Answer:
If you can show me the answers I could help out but I can't see anything right now sorry
Answer: I think it‘s 1, it just makes more sense. Sorry if I am wrong but hope this helps anyone.
<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>
Answer:
disruptive selection
Explanation:
Disruptive selection may be defined as a type of a natural selection which selects against some average individual in a given population. These makeup of such a type of the population shows the phenotypes of both the extremes of characteristics but they have very few individuals in the middle.
Disruptive selection is also known as diversifying selection.
In the given context, the beaks of an African seedcracker finches may be small or may be large but they are not of the intermediate size. Such a selection is known as disruptive selection in species.
