0
Why is microevolution claimed by creationists and evolutionary scientists?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Microevolution is evolution that has taken place within a species to such a limited extent that the result is not yet an entirely new species.
Many creationists are willing to accept the reality of microevolution because, even in large mammals, the timeframe for microevolution is so short that we can readily see that it has occurred. To a creationist, there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, where evolution has already continued until the change is so apparent that a new species must be defined. If they accept the fact of macroevolution, then they must accept the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth.
Of course, scientists, or if one prefers 'evolutionists', accept that microevolution is the first step on the path to macroevolution, and they accept that this is explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Not all instances of microevolution continue on to macroevolution and the creation of new species. In some cases, a limited adaptation is all that is necessary for the species to survive in an altered environment. In other cases, the adaptation is to slow or too late, and the species becomes extinct before it can adapt.
AnswerBoth accept that there are changes within species because they are easily observed. Creationists, while acknowledging it is not evolution, see adaptations within a group which do not lead to any new genetic material and do not in any way discredit the creation of kinds by God. They accept it because of the clear scientific evidence that changes within species occur while those involving the addition of new genetic material needed for 'macroevolution' have not been proven despite the claims of some.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoMicroevolution is evolution that has taken place within a species to such a limited extent that the result is not yet an entirely new species.
Many creationists are willing to accept the reality of microevolution because, even in large mammals, the timeframe for microevolution is so short that we can readily see that it has occurred. To a creationist, there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, where evolution has already continued until the change is so apparent that a new species must be defined. If they accept the fact of macroevolution, then they must accept the Theory of Evolution as the explanation for life on earth.
Of course, scientists, or if one prefers 'evolutionists', accept that microevolution is the first step on the path to macroevolution, and they accept that this is explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Not all instances of microevolution continue on to macroevolution and the creation of new species.In some cases, a limited adaptation is all that is necessary for the species to survive in an altered environment. In other cases, the adaptation is to slow or too late, and the species becomes extinct before it can adapt.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How many victims has gas gangrene claimed?
1
Which scientist performed an experiment that claimed to support spontaneous generation?
> Louis Pasteur (1626-1697) discovered spontaneous generation. Actually, Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is credited with DISPROVING spontaneous generation, expanding the work of other scientists before him. Aristotle synthesized the theory of spontaneous generation, compiling and expanding on the work of earlier natural philosophers.
Are creationists right?
It is hard to say that creationists are right when they can not even agree on what they believe. Just two groupings of creationists shows the problem. "Young Earth Creationists" believe that the Bible must be read just as they interpret. Some Young Earth Creationists believe that this means the Earth is literally around 6,000 years old. Others are willing to stretch the meaning of 'day' and concede that the Earth may be much older, but still younger than the scientific evidence shows. "Old Earth Creationists" accept the scientific evidence for the great age of the Earth, but believe that (i) God created life just as we now see it; or (ii) that evolution occurred, guided by God.
When did humans first appear on the Earth?
Hominids with the same anatomy as modern humans first appear in the fossil records about 200,000 years ago. They existed alongside earlier species that became extinct, as well as with the separate Neanderthals, with whom some interbreeding may have occurred.
What clues helped the scientists solve the structure of DNA?
Observing the patterns of DNA, like noticing the amount of adenine always equalled the amount of thymine (the same with guanine and cytocine), and using x-rays to study the structure of molecules, helped scientists such as Erwin Chargaff to discover the structure of DNA.
What theory claimed that the state developed naturally out of the early family?
Evolutionary theory
Which theory says that the state began when primitive families joined and claimed territory?
evolutionary theory
Which theory says that the state began when primitive families joined together and claimed territory?
evolutionary theory
What is CJ667Cc?
It is a planet which, as scientists claimed, has traces of water which may be favourable to life. This planet is 33 light years away.
Which organisms have embryonic stages the most similar?
Human and jell fish are the most similar because scientists claimed that human came from fish
What is the relationship between fossils and extinction events?
Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are generally called transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution. There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution. Mention transitional fossils to a creationist and you will most likely get a dirty look. Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms. Creationists will critique transitional fossils in a variety of ways. They might claim that a transitional fossil is not proof of an evolutionary relationship since you can't prove that it is, in fact, an ancestor of any later organism. They are right. We can't prove that. As has been explained, transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship - they are not proof of it. Once again we run into problems with creationists looking for proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence. Without actually going back in time and watching the birth/hatching/etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, we can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. Even if you accept evolution, you can't be sure some organism is actually an ancestor of existing species - it might be a side-branch on the evolutionary tree that died out. However, transitional fossils are just one more piece of evidence that is suggestive and supportive of evolution. Even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitionals fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory. Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue. In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real transitionals are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much. Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists try to put forth the strawman that you need "absolute proof" of an evolutionary relationship to accept it, they insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another. This is a useless and spurious criticism. I have already shown how we cannot say for certain that any particular fossilized organism was definitively in the evolutionary history of any other organism. But that doesn't matter. The fossil record is still extraodinarily suggestive of evolution in general, and specific fossils are suggestive of evolutionary relationships between specific organisms. We can make very well informed, provisional conclusions (this is science) as to the evolutionary history of many organisms. And these conclusions are supported by the evidence; in many cases by both fossil and nonfossil evidence
How many countries have claimed land on Antarctica?
0. There is an official charter declaring Antarctica an international area. All scientists are allowed to make camps etc given the proper permissions.
Is antarctia a country?
No, Antarctica is not a country. It is a continent located at the southernmost part of the Earth. Several countries have territorial claims on Antarctica, but it is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System which promotes scientific research and prohibits military activities.
What is the meaning of claimed?
Claimed is the past participle of verb to claim. Examples related to its use: I claimed their attention; we claimed the acquaintance with someone; having claimed a privilege; Have you already claimed your baggage? The damages are being claimed by the victim of the dishonest transaction. The epidemic claimed hundreds of lives. The people claimed their due. She claimed to be innocent. They claimed the money back from the bank.
Do biological science have a contradict about humans evolving from monkeys?
Humans did not evolve from monkeys, and no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that we did. Monkeys are related to humans, but not ancestral to humans. The species from which the human race most likely evolved would be some form of Australopithecus (which is now extinct).
Who was the Bishop who Baptized Emperor Constantine?
Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.Eusebius was the bishop who claimed to have baptized Constantine.
Who claimed Chad?
it was claimed by ben catchadorian
