0
What else can I help you with?
What is The difference between microevolution and macroevolution?
Micro-evolution - Change at or below the species level. For example, variation within dogs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etcMacro-evolution - Change above the species levelMacro-evolution is simply the long term accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes.The best way to view the difference between the two is to view them as perspectives, views from different distances. Evolution is continuous genetic divergence, leading to an ever branching tree - at least, at the genetic level.Zoom in closely, and one might see a single branch, stretching out, wavering a bit, or even changing direction, as no branch grows completely straight.Zoom out a bit, and one might see the place where this branch stems from the parent branch, or the place where a new branch branches of from the branch you'd been following.Zoom out some more, and the pattern begins to become clearer: branches, stemming from branches, stemming from branches, forming an ever expanding tree.As these zoom-factors are simply perspectives on the way a tree grows, so micro- and macro-evolution are merely perspectives on the way life develops. Micro-evolution is the zoom-factor that encompasses a single species, with no branching-events in scope. Macro-evolution zooms out a little, so that at least one branching event is visible.Macro-evolution isnothing but lots and lots of "micro-evolution"!Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of "elementary" sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the "function" of the software.Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.Real_Scientists_Do_Not_Use_Terms_Like_Microevolution_or_Macroevolution">Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or MacroevolutionThe best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:Campbell's Biology (4th Ed.) states: "macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." [By contrast, this book defines "microevolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations"]Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, "In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa." (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts "microevolution" -- "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species."]In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that "[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, "[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (pg. 39)The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution."In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology:"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Scienceentitled "Paleontologists confronting macroevolution," contending:"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. … apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, "microevolution," and (b) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: "macroevolution."It is a term separating the different levels of evolution in organisms.Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes in a single population (not necessarily a species)Macroevolution takes place on a much larger scale, encompassing such events such as speciation, extinction, and horizontal gene transfer.It's the same as saying microgravity (that an apple will fall to the ground) and macrogravity (that planets orbit the sun)Micro- and macroevolution, and micro- and macrogravity are serperated by the same thing, scale.AnswerIn the scientific community, it is just evolution.Micro/macro came about because of religious debate. It became a necessity for Creationists to allow for minor changes such as that which you see from parent to offspring because these changes are undeniable. Thus micro and macro-evolution were born so they can say that micro-evolution is true (changes from parent to child), but macro evolution is not (gradual change and speciation). So, they deny macro and accept micro, despite having observed both many, many times.The bottomline is that, macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a longer timeline, and both are simply evolution.Google search: observed instances of speciation
Do you still use Charles Darwins theory today?
Yes, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection continues to be a fundamental principle in the field of biology and is widely accepted by the scientific community. It is used to explain the diversity of species and their adaptations to different environments.
What couldn't be explained by Darwins theory of evolution?
Evolution only deals with the changes within populations of organisms. All other sciences, including Astronomy and Cosmology, are mostly unconcerned with the theory. Otherwise, the theory was, and is, completely sound.
What is the difference between evolution and theories of evolution?
Evolution is the process by which species change over time through natural selection. Theories of evolution, such as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, are explanations for how evolution occurs and the mechanisms driving it. In essence, evolution is the phenomenon, while theories of evolution are the explanations for how it happens.
Is evolution a scientific law?
No, evolution is not considered a scientific law. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by extensive evidence from various fields like genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. Laws describe natural phenomena or observed patterns, while theories explain those patterns.
How does darwins theory of evolution contribute to the development of modernism?
Through the evolutionary biology which attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.
Why are Charles Darwins' ideas so important?
He proposed a theory that attempts to explain why and the fact of evolution works.It is, so far, the best and most accurate theory that adequately explains why evolution happens.
What are the answers to the microevolution gizmo?
I'm sorry, but I can't provide specific answers to the Microevolution Gizmo or any other educational tool. However, I can help explain concepts related to microevolution, such as natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow, if that would be helpful for your understanding!
How do you explain in brief the evolution of computer?
explain in brief the evolution of the computer
What is The difference between microevolution and macroevolution?
Micro-evolution - Change at or below the species level. For example, variation within dogs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etcMacro-evolution - Change above the species levelMacro-evolution is simply the long term accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes.The best way to view the difference between the two is to view them as perspectives, views from different distances. Evolution is continuous genetic divergence, leading to an ever branching tree - at least, at the genetic level.Zoom in closely, and one might see a single branch, stretching out, wavering a bit, or even changing direction, as no branch grows completely straight.Zoom out a bit, and one might see the place where this branch stems from the parent branch, or the place where a new branch branches of from the branch you'd been following.Zoom out some more, and the pattern begins to become clearer: branches, stemming from branches, stemming from branches, forming an ever expanding tree.As these zoom-factors are simply perspectives on the way a tree grows, so micro- and macro-evolution are merely perspectives on the way life develops. Micro-evolution is the zoom-factor that encompasses a single species, with no branching-events in scope. Macro-evolution zooms out a little, so that at least one branching event is visible.Macro-evolution isnothing but lots and lots of "micro-evolution"!Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of "elementary" sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the "function" of the software.Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.Real_Scientists_Do_Not_Use_Terms_Like_Microevolution_or_Macroevolution">Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or MacroevolutionThe best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:Campbell's Biology (4th Ed.) states: "macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." [By contrast, this book defines "microevolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations"]Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, "In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa." (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts "microevolution" -- "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species."]In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that "[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, "[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (pg. 39)The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution."In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology:"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Scienceentitled "Paleontologists confronting macroevolution," contending:"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. … apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, "microevolution," and (b) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: "macroevolution."It is a term separating the different levels of evolution in organisms.Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes in a single population (not necessarily a species)Macroevolution takes place on a much larger scale, encompassing such events such as speciation, extinction, and horizontal gene transfer.It's the same as saying microgravity (that an apple will fall to the ground) and macrogravity (that planets orbit the sun)Micro- and macroevolution, and micro- and macrogravity are serperated by the same thing, scale.AnswerIn the scientific community, it is just evolution.Micro/macro came about because of religious debate. It became a necessity for Creationists to allow for minor changes such as that which you see from parent to offspring because these changes are undeniable. Thus micro and macro-evolution were born so they can say that micro-evolution is true (changes from parent to child), but macro evolution is not (gradual change and speciation). So, they deny macro and accept micro, despite having observed both many, many times.The bottomline is that, macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a longer timeline, and both are simply evolution.Google search: observed instances of speciation
Do you still use Charles Darwins theory today?
Yes, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection continues to be a fundamental principle in the field of biology and is widely accepted by the scientific community. It is used to explain the diversity of species and their adaptations to different environments.
What couldn't be explained by Darwins theory of evolution?
Evolution only deals with the changes within populations of organisms. All other sciences, including Astronomy and Cosmology, are mostly unconcerned with the theory. Otherwise, the theory was, and is, completely sound.
How does Darwins theory of natural selection explain how the modern giraffe evolved from short-necked amcestors?
please answer
Are there other theories that explain the same event as evolution theory?
No, there are no other theories but the theory of evolution by natural selection that explain so much about evolution.
Explain the evolution of sales management function in Indian context?
explain the evolution of sales management function in Indian context
How does anatomy explain evolution?
It doesn't. Evolution is explained by population genetics, evolutionary theory.
How does the theory of evolution explain variety within species?
The General Theory of Evolution posits that change occurs not only 'within' a species, but also 'across' species. In this way, change is actually unlimited in the sense that, given the right circumstances and given the right environmental pressures, any form of biological life could eventually be pushed from one species to another. A lizard could be pushed into the form of a bird; a whale could be pushed into the form of a wolf. So, as we take a look at the General Theory of Evolution (AKA Macroevolution)
