|
|
|
|
|
by dkokelley
6099 days ago
|
|
Natural selection states that the most fit for survival will survive. When applied to evolution, it means that humans were better-suited for survival than t-rexes. Think about it like this: A T-Rex has to eat a lot of food to survive. What happens when there is a shortage of food? The T-Rex can kill and eat just about anything, but it need s a lot of it to survive. Humans aren't as fit to kill things as T-Rexes, but they are smarter, and they don't need to eat as much, and they can survive on plants too. Humans could grow and store food, so they survived. Dinosaurs weren't smart enough to grow or store food, so they had to eat when they found food, or not eat. They didn't survive. (Please, nobody 'correct' me by saying that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. For this example, it was their small brains.) |
|
A bizarre statement, given that the two never existed at the same time.
Yes, it was indeed a meteor that killed almost all the dinosaurs (except a group of theropods that had evolved wings and survive to this day). Evidently the shrew-like mammals of the time were better suited to the post-impact environment. We evolved from them.