0
The experimental approach taken in current biological investigations presumes that?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
living organisms can be understood in terms of the same physical and chemical laws that can be used to explain all natural phenomena.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoliving organisms can be understood in terms of the same physical and chemical laws that can be used to explain all natural phenomena
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Evolution presumes that the fittest humans are those who?
Leave the most descendants such that their genes are well represented in the gene pool of the local human population.
Why is Msa argar a selective medium?
Mannitol Salt Agar is selective for staphylococci as the high salt (sodium chloride) levels prohibit most other bacteria from surviving and it is differential as Staphylococci ferment mannitol, producing acid, lowering the pH and turning the media yellow. The development of yellow media presumes the bacteria to be pathogenic Staphylococcus (usually S. aureus). From A Photographic Atlas for the Microbiology Laboratory by Leboffe and Pierce.
Which step in hominid evolution came first bipedal locomotion or larger brains?
This question HAS been answered. Bipedality preceded encephalization by many millions of years. (This presumes you are using "hominid" synonymously with "hominin", the latter being the term now in general use and referring to bipedal apes, i.e., Hpmo sapiens and our bipedal forebears. "Hominid" refers to all the other, nonbipedal great apes, i.e., Chimp, Gorilla, Baboon and Orangutan.)The members of the genus Australopithecus, including "Lucy" (A. afarensis), extant between four and two million years ago, were bipedal but with brain size no greater than 450 cc, the size of a Chimp brain today.The specimen Sehelanthropus tchadensis, dated at 6.5 million years ago and almost certainly bipedal, had a brain size of about 350 cc.The first appreciable increase in brain size comes at about 1.9 million years ago with Homo erectus, specimens found in Tanzania and Kenya.Jay Greene, Communications CoordinatorInstitute of Human Origins
Do any qualified scientists support the creation theory?
Prior to reading the answers below, it is perhaps important to note that there is no 'creation theory'. There are various religious creation myths, but no comprehensive and robust scientific model that has any explanatory or predictive power.Answer: Quite a few scientists support creation theory. This places them out of step with the mainstream scientists who believe in autobiogenesis, or a spontaneous origin of life, coupled with evolution. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is a monumental disagreement. One side or the other has got to be wrong, and not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, ignominiously, disastrously wrong."Prior to the 20th Century, most scientists believed in Creation.Today, there are numerous organizations of scientists who support creation theory: Answers in Genesis ; Creation Research, Science Education Foundation; Institute for Creation Research; The Creation SuperLibrary and others. Some publish peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society's CRS Journal and the Journal of Creation by Creation Ministries International (The Australian arm of Answers in Genesis).Answer While it is true that many "scientists" disagree with evolution in favor of creationism, that number drops significantly when you consider only those who study nature or life, and is almost non-existent when you consider only those with expertise in fields like biology, paleontology, geology or astronomy - the above list may seem impressive, but it is out of well over a hundred thousand PhD scientists alive today. Now it's also important to note that many scientists believe in some sort of god or creator, but are not creationists. Creationism generally refers to strict 6-day creation fundamentalism or the movement to teach that there is a god in science classes in public schools. About 60% of scientists believe in a personal god, many believe this god created life indirectly, which can be considered a different sort of creationism. Meanwhile about 99.85% of earth and life scientists (those same scientists who mostly believe in a personal god) accept evolution as well.Answer Yes, quite a few actually. Many scientists and researchers have come to support the creation theory because as they study 'Creation -vs- Evolution' they have found that there are more 'holes' in the evolution theory than there are in 'Creation'.Both Creationism and Evolution start with presuppositions. Evolution starts with the presupposition that God, if He exists, played no part in the development of species, but that they developed by macro-evolution or chance mutations that resulted in benefit to the organisms; Creationism presumes that He created all species, and that there are minor adaptions which occur naturally, called micro-evolution.
Arguments against evolution?
There are many arguments against evolution. These are often propounded by people of a number of religions, proponents of the pretending-to-be-unreligious Intelligent Design movement, people who do not understand evolution and have not been properly taught about it and, no doubt, people who pick up arguments against evolution from people who give them the idea that evolution is something to be against and the anti-evolution arguments themselves have scientific merit.Evolution is a theory. Richard Dawkins wants to call it a fact. It is a fact. Dawkins proposes the word theorum for evolution. I like the phrase 'body of fact' or 'megafact' which is a word I now coin.Evolution has much evidence to support it. But it is an origins-theory. It explains the origins of species. The realm of Bibles and religions came about before Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and seemed to claim originofspecies-explanation as its own. Origins-explanations are dear to people simply by being origins-explanations. They are even dearer if they are ruled by a beloved omnipotent omniphilic religious entity such as a god.Thus the ungodguided appearance of evolution offended those who knew the godguided creation stories. Since then, offended people have been, offendedly, ejaculating many arguments against evolution. Some stray into the scientific as opposed to religious realm, perhaps since the offendeds first noticed sciences inability to build explanation and scientific theory out of supernaturalism.Arguments against evolution include:The Bible says that God created life, and separately (in six days).Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?Life cannot evolve from 'pond-scum'.There is not a single transitional form.Earth is too young to support the theorised lengthy periods of evolution.Evolution is 'just a theory'.Evolution leads to atheism, immorality, suicide, misery..... Just look at atheists like Hitler.Evolution is a religion as it must be 'believed' in.To my knowledge, many religious people, fundamentalists who believe literally that everything was created in 6 days are so religious, so convicted that they won't even listen to scientists or even a more (to them) harmless passer-by who happens to have read something about evolution. They go near nothing that remotely challenges creationism or suggests a godlessness for the Universe.They may be interested in science, but their knowledge can only be peripheral and basic as they (if they exclude evolution from consideration) often reject continental drift, old-earth geology (which is all of geology), abiogenesis, the existence of dinosaurs and other pre-Modern organisms and the big bang standard model of the origin of the Universe. Perhaps some even refuse to consider stellar processes such as nucleosynthesis. How can this lead to a full appreciation of what science has and can work out about the Universe. What sort of science-knowledge is this?Richard Dawkins points out that denouncing of evolution may not come directly from thinking evolution is unlogical but from a moral-holding (god-ruled morals no doubt) opinion of 'ungodguidedness is immoral'. Still, science finds supernaturalism (as said above) untenable and so these offended fundamentalists, creationists or religionists have to attack evolution with science. All their anti-evolution arguments are untenable, useless and invalid. Is it their peripheral appreciation and knowledge of all of science that makes this so?Below is an explanation of why all the arguments I listed above are invalid.The Bible does say that God created all life. To a comparative religion studier, this would be referred to a creation myth. Science rejects God because he is undetectable and supernatural and needs faith to think he exists, possibly a concession that such an object does not exist on the part of the religious. Also, the lengthy time-periods of geology and the fossil record do not support a 6 day creation.The violation of the second law of thermodynamics is not so. If biological processes that involved reproduction and growth and generation-progression violated this law then no organism would ever get beyond the zygote stage.Humans did not evolve FROM today's apes, nor specifically from chimpanzees (closest relative to humans). Humans evolved WITH chimpanzees. Life evolves by common ancestry. There was a Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and further back in time a Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and further back in time an Orangutan-Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor. Humans evolved from a single twig of the ape branch of the tree of life. Evolution does not proceed as a complete transformation of one species into another (like all chimpanzees suddenly becoming humans or giving birth to humans) leaving a disappearance of the 'parent' species behind.'Pond-scum' or Kent Hovind's disparaging 'lightening on mud' or (with regards to the big bang) 'all the dirt in the Universe) are statements of absolute unscientificness. There is no such thing as scum or dirt in science. Science talks about elements and gives them names (such as oxygen and carbon and nitrogen and silicon). Life is formed from elements. Cells are formed from elements. Life can evolve once a nucleic acid is enclosed/delimited/contained in a membrane. That is all that needed to happen.There are indeed transitional forms like Archaeopteryx. There are lineages alive today that give clues as to transitions, like hoatzins, platypuses, lungfish and coelocanths, hippopotamuses, Australopithecus and welwitschias (which give clues as to the origins of angiosperms).Earth-age is a matter of geology. But evolution theory needs it since evolutionary processes take a long time. Earth is not 6000 years old as the Bible-literalists claim. Earth is 4 600 million years old. The uranium dating mechanism that was used to measure this is no doubt inaccurate by a few hundred million years. This is about 1% of the total magnitude of the age and is thus negligable. Earth is very very old. The way of measuring Earth as 6000 years old was done by examining ages of humans in the Old Testament. This presumes that humans have existed for the entireness of Earth's history. However to measure something's age it is better to measure the age of what that something is made of (rock in Earth's case). One cannot measure something peripheral (like human-age, humans just being on the surface). If measuring age were done like this, the age of a wad of cheese would be measured by the age of the mould growing on that cheese or a person's age would be measured by measuring the length of time they'd been wearing that morning's shirt.The 'just a theory' argument shows lack of understanding of 'theory'. Theories are all-incorporating explanations that tie together many facts. Hypotheses are promoted to theories only when confirmed by convincing evidence. It is appropriate to say 'just a hypothesis' of something of course. And of course that would be inappropriate for evolution, which is a theory and not a hypothesis. Hypothesis is almost synonymous with guess. Theory is almost synonymous with fact.Evolution suggests ungodguidedness perhaps. I admit that religion exists as a comfort for humans in a frightening universe. However, if evolution is the truth we must not shy away from it obviously. Then we have a true explanation of the biological world's diversity! To think there is a god is faith and so regardless of what science you accept god can still be imagined for comfort. To the thinking person and the common sensical person, atheism may well abound in their thoughts and knowledge of the universe anyway, regardless of Darwin's theory of evolution.Is evolution depressing? Mindless mutations locked into existence nonrandomly by selection or eliminated? Look at the beauty of life's biodiversity. One must not fail in the imagination just because a process is mindless. Evolution has great power. Theodosius Dobzhansky said 'Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of evolution'. The 'Origin of Species' has the words 'Out of the war of Nature' and out of this emerges Darwin's evolved 'forms most beautiful'. There is constant action and colour and wonder in the world of life, of animals, plants, genetics, ecosystems and the beautiful biosphere as a whole. Why would anyone be sad about that. All life has a life-force just like you, selected by Natural Selection. Can all life appreciate life as much as we do?Does evolution (as the Theory of Evolution) lead to Hitler-persons and their vicious killings of fellow humans? I'm sure many people will agree that Hitler was a horrible git (we could always be ruder and about Hitler is the place to be so) no matter how you slice it. Hitler's horribleness surely has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an innocent description of life-adaptation and change and diversification. If Hitler produced atrocities after having heard of evolution, it must be remembered that Hitler was horrible and ghastly no matter how you slice it. Maybe the Hitler argument is simply used by serious anti-evolutionists trying to incite moral outrage. Notice that it is not against the mechanisms of gene frequencies and mutation and Natural Selection and species diversification. It is just against a theory which says nothing of God and morality and Bible-said statements and thus regards it as immoral/ungodly.Finally, evolution is not a religion. It is a science. When it is said 'Scientists BELIEVE that Earth is 4 600 million years old' or 'Scientists believe that endosymbiosis took place' or 'It is believed that all life has a common ancestor', that word BELIEVED means 'thought sensible and logical' and 'is thought a good account of what occurs in reality', 'is thought a good description of the world'. It is not religious at all as it is based on evidence and logic and common sense and knowledge and not faith.All arguments against evolution arise from faith-based contempt for nonfaithful, nonreligious science-explanation. All of them are completely invalid.Evolution remains a perfect fully-supported theory, which explains the origins and diversifications of 'Darwin's forms most beautiful', the beauty of life....
The approach presumes that the best way to understand the media is to examine how the media is used?
Well its not microanalysis. I got it wrong.
Can a father take a child out of state if the parents are not married and there is no custody appointed?
Not without the permission of the child's biological mother. When a couple are not married and there is not a custodial order from the court, the law presumes that the mother has sole custody of the child in question.
Which sociological theory presumes that crimes occur in order to serve a purpose in society?
Functionalist perspective presumes that crimes occur in order to serve a purpose in society.
If you were never married to the father of your child and there is not a court order for visitation would a judge remove the child from your custody if you move out of state?
No. If there is not a custodial order in place the law presumes that an unmarried mother has full custodial rights to her child and does not need permission from the biological father or the court in matters concerning the child. In addition, when a child is born out-of-wedlock the biological father must establish paternity before custodial, visitation and child support can be addressed.
Why are the Illuminati killing humanity?
The question presumes the impossible. There is no Illuminati, and what does not exist cannot kill anyone.
How can you find another factor?
That presumes that you already have one. Take the one you have and divide it into the number. Voila! Another factor.
What colour is jet?
Jet is a stone similar to coal, but harder, and is basically black. One presumes then the origin of "jet black".
How are you in?
One presumes you mean 'How are you?@ in French. Comment allez-vous? (polite) Comment vas-tu? (intimate) Ça va? (colloquial)
Why do farts barn?
One presumes you mean "burn." Farts are mostly methane (CH3), which is pretty much the same as natural gas.
Who said Doctor Livingstone I presumes?
"Doctor Livingstone, I presume?" was said by Henry Morton Stanley.
Evolution presumes that the fittest humans are those who?
Leave the most descendants such that their genes are well represented in the gene pool of the local human population.
Where was shakespeare when he wrote romeo and Juliet?
At his writing desk which was somewhere in London, England.
