Why the answer is B, and why the others tempt you.
**The reasoning**
Charles Darwin's groundbreaking theory centers on **natural selection** — the idea that organisms with traits better suited to their environment survive longer, reproduce more, and pass those advantageous traits to offspring. Over many generations, this "survival of the fittest" shapes entire species. Think of it like this: in a drought, giraffes with longer necks reach higher leaves, survive, and have more long-necked babies. No planning involved — just nature "selecting" what works.
**Why the wrong options tempt you**
**A) Mutation** — Mutations *contribute* to evolution by creating variation, but Darwin didn't focus on them (they weren't well understood then). They're a mechanism, not the foundation.
**C) Use and disuse** — This was *Lamarck's* theory (giraffes stretch their necks, offspring inherit longer necks). Darwin rejected this idea of inherited acquired traits.
**D) Special creation** — The opposite of evolution! This is the religious view that species were created as-is and don't change.
**Quick takeaway**
Darwin = Natural selection (nature picks winners based on environment); Lamarck = Use and disuse (you become what you practice). Know this distinction cold! 🎯
Want this in Pidgin, Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa? Sign up free →
Practice more Biology questions
JAMB UTME Biology has thousands more questions like this — with Worked answers on every one.