0
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.
What else can I help you with?
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.
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.
What do the various rewards for proof of evolution demonstrate?
All the so-called rewards that I am aware of are offered by creationists, who have probably offerred amounts beyond their ability to pay - in one case, ten million lira. The fact that apparently enormous "rewards" are being offered only by people with strongly held views opposed to evolution demonstrates that this is a propaganda exercise, not a genuine quest for proof. What this also demonstrates is a belief that the public will believe anything if you appear to show confidence in your beliefs.Take for example, the "reward" offered by Kent Hovind. The principal roadblock to claiming this reward is that you have to convince him and him alone of evolution, and he has already declared all scientific evidence to be false. He has not put any money in trust, nor appointed an independent panel of scientific experts to make the decision. So, it doesn't matter whether he has a quarter of a million pounds on offer: he is in the position of always declaring himself unconvinced.If such reward had been offered by a science foundation on the basis of an independent arbitrator and fair rules, the reward would have been claimed long ago. The absence of rewards on offer from genuine science foundations, or even from uncommitted philanthropists eager to advance scientific inquiry, demonstrates the confidence that proof of evolution is no longer required.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What do creationists today say are some of the main problems with Darwin's theory of evolution?
1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon.""The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert)."To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man."Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)."To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.6) Evolving of new species has not been witnessed during known history.7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary paleontology would require.10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell."A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author)."The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.
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
Which organisms have embryonic stages the most similar?
Organisms that are closely related evolutionarily tend to have embryonic stages that are more similar. For example, mammals such as humans and mice have similar embryonic stages due to their close evolutionary relationship. Conversely, organisms that are more distantly related, like mammals and insects, have more differences in their embryonic development.
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.
What happened to the group to a group that scientistswho claimed they had achieved cold fusion even though they had not?
The group of scientists who claimed they had achieved cold fusion was discredited and their results could not be replicated by other researchers. This incident damaged their reputation in the scientific community and their claims were dismissed as not being credible.
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.
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
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 claimed Massachusetts?
The english claimed massachusetts in 1628
