The third and last option is correct.
Species in the past (referring to dinosaurs) were more massive.
levels where higher in the past, which meant that plants prospered during that time since they had a easy access to food. That contributes to the fact that herbivores could grow bigger because there was more food. Which in turn, increases the size of early carnivores which eat bigger herbivores.
Hope it helped,
Happy homework/ study/ exam!
It is true that it is possible for a population to not evolve for a while.
There is something called the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, which characterizes the distributions of genotype frequencies in populations that are not evolving.
There are 5 Hardy-Weinberg assumptions:
- no mutation
- random mating
- no gene flow
- infinite population size
- and no selection (natural nor forced).
You can see that some of these are kinda extreme and really hard to get, but with approximations, we can work.
For example, instead of an "infinite population size" we have enough with a really large population, such that genetic drift is negligible.
Concluding, yes, it is possible (but really difficult) for a population to not evolve for a while (at least, in nature), as long as the 5 assumptions above are met.
If you want to learn more, you can read:
brainly.com/question/19431143
<span>Comparative embryology is the study which determines the organisms that have the same and almost identical embryo development.
---
While, comparative morphology is the scientific study of organisms where their structures, physical entities and elements are identified to be similar or dissimilar. Using only simple basis of empirical observation, a scientist can detect whether two animals are of the same family or not.</span>
