated the whole mechanism is. The term "survival of the fittest" can not just be applied to physically fit, it can also be applied to mentally fit.\n\nHuman beings change their environment to suit their needs, unlike animals which just adjust to the surroundings in which they are. Due to this change, the way of natural selection in animals in which physically strong and fit is almost the entire criteria for a good mate cannot be applied to humans.\n\nThe natural selection method in animals is based on physical attributes mainly for survival (as is wonderfully said in "Survival of the Fittest") For the world that we have created around us, a human being also has to be mentally fit to survive. In fact this has reached to such an extent that physical attributes mean very less now. Nobody wants a good looking bad really badly behaved mate, at least not for life.\n\nThis is the world we human beings have created and now "Survival of the fittest" has even more promininence as being mentally fit or perfect is much more tougher than being physically  fit or perfect. \n\nNobody is perfect but everyone yearns to reach that perfection.\n\nThe competition for survival has reached a new level, natural or not, and i think one should be pondering about "HOW" to get ahead of the competition? instead of "WHY" is the competition held this way
711783
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
285327
Your argument has some assumptions, assertions, and logic that are not sound.\n\nFirst of all, you only multiply probabilities together when they are independent variables - it would be easy to argue that many of the items that you mentioned are interdependent.\n\nAlso, I think you misunderstand what evolution of species is proposing.  Evolution does NOT depend on luck - it is instead an observation that lucky organisms survive and pass on their properties to their descendants.\n\nConsider bacteria - almost all mutations are harmful but a few bacteria have lucky mutations that make them immune to penicillin.  If penicillin is used on bacteria, only these lucky ones survive - and most of their descendants inherit the the same immunity-mutation.  \n\nThe original mutation is luck - the environment then selects and a small set of traits due to beneficial mutations persists.  And THAT is not luck, that is selection.  That's why the process is called "Natural Selection".  \n\nSadly, this is why almost all bacteria were zapped by the early antibiotics, and now (only 60 years later) we have hundreds of resistant strains.
404089
drift and/or sexual selection. Most likely sexual selection as the things you listed are essentially cosmetic.
1096462
A is incorrect because this statement is usually attributed to Malthus however, Darwin was aware of this and it is one of the driving forces of natural selection-- that there are more organisms (not just humans) that can be supported by available resources.  \n\nB is incorrect because the adaptations that are favorable are not always biased towards being swift and aggressive.  There are passive, defensive adaptations that are effective.  \n\nC is incorrect because evolution is not directional.  There is no such thing as devolution.  A trait that is advantageous under one set of conditions may be a liability under different environmental conditions.  The most successful organisms on this planet are bacteria.  Also, individuals do not evolve.  Populations evolve.\n\nD is correct.  It is even right there in the title of Darwin's book on natural selection.  Look it up and read it.
272274
let's see...\nAccording to Darwin, natural selections is when species born with a trait that's slightly different from what they are supposed to be turn out to have a bigger advantage in life. Because it's successful, it breeds, and the trait is passed on to the next generation. Eventually, that trait dominates the species in a way that we identiy them as a new or different species. \nIn the case of hummingbirds, the flowers they feed on also evolve with the birds. As we all know, hummingbirds have prett long beaks. To 'protect' their nector (or something), flowers start to grow more in a 'tube' shape, which prevents species like bees to get the nector. In response, hummingbirds evolve by growing longer beaks so they can still get their food (drink?)
556123
I don't like your teacher.  I think he/she is looking for B. genes, but then he/she should not have put chromosomes as an alternative choice.  Mendel's theory of independent assortment was only true because the genes he studied were on separate chromosomes.  It could be argued that what he was actually studying was chromosomal inheritance.
63723
unfortunatly there is none for the emergance of species that can be observed. natural selection can be observed and has been but there is no conclusive evidence that evolution took place.
947619
1. All organisms tend to produce more offspring than can possibly survive (Darwin's generation gave this principle the lovely name of "superfecundity").\n\n2. Offspring vary among themselves, and are not carbon copies of an immutable type.\n\n3. At least some of this variation is passed down by inheritance to future generations. (Darwin did not know the mechanism of heredity, for Mendel's principles did not gain acceptance until early in our century. However, this third fact requires no knowledge of how heredity works, but only an acknowledgment that heredity exists. And mere existence is undeniable folk wisdom. We know that black folks have black kids; white folks, white kids; tall parents tend to have tall children; and so on.)\n\nThe principle of natural selection then emerges as a necessary inference from these facts:\n\n4. If many offspring must die (for not all can be accommodated in nature's limited ecology), and individuals in all species vary among themselves, then on average (as a statistical statement, and not in every case), survivors will tend to be those individuals with variations that are fortuitously best suited to changing local environments. Since heredity exists, the offspring of survivors will tend to resemble their successful parents. The accumulation of these favorable variants through time will produce evolutionary change. \n\nhttp://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/selection/fullhouse.html
653816
Evolution is a theory.
918371
c is the right answer.\n\nA makes no sense in relation to the question\nB natural selection has a bit of randomness in it of course but is basically not random. I mean, the fastest critter in the herd may have had an unlucky day and so he will not procreate, oops. But otherwise, the slowest are intentionally selected by the lion and that is never random.\nD just isn't true, plenty of proof there.
899890
It's true today, as in 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection a.k.a. The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - the strongest survive. \n\nQuestion 2 - As for humans becoming wimps, okay - that's one way to approach it. We are weakening our own gene pool, predominately through modern medicine, but also through cultural direction.
32401
Biological evolution has nothing to do with it.  Social evolution might.\nHumans seem to be the only species that has some members which are exclusively same sex orientated.  Once classified as a disease, now the causation is unknown.  Conscious choice may have little to do with sexual behavior, and how the programming of the unconscious mind happens is not clearly understood.\nIf the environment has anything to do with this, then it is probably related to population density.\nNo-one knows for sure.  Almost everyone has some pet theory that they want to push as scientific fact.
916499
I don't know why you asked the same exact question 3 times.  I gave a full description in another post.\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmiwcqFgnMC2QHEoVOkL3y_zy6IX?qid=20061127161951AALL9zd\n\n... But on the assumption that this is some school question or project, I'll try and compress all the evidence into just four main categories:\n\n1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature, including the basic mechanisms of natural selection established in artificial selection (like breeding).\n\n2. Fossil evidence. \n\n3. Genetic and molecular (DNA) evidence.\n\n4. Common morphology and proteins (vestigial, homologous, and atavistic structures and proteins). \n\n5. Others (OK, that's 5 ... but I needed a place to include things like bacteriology, virology, imunology, embryology, biogeography).\n\nAgain, these are just the names of the *categories* of evidence ... for details, see my other post.
18875
Both are required. Variation in the population provides something for natural selection to act on. Mutation is one way to generate variation. Recombination  during meiosis is another. This sounds like a trick question. The correct answer is not one or the other--you would have to explain variation. One part of the process generates choices, the other part of the process "chooses" among the available options.
112604
Natural selection involves mechanisms such as competition or predation to kill off some members of a species, allowing members that have certain genetic traits that make them stronger or better-suited for survival, and those traits will be passed on to future generations of that species.
25992
In principle, one group of people could evolve to be much more intelligent than others.  That is probably how we (Homo sapiens) wiped out the Neanterthals (Homo neanderthalensis).\n\nAmong us Homo sapiens, the evidence that one race is more or less intelligent than another is not convincing.  Differences in performance on intelligence tests (and who is to say that is relevant) are small.  Any discussion of the relationship of race to intelligence immediate gets shouted down by those who believe they are about to be judged inferior.\n\nIn principle, a small group of very intelligent people, who everyone could agree are more intelligent than the rest of us, could have evolved or could have been created by selective breeding (eugenics), but if there is one, they aren't showing themselves.