A fossil is any preserved evidence of an organism.

One chimpanzee and gorilla behavior that can be difficult to comprehend, mentally and emotionally, is male murder of infants. If a chimp or gorilla encounters an infant that he knows he did not sire, he will kill it if he can. That behavior is also . Gorillas have a potentate/harem social organization, and when a male matures he is usually ejected from that gorilla society, but might become subordinate to the silverback patriarch (some troupes have more than one dominant silverback, and even up to seven silverbacks in one troupe has been observed). Bachelor gorillas can try to unseat a silverback to steal his harem, and if successful, the new potentate will kill all the infants he can. The average female gorilla will lose an infant to murder by a male in her lifetime. In chimp society, when a female is sexually receptive, she will mate with all males in the troupe, especially the dominant ones, so that every important male suspects that the infant might be his, and thus will not kill it. That strategy has been nicknamed, “Who’s Your Daddy?” The strategies of dominant males seem to work, as far as producing the most offspring. Paternity testing of chimpanzees, for instance, shows that alpha males and their “lieutenants” sire nearly all offspring in a band.

24-02-2017 2/2 Fossil Evidence Of Change Study Guide Answers.

Early scientists also found fossil evidence of plants and animals existing in places where.1.

The Fossil Records and Theories of Evolution.

Scientists often measure extinction rates at the and levels of the taxonomy; families and genera are far harder to kill off than species. Some genera/families beat the odds and survived for hundreds of millions of years. They are called , and usually all of their close relatives went extinct long ago. The ubiquitous and lowly is a living fossil that first appeared nearly 400 mya. There have been recent calls to retire the "living fossil" designation, as the survivors of their lines have evolved somewhat over the years. However, it was not all that much, as they were very recognizable decedents of nearly identical-looking ancestors, and if those "living fossils" were graphically represented on the tree of life, they might instead be called the last leaves on their branch. Perhaps "sole survivor" conveys the meaning better. However scientists want to term it, the fact is that those "living fossils" have an ancient lineage, have not appreciably changed in millions of years, and the large "family" that they descended from all went extinct; their branch is bare except for them. The survivors evolved since their close relatives died out, but there is nothing close to them on their branch of the tree of life.

Fossil evidence has been used to support evolution.

There is also evidence that life itself can contribute to mass extinctions. When the eventually , organisms that could not survive or thrive around oxygen (called ) . When anoxic conditions appeared, particularly when existed, the anaerobes could abound once again, and when thrived, usually arising from ocean sediments, they . Since the ocean floor had already become anoxic, the seafloor was already a dead zone, so little harm was done there. The hydrogen sulfide became lethal when it rose in the and killed off surface life and then wafted into the air and near shore. But the greatest harm to life may have been inflicted when hydrogen sulfide eventually , which could have been the final blow to an already stressed ecosphere. That may seem a fanciful scenario, but there is evidence for it. There is fossil evidence of during the Permian extinction, as well as photosynthesizing anaerobic bacteria ( and ), which could have only thrived in sulfide-rich anoxic surface waters. Peter Ward made this key evidence for his , and he has implicated hydrogen sulfide events in most major mass extinctions. An important aspect of Ward’s Medea hypothesis work is that about 1,000 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which might be reached in this century if we keep burning fossil fuels, may artificially induce Canfield Oceans and result in . Those are not wild-eyed doomsday speculations, but logical outcomes of current trends and , proposed by leading scientists. Hundreds of already exist on Earth, which are primarily manmade. Even if those events are “only” 10% likely to happen in the next century, that we are flirting with them at all should make us shudder, for a few reasons, one of which is the awesome damage that it would inflict on the biosphere, including humanity, and another is that it is entirely preventable with the use of technologies .

Essay on Human Characteristics in the Fossil Record
examination of the fossil record of the hominines reveals several biological and ..

many areas including the evolution and human fossil record

Although the Ordovician’s shallow seas were fascinating abodes of biological innovation, of perhaps more interest to humans was the first colonization of our future home: land. Land plants probably , and although molecular clock studies suggest that , the first fossil evidence of land plants appeared about 470 mya, in the mid-Ordovician, which would have been moss-like plants, and they seem to have preceded land animals by about 40 million years.

As a subdiscipline of physical anthropology that focuses on the fossil record of ..

The Evolution of Bipedalism | Accurate Essays

It is funny how most of you are justifying your actions as if to make your guilt subside. Do as what feels like nature’s intent for you, sounds like you are recruiting to your cults. Some of the indirect aggression on here is draining & immaturely whiny. The importance of what we eat is so ego driven, evident in mass “human” consumption. To get that much pleasure or excitement from food, now that is depressing.
Inevitably all will be in place soon enough.. Peace

Fossil Evidence of Bipedalism

research paper | Bipedalism | Homo

Again, the dates for these events are rather rough, but if the creation of a chloroplast happened once and the creation of sexual reproduction happened once, then sexual reproduction would have needed to come before the chloroplast, as many plants produce sexually. If it turns out that the chloroplast really is 1.6 billion years old, then the current date for sexual reproduction would need to be pushed back, or the “sex was invented once” idea would have to be discarded, and biologists would probably decide that the date of sex appearing would need to be pushed back, even without fossil evidence of it.