One of the pieces of evidence for evolution that Charles Darwin collected on his travels aboard the HMS Beagle was the observation of fossils of extinct animals and similar, but noticeably different species. Giant ground sloth fossils were very similar in shape to the bones of sloths that inhabited the regions of South America he was exploring. The main difference was the size, as the ground sloth fossils were significantly larger that the bones of the sloths he captured alive. What was a conclusion that Darwin was able to arrive to based on this piece of evidence

Darwin was able to arrive at a conclusion that there was no relationship between the fossils of the ground sloth and the bones of the captured sloths that currently reside in South America.

Explanation:

Evolution is defined as the sum total of adaptive changes that have taken place over a very long period of time. It leads to the development of new species from earlier ones. Evolution is an extremely slow process. It is difficult to obtain direct evidence of evolution in action. However, scientist such as Darwin, have gathered a great deal of indirect evidence that supports the theory of evolution. These evidence comes from many sources including:

--> fossils records

--> biochemical similarities

--> molecular records

--> Comparative anatomy and

--> embryology.

FOSSILS RECORDS shows the existence of species that are now in extinct which lived on Earth during different periods of the planet's history. They provide evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today due to adaptive changes that has occurred over a long period of time on the organism in order to survive in its environment.

There was no relationship between the sloths because of the difference in BONE MASS.

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."