501,125 views
35 votes
35 votes
Directions: Based on each person's statement, identify if you agree or disagree by

placing an X in one of the columns on the chart on the back and then explain your
reasoning.
Courtney
Jose
Raquan
Mike
Keisha
Alex
Agree Disagree
Explain your reasoning

Directions: Based on each person's statement, identify if you agree or disagree by-example-1
User Sathya Narayanan
by
2.8k points

1 Answer

11 votes
11 votes

Based on each person's statement, here is my analysis:

  • Courtney: I disagree with Courtney's statement "Obviously, there was not enough food in the sea, so a mutation occurred and that caused Tiktaalik to be able to go on the land." While it is possible that there was not enough food in the sea, the statement suggests that a single mutation was the sole cause of Tiktaalik's ability to go on land, when in reality, evolution is a complex and multifaceted process that is influenced by many different factors.
  • Jose: I disagree with Jose's statement "Tiktaalik must have needed to develop fins that were capable of supporting movement on land." This statement suggests that Tiktaalik needed to develop specific traits in order to survive when in reality, again, evolution is a complex and multifaceted process that is influenced by many different factors.
  • Raquan: I agree with Raquan's statement "Clearly, Tiktaalik encountered a changing environment and it adapted to it." This accurately describes the process of evolution and the role that the environment plays in it.
  • Mike: I disagree with Mike's statement "once it acquired the trait of fins capable of supporting movement on land, as Jose suggested, it passed them onto its offspring." This statement is based on Jose's incorrect statement, so it is also incorrect.
  • Keisha: I agree with Keisha's statement "we do think this is an example of evolution?" This is a question rather than a statement, but based on the previous statements, it seems that the group is discussing the evolution of Tiktaalik. Therefore, Keisha's question is appropriate.
  • Alex: I agree with Alex's statement "I'm not so sure if Tiktaalik evolved into the tetrapods we see today. If Tiktaalik is a fossil, it should be extinct." Tiktaalik is indeed a fossil, and it is thought to be an extinct transitional species that lived approximately 375 million years ago. It is believed to be a link between fish and the first tetrapods, which were the earliest four-limbed vertebrates that could walk on land. However, it is not likely that Tiktaalik evolved directly into the tetrapods we see today, as evolution is a complex process that involves many branching and diverging paths over time.

User Dessa Simpson
by
3.2k points
Welcome to QAmmunity.org, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of our community.