The predominant hypothesis for why the animals needed some 3 billion years to evolve after the life first appeared on the planet is that the conditions were not right for them to appear.
The life on Earth has appeared much earlier that what we normally assume, and also it has not been evolving very quickly, but instead it has been a very slow and gradual process. The reason for that is that the living conditions on the Earth were much different than what are they now, or anytime from the Cambrian period until the present.
The surface was still pretty hot, and there was intense volcanic activity. The composition of the atmosphere was not suitable for animals to appear at all, and in fact it would have been toxic for them. The water too had chemicals in it that were not providing the right conditions for animals to evolve. It was only after the plants started to appear and managed to make lot of changes in the water, atmosphere, and land, than the animals were able to evolve and develop.
Answer: It is supported by hypotheses, repeated tests and law from one or more fields of science.
Explanation:
In the context of science, a theory is a well-established explanation for scientific data. Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators.
Provides support and energy
<h2>Answer:</h2>
The one condition that must be met for a population to be in genetic equilibrium:
A Large Breeding Population.
<h3>Explanation:</h3>
- A large breeding population helps to ensure that chance alone does not disrupt genetic equilibrium.
- In a small population, only a few copies of a certain allele may exist.
- If for some chance reason the organisms with that allele do not reproduce successfully, the allelic frequency will change.
