~Hello
Fossils are one of the best evidence of evolution, mainly because they are the remains of living organisms from the past, which allow us to compare them with living organisms. However, the fossil record is notoriously incomplete and it is also biased in favor of animals with hard body parts, such as skeletons and shells. Soft bodied organisms and soft body parts are rarely preserved and there are often huge gaps in some evolutionary sequences. For example, Archaeopteryx is the earliest known bird, but it is already a bird, nothwithstanding some of the features that are unquestionably reptilian. The earliest known reptile with feathers is Longisquama, but there is a gap of some 75 million years between Longisquama and Archaeopteryx, and nothing has yet been found that are intermediate between these two important fossils.
Finally, DNA is virtually unobtainable from fossils, making it nearly impossible to compare the DNA of most fossils with living organisms. In terms of phylogenetic tree construction, DNA data is far superior to fossil evidence. However, if not for the existence of fossils, DNA data alone would be unconvincing as evidence of evolutionary change.
~ Hope this could help
Without variation in traits among the population, there would be no variation in the relative fitness of individuals within the population (i.e. (higher level) no differential reproductive success between individuals). Without varying reproductive success between individuals in population based on traits, there will be no change in frequency of traits in the population over time. To put it simply, there is nothing for natural selection to act upon.
The retina; I may be wrong.
Answer:
Yes they are wrong
Explanation:
I've met many people who are the sweetest things but their parents are a different story it all depends on who you are around and what you take in from other.
