<span>Notice a couple of things
different between (A) and (B). It was NOT the first time a biologist
proposed that species changed through time (so it's not B). But it
finally *solidified* that idea by giving "change through time"
(evolution) a MECHANISM. It gave a plausible explanation for WHY
species change over time, in a testable way that made sense and had
evidence to support it.
So it finally dismissed the idea that species are constant.
It also emphasized that the simple presence of *variation* within a population was a key reason for evolution.
While we're at it ... (C) is wrong because it's not *individuals* that
acclimate (adapt) to their environment, but the population (the species)
as a whole.
And (D) is wrong because it had nothing to do with economics or the monarchy.</span>
An organism adapting to its environment leads it to be more ‘equipped’ for survival.
Competition is when other species fight for the same resources that another species needs. Also, it would produce offspring with these adaptations.
An example (to help you better understand);
A blue jay has great eyesight, strong wings, and sharp beak. (Better adapted organism) Another blue jay has great eyesight, weak wings, and dull beak. (The competitor/unadapted)
Both birds find the same food source and are now competing for it. The first bird has sharp beams, which is better for breaking, and ‘chomping’ the seeds/food. The second bird would struggle to consume its food (seed) unless it’s worms.
So which one is better adapted? The first blue jay.
And i hope this helped show how competition can be reduced.
decreased primary consumer
Answer:
Harmful to the existing habitat and inhabitants
Foreign
Fast reproduction rate
