0
The geological column is not direct evidence for evolution because it primarily represents a chronological sequence of rock layers and fossils, not a documentation of evolutionary processes. Evolutionary evidence comes from the patterns of similarities and differences among living organisms, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, and molecular Biology. The geological column helps provide a context for understanding the timing of evolutionary events but does not in itself prove the theory of evolution.
What else can I help you with?
What evidence is there to support geologic evolution?
Rock strata reveal changes. Some strata in a particular region might contain shallow sea organisms, overlain by strata containing deep sea organisms, and these in turned are overlaid by strata that are clearly aeolian (wind) deposits. Varying fossil compositions in overlaying sedimentary strata also indicate changes over vast stretches of time. In the John Day Fossil beds in Oregon, we can trace climate changes over millions of years. I'm not really certain what is meant by "geologic evolution." Evolution typically refers to biological evolution, although astronomers use the word "evolution" to describe the life cycle of stars. I don't recall "evolution" being used to describe geologic processes in any geology course I took.
What are three pieces of evidence that scientists use to support the theory of the continental drift?
The 3 pieces of evidence is: 1. fossils 2. climate 3. glaciers Wegner found out that the same fossils were found on a different continent. There was this tropical plant (i forgot whats it called) was found at a icy cold region so then the plant couldn't grow there only by continental drift. The glaciers have scratches on them which was one of the evidence. I hope this really helped :D
When was pangaea discovered?
The concept of Pangaea, the supercontinent that existed approximately 335 million years ago, was first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912 based on geological and paleontological evidence. However, the idea was not widely accepted until further evidence, such as plate tectonics, was discovered in the mid-20th century.
Is it surprising that science supports a young earth?
It would be very surprising if science supports a young earth, but if science really did support this I would advocate acceptance of the evidence. However, the scientific evidence is that the world is approximately 4.54 billion years old. That is young compared to the age of the universe, but old compared to some religious views.There are, of course, those who would like science to support a young earth. Phillip E. Johnson, was a professor of law, and therefore unlikely to have had a strong understanding of the earth sciences, but his strong religious beliefs caused him to found the 'intelligent design' movement that makes claims in support of a young earth.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Who kills kinkaid in the ox bow incident?
In "The Ox-Bow Incident," Kinkaid is killed by a mob of townspeople who wrongfully accuse him of cattle rustling and murder. The mob acts hastily and lynches Kinkaid without proper evidence or a fair trial.
Why his the geological column not really evidence for evolution?
The geological column is an abstract, and ideal. What it really signifies is the mechanism of superposition, the fact that through geological times, newer layers are formed on top of older layers. The geological column can be used as a guide for reconstructing the geological history of a formation, but one should take care: geological processes, like all of nature, are messy, and geological strate can be inverted or skewed, so that newer strata may be beside or even below older strata. The inferred age of a geological stratum may be used to assist in dating fossils, and thereby aid in constructing histories for particular lineages. But in itself, this geological notion has little to do with biological evolution.
How can a person believe in evolution and the Old Testament?
A:The evidence for evolution is now indisputable. The only way not to believe in it is to choose not to know about this evidence. So, the question really becomes how a person can believe in the Old Testament. That is a matter of faith.
Is Katt Williams really smart?
Katt Williams on stage has publically denied evolution. Surely that is evidence enough of his stupidity.
What does not provide evidence for evolution?
That which does not provide evidence for evolution is not necessarily something that tends to disprove evolution. So it is hard to narrow down to something relevant but does not provide evidence for evolution. As for something that actually tends to disprove evolution, this is equally hard but for different reasons - the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there is very little that can provide any form of contrary evidence.
How do intermediaries provide the evidence that supports evolution?
Intermediaries, such as fossils and genetic evidence, provide a record of gradual changes over time that support the theory of evolution. Fossils show transitions between different groups of organisms, while genetic evidence reveals similarities in DNA sequences among different species, indicating a common ancestry. Together, these sources of evidence help demonstrate the process of evolution and the relationships between species.
What do supporters of the evolutionary theory place their faith in the god of?
Evolutionary theory really has nothing to do with believing or not believing in a god or gods.It also has nothing to do with "faith" - "faith" in a religious context means to believe something with or without evidence; however, there is lots of good evidence for evolution.
Can you give me a sentence with column in it?
This column is really corroded. The column on the left is the right one to be in.
Is it right tobelieve in religion or evoulution?
They are not mutually exclusive. A lot of religious people believe in evolution, and a lot don't, despite the evidence (fossil records etc) It's a personal choice whether to be religious, and whether to believe in evolution or not. If you aren't really bothered about either, you can just not think about it.
Why should you follow Evolution?
No one 'wants' you to follow evolution. It is simply the scientific process by which humans and other living creatures developed over many millions of years. If you choose to believe a non-scientific alternative, that is fine, however scientists have irrefutable evidence that evolution really did happen.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Does evolution necessarily question religious beliefs?
evolution does not depend on what man thinks.; it does not really matter.
Is evolution part of creation?
Though one can claim to believe in Divinely-guided evolution, this is often not the case. The general paradigm in which Evolution is taught, is one of mere random events.Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution was an unquestionable fact, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there are some highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.Those wishing to look for further evidence may find these links useful:See also:Is there evidence against Evolution?God's wisdom seen in His creationsCan you show that God exists?
Has evolution really happened?
Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms. That has and is happening.
