0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What role does molecular evidence play in determining how closely two species are related to each other?
the role in which molecular evidence play in determining how closely two species are related to each other is through the cladogram
How did the microscope play an important role in the development of the cell theory?
it work so they couls see the cells in different plants or animals
What is genetic-maturational perspective of childhood emotional development?
According to this theory, individual differences in temperament play a vital role in how children regulate their emotions and emotions are products of biological factors.
What did ernst haeckel do?
Ernst Haeckel was a zealous promoter of Darwin's evolutionary theory in Germany, unfortunately, like others before him (peppered moths and Piltdown Man being examples) he didn't let scientific facts get in the way of a good story. What is even more unfortunate is that his bio-genetic law is still promoted today as fact even though it is based on fraudulent data. His fraud was exposed by contemporary scientists in 1864 soon after it was published.Evolutionary scientists are becoming more vocal in exposing Haeckel's fraudulent intent in his infamous embryo drawings.Haeckel used images of embryos of various species to support his theory that different animals pass through, or 'recapitulate', similar embryonic stages. But it was recently shown in the scientific journal Nature that Haeckel removed the limbs from the image of a young echidna embryo (and other species also) in order to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life. The removal of limbs was selective, as it was done only to particular developmental stages.Haeckel's evolution-promoting motive is clear from the text accompanying his drawings: 'There is still no trace of the limbs or "extremities" in this stage of development...'.Nature, 8 March 2001, p. 144.Darwin and others have reasoned that descendants along various evolutionary lineages would demonstrate similar embryonic morphologies during the earliest stages. Closely related organisms would show differences only during the latest stages, whereas distantly related ones should display ever widening differences as the embryo develops. Haeckel (1834-1919), a flamboyant German biologist, provided a series of drawings which conveniently demonstrated just this. These pictures appear even today in graduate-level biology textbooks, such as American Academy of Science president Bruce Alberts' Molecular Biology of the Cell, with no statement that this evidence is a well-established blatant fraud, a shameless fake. Even Darwin, who called this his 'strongest single class of facts', was duped.Photographs of the embryos Haeckel selected demonstrate virtually no resemblance with his drawings. Additionally, Haeckel did not draw the first stage of growth, where closest resemblance was predicted, but selected precisely the stages where five (out of the seven) carefully selected vertebrate classes are least different. For the amphibian class the natural choice would have been a frog, which looks, however, very different than the other four organisms used, so a salamander was used as (uh) representative (ahem) for this class. Apparently all this was not good enough for him. 'In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes' (p. 91).Although the embryos vary in size from less than 1 mm to almost 10 mm, Haeckel portrayed them the same size. Wells points out that the processes of cleavage (subdivision in many separate cells without overall growth) and gastrulation (movement and rearrangement of the cells to form organs and other structures) proceed before the point in time drawn by Haeckel. Here is where Darwin's expectations should be tested, and there is 'certainly not a pattern in which the earliest stages are the most similar and later stages are more different' (p. 97). In fact, the evidence points clearly to unrelated lineages and not a common ancestor.Another myth is the claim human embryos go through a fish-like stage and display gill slits. These pharyngeal folds are not gills.14 Ironically, they're not even gills in pharyngula-stage fish embryos, although they do develop into these later, 'but in a reptile, mammal, or bird they develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland)' (p. 107). In reptiles, mammals, and birds they never resemble gills, and what is observed are merely some parallel lines in the neck region.Professor Douglas Futuyma, author of the 1998 textbook Evolutionary Biology, responded in February 2000 via an internet forum to a critic who had accused him of lying by using Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution. He admitted he had not been aware of Haeckel's dishonesty, a rather staggering admission. It is important to always be sceptical of those endless, but transient 'proofs' for evolution. They reflect over-enthusiastic and selective use of data when it appears to support a pre-conceived evolutionary mind-set. Incidentally, Futuyma's admission was not an example of 'science' correcting itself, but the result of a 'creationist' setting the record straight (p. 109).Taken from a review of "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathon WellsRe: Haeckel's Work as ArtWhile it is true that Haeckel's work is indeed beautiful as art, as indeed is nature itself, the whole motive of his work was not artistic but scientific. So, although the drawings may be beautiful works of art they are deliberately fraudulent scientifically as Haeckel himself admitted. Even George Gaylord Simpson, famous evolutionist and others equally committed to the evolutionary theory, reject Haeckels theory as unscientific. Haeckel's 'ongoing contribution' is still sadly found even today in textbooks of science.AnswerIt seems my answer was reverted, so I shall repost it. The above post is almost entirely an outright graft from the cited "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells and is frought with inaccuracies and false implication. Let's begin at the beginning. Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist of the late mid 1800s who made commentary on a large range of issues, ranging from philosophy to development to evolutionary theory to naming new species. He is often best-known for his (indeed zealous) promotion of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, however he was also an accomplished artist, as anyone can see from his work "Kunstformen der Natur" ("Artforms of Nature").Now to the "meat" of the controversy: Ernst Haeckel came up with many ideas related to biology, a number of them turning out to be false. Most famous is recapitulation theory, the idea that organisms directly express their evolutionary history during development, in respect to time. In the case of a human, for example, the general (simplified) idea would hold that after multicellularity, you go through a fish-like stage, then amphibian, then reptile, then mammalian, then ape, etc. This is very oversimplfied, but that is the general gist.But this is not the case. While development does supply deep insight into evolutionary relationships and we can get glimpses of organs/parts which are no longer present in the adult form of animals, ontogeny is more complex and is differentiated between species, the differentiation increasing as the organism develops.Adding to the controversy, Haeckel provided a number of illustrations for his ideas, claimed to be accurate representations of various animals in their development. These illustrations were challenged during Haeckel's lifetime during a number of scientific and personal feuds as overemphasizing the similarities of related organisms. This is merely a little bit of historical intrigue until you toss in modern creationism, a bit of bad-faith ID, and of course the fact that some modern textbooks still use copies of some of Haeckel's embryonic illustrations.However, let's look at the "answer" which was actually a short paragraph or two and then a massive quote from Jonathan Wells. We start of well: he was indeed German and a zealous promoter of evolutionary theory, in this case natural selection and common descent. But nowhere is the biogenetic law sold as fact, certainly not by scientists or in schools. This is an old idea which was challenged and died around Haeckel's time and, as an inaccuracy, irrelevant ot the article.Now, it is not this author's intent to play a 'gotcha' game, so the rest of this answer will tend to focus on anything implying inaccuracies or irrelevancies in the earlier answer and nothing more.Recapitulation concerning Haeckel is not about passing through the stages of similar organisms, it is about development mirroring phylogeny. Haeckel's images, when used in modern textbooks, are never used to support recapitulation theory. They may be inaccurate drawings, but the statements of the texts are accurate. Darwin did not say that Haeckel's drawings were the greatest evidence for his theory, as is implied from the first answer. Instead, he said that about embryogenesis in general in "The Origin of Species", well before Haeckel's drawings were even made. As such, this inaccuracy is irrelevant.It is wrong to say that Haeckel's drawings bear no resemblance to photographs of the same point in development. While those specific drawings are inaccurate, they are a product of cutting corners rather than outright fabrication.It is an outright lie and sign of Wells' lack of academic integrity to say that Haeckel did not draw the earliest stages of development. There are numerous examples of even the zygote in his drawings. For evidence, merely check "Kunstformen der Natur", freely available online.The next paragraph in the 'answer' has almost nothing to do with Haeckel but is instead an attack on Darwin (and then implicitly evolutionary theory). This is both entirely irrelevant and not a problem for scientists or evolution: Darwin got many things wrong, but he got the important things right. Haeckel did indeed draw developmental stages as the same size on paper, however again Wells blew this out or proportion.The next paragraph makes no mention of Haeckel and is almost an entirely irrelevant answer, despite its false implications. Of course pharyngeal ridges are not gills. The only people confused about such a thing are those with almost no knowledge of the subject. There is nothing ironic about them not being actual gills in fish embryos.Futuyma admitting ignorance about fudged drawings is not "staggering" unless jaywalking is now a heinous crime. Haeckel's fudging is generally only important as 1) an interesting historical fact and 2) a creationist talking point (where they, as usual, get most things wrong). It is are not evidence that an evolutionary biologist is not well-versed in the vast amount of work that has been done in the almost 150 years since The Origin of Species. The fact that Wells attempts to make it into an "atrocious" fact tells us everything we need to know about his integrity and how much you should trust him as a source on Haeckel.However, we get a good view into the bias of the first answer with this quote: "It is important to always be sceptical of those endless, but transient 'proofs' for evolution." Now, not only has the response deviated entirely from Haeckel, but it is now touting the fudged drawings as being a part of a large, doubtful set, all in order to throw aspersions on evolutionary theory. Congratulations on a 'creationist' setting the record straight, if by that they mean being aware of a minor historical artifact for which the details were filled in by a fellow scientist.
What does not play a role in cytokinesis in plant cells?
Well in theory everything plays a role in cytokinesis. From photosynthesis and respiration in plant cells to provide and release energy for the process, to a person undergoing respiration to return carbon atoms to the environment to provide material for additional cell division (in which cytokinesis is a part of the process).
What role did Jean Baptiste de Lamarck play in the development of evolutionary theory?
he didnt
What are Modern theories of play?
Modern theories of play focus on various aspects including the cognitive, social, and emotional benefits of play. Some key theories include Vygotsky's sociocultural theory emphasizing the role of social interaction in play, Piaget's constructivist theory highlighting the cognitive development that occurs through play, and the ecological systems theory suggesting that play is influenced by the social and physical environment. These theories collectively emphasize the importance of play in child development and learning.
What is evolutionary play?
Evolutionary play refers to the idea that play behavior in animals serves an evolutionary purpose, such as helping individuals practice skills necessary for survival or building social bonds that enhance group cohesion. This behavior can be observed in various species, including humans, and is believed to contribute to the development and adaptation of individuals within a population.
How do you refute Charle's Darwin theory?
You can easily refute the theory of evolution--just as easily as you can refute Newton's theory of gravity, or Einstein's theory of relativity. You just can't refute these theories using science or evidence with ease, as these theories are extremely well supported. If you could confirm the existence of fossil bunnies in undisturbed Cambrian strata, that would serve as excellent evidence of a fundamental flaw in Darwin's theory. If you could find a natural specie such as Kirk Cameron's crocaduck, evolution could not explain such a chimera, and forces at odds with Darwin's theory would obviously be at play.
What role does confirmation theory in science play in religion?
It doesn't ether you can believe all of the scientific evidence that has been collected over the years or you can believe all of this superstitious crud.
Where did soccer begain?
The first evidence we have of soccer existing was in China during the 2nd and 3rd centures BC. There is also evidence that Romans and Greeks used to play a sport liek soccer. Modern soccer however, is said to have started in England
Which claim is best supported by the evidence that many members of modern theater audiences will refuse to say Macbeth in a theater?
Normally it is actors who are superstitious about naming the Scottish play in theatres, not members of the audience. If there is evidence that the audience feels bound by this superstition, it could mean one of the following:Audiences are just as superstitious as actors.Audiences are indulgent of actors' superstitions.People love to play along with silly superstitions.There's something about Mac--er, the Scottish play--which makes people want to believe in spooky mumbo-jumbo.
How does susan isaacs theory enfluence todays curriculum?
Susan Isaacs' theory of children's cognitive development emphasizes the importance of play in learning. This has influenced modern curriculum design by highlighting the significance of hands-on, experiential learning experiences for children. Today's curriculum often incorporates elements of play-based learning and encourages child-led exploration to support holistic development.
What does Dave brenner play in theory of a deadman?
guitar
Is The House of Bernada by Lorca a classical or modern play?
The House of Bernada is a modern play. As an FYI, Lorca died in 1936.
What role did World War 2 play in Africa's evolutionary process?
I would say in the northern part of africa but not any more
What role does critical thinking play in scientific evidence?
Nothing
