0
Answer
Creation scientists fully acknowledge natural selection as a mechanism of biological change.
At the same time, they believe that natural selection only acts upon genetic information that already exists. Natural selection does not create new information. The variability that created the Galapagos Finch differences, as well as all the different Dog Breeds thus already existed in those populations.
Natural selection alone cannot "make microbes into men." Although evolutionary biologists agree that natural selection does not introduce new genetic information, they concur the second mechanism of evolution, random mutation, DOES introduce new information both through gene duplication and by altering gene function, as has been observed.
[Part of a specific article on the creationist website "WikiCreation" deals with this question. Please refer to the attached link for the article.]
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the unit of natural selection?
This is a bone of contention among some biologists, Some say that the individual organism is the smallest unit upon which natural selection directly acts and some say it is the gene. I would check your textbook to see which way this wind blows, but most texts I have seen, or used, generally, say that the individual organism, or the individuals organism's phenotype is that which natural selection acts directly on. Of course, texts are conservative in their outlook. Something funny here about attribution of answer, so I write this to get this answer under my user name.
What do you mean when you say that neither ecological succession nor natural selection is progressive?
Ecological Succession: The process of gradual change from one community of organisms to another.
What is natural selection how does it drive evolution?
Basically, the ones who have the worst adaptions to survive in the environment it lives in, will die, while the ones with the best adaptions will thrive and breed, gradually making the better adaption dominant in the surviving members of the species. This is how you can have different features (say thicker beaks, longer tails, smaller eyes) in different sub-species of the same species - they've evolved for a different environment, and therefore have different adaptions.
What is natural selection and does it contradict creation?
Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, and an observable fact about nature. It is how species adapt to their environment in congress with spontaneous genetic mutation and other evolutionary mechanisms.Does it contradict with creation? Depends what you mean by creation.Darwin believed in a creator, he talked about "the creator" in the first book about evolution On The Origin Of Species. But unlike the average christian who believes god created all life as-is in one week, he believed a god (not neccesarily the god of any one religion) created the simplest form of microscopic life, and all life evolved from there.That life evolved gradually, that all life has a common line of descent or "family tree" etc, are all widely accepted as fact by scientists and has been conclusively demonstrated through the fossil record and genetics.Interestingly the bible does not just give the standard "god made everything in six days" creation account, in the first two chapters of genesis it gives two accounts, one says god created the plants and the animals, the other says he let the earth do it.This is not an explicit mention of darwinian evolution, more likely a reference to the ancient concept that the earth can produce life, whether that ability is god-given or not.A Somewhat More Technical Answer Natural Selection, at its most basic, is simply differential reproductive success. If I possess a variant of a heritable trait that allows me to raise more offspring successfully than those with other variants of that trait, my variant will become more common in the population. This is not an assumption or theoretical proposition. It is a logical, observable, reproducible, demographic fact. As such, it cannot contradict creation because creation says nothing about natural selection. If anything, creation contradicts the concept of common descent,which is another part of the general theory of evolution. A more general answer Natural selection, in its original form, was merely the theory that organisms will gradually change over time because of factors in the organism's environment. For example, if two groups of a particular kind of organism find themselves in different environments - say that one group is placed in an area with one kind of predator and the other groups is placed in an environment with a different predator - the two groups will eventually change on a biological level to have different characteristics which help defend them against the particular predator they face. If they change sufficiently enough, the two groups will no longer be able to interbreed, and will become separate species.
What do scientists mean when they say that species is the only natural rank in classification?
They mean that species are a fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
What does natural selection evolution and adapation have in common?
say hhi It does not It does not
Are environmental scientists unconcerned with methods to preserve natural resources?
It would be false to say environmental scientists are unconcerned with methods to preserve natural resources. Persevering natural resources is a priority among many environmental scientists.
What level does natural selection occur at?
natural selection occurs when animals need it
Is natural selection a fact?
Technically, one should say that natural selection is a theory that explains a set of observations. However, the theory has been substantiated to such a degree that one might as well call it fact.
What does natural selection eliminate from populations?
Natural selection is a term that, if you stated it fully, would say something like "The fittest individuals are naturally selected for reproduction." Unfit organisms do not survive to reproduce and pass on their genes.
Are black holes the opposite end of a big bang singularity. Does the creation of a black hole in our universe result in the creation of a new universee on the other side if the singularity?
What you say is highly speculative. There are indeed scientists that consider this kind of possibilities, but this is not something that is generally accepted by mainstream scientists.What you say is highly speculative. There are indeed scientists that consider this kind of possibilities, but this is not something that is generally accepted by mainstream scientists.What you say is highly speculative. There are indeed scientists that consider this kind of possibilities, but this is not something that is generally accepted by mainstream scientists.What you say is highly speculative. There are indeed scientists that consider this kind of possibilities, but this is not something that is generally accepted by mainstream scientists.
What is good about natural selection?
That's entirely a matter of perspective. From a perspective favouring robustness, one might say that natural selection is good because it usually favours the robustness of both individual populations and their ecologies. It allows survival of the fittest. But from a perspective of individual rights, one might say that natural selection is bad because it can deny individuals the right to happiness, reproduction or even life.
What is the process by which individuals that are better adapted to their environment survive and reproduce more successfully?
Natural Selection is a process which individuals are better adapted to their enviorment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Say there are turtles barely hatching and there are hungry seagul waiting to be fed, the fastest ones will make it to the water safely while the slow ones are being eaten. so eventually all the turtles in the sea will become faster to get away from predators. hopefully that answered your question.
How do scientists tie biblical creation in with the extinction of the dinosaurs?
Most scientists do not believe in Biblical Creation, so there is no reason to tie it with the extinction of dinosaurs. However, Creationists often say that humans originally co-existed alongside dinosaurs until the Great Flood, when dinosaurs all drowned.
What do scientists say about creation?
The vast majority of scientists say that creation, as opposed to current biological, physical, chemical and astronomical models, is pseudoscience with a religious and political agenda.When we say "majority", we don't just mean 101 to 100. We're talking 999 out of every 1000. Some creation supporters have compiled lists of a few hundred "scientists" which support it. Most of these "scientists" are unqualified; most of the remainder have very little actual qualification. Of the few others, their opinion is based on religious (and not purely scientific) grounds.There are hundreds of thousands of scientists who would attest that their work and research indicates current science to be correct, and creationist claims to the contrary are unfounded, based in misapplication, misunderstanding, and speculation about facts.Quite simply, scientists (as a group) say that creationism is wrong/false/incorrect/fake.ANSWERYou will find that anti-creation scientists are over-represented in the field of Biology despite overwhelming modern evidence and research otherwise by other scientists in other fields such as ENTROPY. [Not old parroted "facts" and opinions passed off as facts but since discredited].Anyway, most scientists couldn't care less - it's just the squeaking wheel that gets the most grease.
Why do people pretend to know how life began?
Some say they know that life began by an act of creation in the recent past. While it is unfair to say that they only 'pretend' to know this, it is a belief largely based on faith.Others believe that the evidence shows that life began many millions of years ago, in early pre-Cambrian times, when the Earth was hot and volcanic. Scientists tell us that life slowly evolved by natural selection to the point we have now. Once again, it would be unfair to say that evolutionists 'pretend' to know this, because there is so much overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
How else can you say scientists say?
scientists believe or accordng to scientists
