Clues that living things share ancestors
Grade 7 Science Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.
Ari reads the whale chart. Which claim uses both the fossil rows and the flipper row?
- Fossil limbs shrink in order, and the flipper has new bones
- Fossil limbs shrink in order, and the flipper keeps the leg bones
- Fossil limbs shrink in order, and a living land animal became a whale
- Fossil limbs grow in order, and the flipper keeps the leg bones
Bo says a flipper cannot be related to a leg, since one swims and one walks. What does the chart show?
Use the picture in question 1.
- Wrong: flippers and legs look alike, so the animals must be close relatives
- Right: fossils cannot show how limbs change
- Wrong: fossils go from legs to paddles, and the flipper keeps leg bones
- Right: a different job means different bones
Esme asks why a swimming flipper and a walking cat leg share bones. Which reason fits the chart?
Use the picture in question 1.
- Both limbs look alike, so the animals are close relatives
- Both limbs move the animal about, so the two limbs must have the same bones in them
- Both came from a shared ancestor's limb, as the fossils show limbs changing
- A living cat turned into a whale, so they share bones
Three wings (real: Understanding Evolution, Open University OpenLearn and OpenStax Biology 2e). Comparison chart, columns: Animal | Job of the wing | Build of the wing. Row 1: Bird wing | flying | forelimb bones: humerus, radius, ulna. Row 2: Bat wing | flying | forelimb bones: humerus, radius, ulna (ulna small). Row 3: Butterfly wing | flying | a different build and origin. Three wings (real: Understanding Evolution, Open University OpenLearn and OpenStax Biology 2e). Comparison chart, columns: Animal | Job of the wing | Build of the wing. Row 1: Bird wing | flying | forelimb bones: humerus, radius, ulna. Row 2: Bat wing | flying | forelimb bones: humerus, radius, ulna (ulna small). Row 3: Butterfly wing | flying | a different build and origin. Three wings (real: Understanding Evolution, Open University OpenLearn and OpenStax Biology 2e). Comparison chart Animal Job of the wing Build of the wing Row 1: Bird wing flying forelimb bones: humerus, radius, ulna Row 2: Bat wing flying forelimb bones: humerus, radius, ulna (ulna small) Row 3: Butterfly wing flying a different build and origin Kira reads the wing chart. Which two animals does it link most closely, and why?
- Bird and bat, since their wings share the same forelimb bones
- Bat and butterfly, since both wings work in flight
- Bird, bat and butterfly equally, since each wing has the same job
- Bird and butterfly, since both wings are used for flying
Luz reads two results on the wing chart, the job and the bones. Which is better evidence of a shared ancestor?
Use the picture in question 4.
- The bones, since matching parts come from a shared ancestor
- The job, since bones follow the job
- The job, since animals that fly share a recent common ancestor
- Neither, since a chart cannot show ancestry
Read this first
Use the table
Three stretches of DNA that chicken and turkey both have (real data: Dalloul et al. 2010, PLoS Biology; percents are about) (real data: Dalloul et al. 2010, PLoS Biology). Comparison chart.
DNA stretch Length (letters) Chicken and turkey match (percent) CR1_B 2,000 91 Birddawg_I 3,600 89 Galluhop 1,200 91 Milo says: Chicken and turkey match in 91 percent of their body traits. What is the flaw?
- The 91 percent counts matching DNA letters in one stretch, not body traits
- The flaw is that 91 percent is too low to show any link
- The flaw is that chicken and turkey are the same animal
- No flaw, since a high DNA percent means most traits match
Noah says: Chicken and turkey match about 91 percent in DNA, so a chicken turned into a turkey. What is the flaw?
- The flaw is that the longest stretch should match 100 percent
- No flaw, since a close DNA match means that one kind became the other kind
- The flaw is that DNA cannot show how kinds are related
- A DNA match shows a shared ancestor, not one kind turning into the other
“layers never moved” Pia says: The moth wing print is in Layer 1, the top layer, so it is the oldest fossil. What is the flaw?
Four rock layers (model data). Rock-layers diagram, layers never moved, top to bottom. Layer 1 (top): moth wing print. Layer 2: seed. Layer 3: mussel shell. Layer 4 (deepest): crab shell. Four rock layers (model data). Rock-layers diagram, layers never moved, top to bottom. Layer 1 (top): moth wing print. Layer 2: seed. Layer 3: mussel shell. Layer 4 (deepest): crab shell. Rock-layers diagram (model data) top bottom Layer 1 (top) moth wing print Layer 2: seed Layer 3: mussel shell Layer 4 (deepest) crab shell - The top layer is the youngest, so the moth wing print is the youngest
- The flaw is that the crab shell should be the youngest
- The flaw is that fossils in one quarry share an age
- No flaw, since layers on top formed first
Three rock layers (model data). Rock-layers diagram, layers never moved, top to bottom. Tala reads the rock layers. Which claim and reason fit best?
Three rock layers (model data). Rock-layers diagram, layers never moved, top to bottom. Layer 1 (top): tracks of four-legged animals. Layer 2: fish with arm-like bones in the fins. Layer 3 (deepest): fish with plain fins. Three rock layers (model data). Rock-layers diagram, layers never moved, top to bottom. Layer 1 (top): tracks of four-legged animals. Layer 2: fish with arm-like bones in the fins. Layer 3 (deepest): fish with plain fins. Layer 1 (top) Layer 2 Layer 3 (deepest) tracks of four-legged animals fish with arm-like bones in the fins fish with plain fins - One fish grew limbs during its own life, since Layer 2 has arm-like bones in its fins
- Fins and limbs formed together, since the layers touch
- Limbs came from fins, since older layers hold fins and newer ones hold limbs
- Fins came from limbs, since deeper layers are younger
Zee reads the DNA chart. Which claim and reason fit best?
DNA letters compared in one short stretch (model data, made-up kinds) (model data). Comparison chart, columns: Pair of kinds | DNA letters that match (percent). Row 1: Kind 5 and Kind 6 | 97. Row 2: Kind 5 and Kind 7 | 90. DNA letters compared in one short stretch (model data, made-up kinds) (model data). Comparison chart, columns: Pair of kinds | DNA letters that match (percent). Row 1: Kind 5 and Kind 6 | 97. Row 2: Kind 5 and Kind 7 | 90. DNA letters compared in one short stretch (model data, made-up kinds) (model data) Pair of kinds DNA letters that match (percent) 1 Kind 5 and Kind 6 97 2 Kind 5 and Kind 7 90 - Neither kind is closer to Kind 5, since a percent says nothing about relatives
- Kind 6 is closer to Kind 5, since more DNA letters match
- Kind 7 is closer to Kind 5, since fewer DNA letters match
- Kind 6 shares 97 percent of body traits with Kind 5, since the percent counts traits