What are some examples of evolutions in animals?
542841
As mentioned above, Darwin's Finches are a great example.  Below is an encyclopedia entry and another page with pictures of the finches.  Darwin himself noted that the finches had a great number of similarities - but that each had one or more differences that made it 'fit' well with its 'niche' (that is, whether it lived on the ground or in trees, whether it ate tough seeds or worms, etc).  As noted in the article, modern techniques have proved Darwin correct; all these birds came from one small "parent" population.\nBut the larger answer to your question is everything you see in every form of life around you appears to be a product of evolution.  The fact that a bat's wing is composed of the same number of bones as a human arm and hand; and that the same number of bones also from the flipper of seal, or the paw of a bear.  Anything that allows any creature to do what it does well is appears to be a product of evolution.\n[Now somebody stop me before I sound any more like a David Attenborough program on PBS...]
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
145878
In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote. \n\nChickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken. \n\nPrior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.
655962
Great question. Animals face different environmental pressures. When I say "environmental" I mean not just the weather, but also food resources, predators, and even the pressure from one's own species. For example, let us imagine that a certain species of elephant migrates north, where it is colder. Because it is so cold up north, elephants who have thicker patches of hair will survive longer than those who don't. Those thick-haired elephants will also have better luck producing offspring. Over many generations, there will be more elephants with lots of hair than with little hair. Or imagine that another species- say wild dogs- migrates to a region where there are lots of competing predators, such as large wild cats.  Those dogs who develop larger canines will be better able to fend off competing predators.  This is the entire basis for "evolution".\n\nEvolution can happen for a variety of reasons. Traditionally, evolutionary biologists believed that evolution happened very slowly. For example, we can imagine that over hundreds of years the neck of the giraffe got longer and longer (so it could reach the succulent top leaves of trees). But geological and environmental evidence suggests that this may not always be the case. If a sudden and catastrophic environmental event creates harsh pressures on organisms, evolution may happen relatively quickly. Keep in mind that "evolution" is not happening here with purpose of mind. That is, there is no internal mechanism inside each species which switches to the "on" position every time evolution is desirable. It is actually entirely by chance, like a lottery. Some individuals win that lottery, and some lose it.\n\nNot all evolution is the result of adaptation to the natural environment, however. Sometimes animals "evolve" because their own species (notably the females of the species) select for certain characteristics which they find desirable. Imagine that the female peahen desires a large fan-tail on the peacock. Those males with the larger feathers will get selected more often (and therefore will reproduce with greater frequency). Eventually, most peacocks might evolve to have huge feathers, as we see today. In this example, the peacocks aren't evolving in order to adapt to the natural environment, but as a result of pressures from the female member of the species. In fact, this might be a reason why there is so much sexual dimorphism (physical difference) between most males and females. Human males tend to be, on average, about 50% larger than human females, a very large difference. It is quite possible that in our own evolution females tended to choose the larger, more powerful males and therefore we "evolved" to be larger and stronger. (Note: this needn't mean males are better than females).\n\nOne might ask how a female preference for certain characteristics in males evolved in the first place. One possibility is that a random genetic change caused certain females to have a preference for certain characteristics. Evolution doesn't always happen for a good reason. Chance always plays an important role. Much of the variation that we see today is a result of random events which, over time, have resulted in the multitude of colors, shapes, sizes, etc.\n\nFactors such as natural and sexual selection, random genetic drift, and the migration of individuals within a population all tend to increase the variation within a species, and sometimes result in the creation of new species.
99484
What an odd question. They come from variations of a dog-like species that evolved. What exactly are you asking?
675558
A good example of this is that scientists have found fossils of exactly the same species of reptile in Africa and South America, what happened here is that South America and Africa were once joined together and these animals died distributed on top of them, then the continents moved aprt and the fossils are on both\nThis isnt an example of evolutionary distribution due to continents moving but shows they do move and animals live on both of them\nNow what could happen is that a species could live on  continents joined together and as the continents drift apart the species are left on both sides of it and they evolve into separate but similar species ( like Humans and apes evolved form a common ancestor). \nSO the continets drifting explains why similar species can be on both sides of the Ocean that separates 2 continents because the continents drift apart with the species on both of them and the species evolve into 2 separate but similar species.
351989
you basically want to say which species evolved first.\n\nTry this website...it might give you some ideas\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
860223
Evolution helps scientists find the connections between all the different species on earth. Also, it helps us form the different categories of kingdoms, orders, phylum, classes, families, geneses, and species. Without evolution we would not be able to understand some of the differences and similarities between the species like thumbs and the vestigial appendages in snakes and other animals. It also, helps explain what Darwin found in Darwin's finches, and why they are so simular and the types of beaks so different.
395275
In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.\n\nChickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.\n\nPrior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.
711473
other animals ....of course.\n\nDo you know about plate tectonics?
977843
Evolution is not directional, you can't predict what stuff will look like in a million years. And domestic animals are operating in a different environment, where people are protecting them from predators and sometimes choosing who they mate with.
886021
Evolution and the means to survive.
49956
one species of animal is defined as a group of organisms that may breed to produce viable offspring. eg. "Mammals" are not a "species" as they are not all able to interbreed (never seen a rabbit-sheep cross, have you?) I would estimate at over 1000 "animals" although there must be many more species of organism, including many species of insects, plants, bacteria, fungi, viruses etc.\n\nLook up the science of "phylogenetics" or phylogeny for more details
684738
There are two conceptual models that overshadow current theories related to the production of diversification within organisms. Darwinian evolutionists propose that genetic variability is the result of random mutations that have accumulated gradually over millions of years. In contrast, creationists generally assume that God made all useful genetic information during the creation of the world. Both largely agree that groups such as the Family Canidae evolved from a common ancestor, and the rapid development of variety during the domestic dog breeding, was simply the result of shuffling preexisting genes. This common genetic theory fails to explain the rapid production of the significant diversity when presented with the assertion that the wolf was a pure breed while in nature. A purebred organism is a genetic homozygote for the characteristics in question, and will therefore pass its traits to every offspring produced. In other words, wolves only give birth to wolf pups, but from them a tremendous genetic and morphologically diverse number of dogs have been isolated in a relatively short period of time. Explaining this conundrum cuts to the very heart of the creation vs. evolution controversy.\n\nThe canine baramin (Biblical kind) likely speciated rapidly following the flood of Noah during geographic radiation, and each new population was then naturally selected until varieties such as the wolf, fox, hyena, jackal, etc., each became purebred. Selection is the process of inbreeding specific genes from a diverse genotype until alternate variations of genes (alleles) are eliminated, and the bloodline will only then breed true. As a result, the purebred organism is genetically limited, and in many respects the wolf should be considered no different in its ability to produce offspring diversity than any of the dog breeds we have today. Although speculative for some time, genetic studies have now thoroughly established that dogs were bred from domesticated gray wolves.1 It is also a matter of historic fact that most breeds have been selected to purity within the last few hundred years. However, when compared to the wolf, the domestic dogs are found to have divergent sequences not possessed by their progenitors. Due to these findings some geneticists now believe that wolf domestication must have begun more than 100,000 years ago despite the fact that archaeological findings can not verify their existence beyond 14,000 years.2\n\nIf one believes that the Biblical flood of Noah was a recent and global event, then another problem presents itself. Genes have fixed locations within the genome called loci, and sexually reproducing organism only carry two alleles (variation of a gene) per locus.(Figure 1) If the number of breeding pairs released from the ark can be taken as accurate data for this recent genetic bottleneck, then the maximum number of original alleles is known. According to the Bible, no more than seven breeding pairs were preserved for each baramin, and these 14 individuals can only carry 28 alleles per locus. Since only 8 people were alive following the flood, there should be a maximum of 16 alleles at any given locus in humans. However, it is now clear that many genes exist within populations as hundreds or even thousands of alleles. For example, 240 alleles have already been discovered in the human HLA-B locus. In spite of such concrete evidence, most creationists still tend to assume there is no mechanism for generating new genetic information,3 and indeed the following quote may be exemplary of the current state of thinking regarding intelligently designed genetic heredity. "Recombination explains why children look different from their parents. This shuffling of the genes can produce superior combinations of different genes. However, because we see that mutations are incapable of supplying useful variation, the useful genes that are there to be shuffled must have been created at the beginning.\n\n\nThis might do it
91883
Divergent evolution is the process by which initially similar gene copies diverge to perform different functions as they lose the selective pressure initially present on them. New selective pressures then take over to evolve the genes towards totally different functions. Note that these gene products may have common structural aspects and may involve the same step mechanistically. However, the reaction involved will be widely different.\n\nIn a broader sense this is speciation. Two animals may originally have the exact same set of genes, but due to divergent evolution, they may give rise to entirely different species. For example, tigers and lions share the common lineage of the cat. Divergent evolution of one set of genes gave one stripes.\n\nDivergent and Convergent Evolution Adaptive radiation is one example of divergent evolution. Divergent evolution is the process of two or more related species becoming more and more dissimilar. The red fox and the kit fox provide and example of two species that have undergone divergent evolution. The red fox lives in mixed farmlands and forests, where its red color helps it blend in with surrounding trees. The kit fox lives on the plains and in the deserts, where its sandy color helps conceal it from prey and predators. The ears of the kit fox are larger than those of the red fox. The kit fox's large ears are an adaptation to its desert environment. The enlarged surface area of its ears helps the fox get rid of excess body heat. Similarities in structure indicate that the red fox and the kit fox had a common ancestor. As they adapted to different environments, the appearance of the two species diverged.\n\nIn convergent evolution, on the other hand, unrelated species become more and more similar in appearance as they adapt to the same kind of environment. The two unrelated types of plants in the picture above have adapted to desert environments. Notice the resemblance of the cactus, which grows in the American desert, to the euphorbia, which grows in the African deserts. Both have fleshy stems armed with spines. These adaptations help the plants store water and ward off predators.
343898
The most recent common ancestor of mammals and the bird/reptile clade was probably a terrestrial creature.  The most recent common ancestor of all live mammals was also terrestrial.  The animals along that direct line of descent were also all probably terrestrial.\n\nCastorocauda was a semi-aquatic animal that evolved along a side branch of that line.  Semi-aquatic mammals have evolved many times among modern mammals.  Examples are beaver, otter, platypus, star-nosed mole, hippo, muskrat, water vole, yapok, desman, nutria, and others.  These can all be traced to terrestrial ancestors.\n\nModern marine mammmals can also all be traced to terrestrial ancestors.  \n\nThe closest living relatives to whales and dolphins are the hippos.  They evolved from a terrestrial even-toed ungulate.\n\nThe closest living relatives to the manatees and dugongs are the elephants and hyraxes.  They evolved from a terrestrial afrotherian.\n\nThe closest living relative to the seals, sea lions, and walrus are raccoons, weasels, skunks, badgers, red pandas, and their relatives.  They evolved from a terrestrial caniform carnivoran.
64641
Animals and plants develope unique features that help them to adapt to their enviroment.