0
The most direct evidence that evolution has occurred comes from what?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Bacteria because they reproduce every 20 minuites which is fast enough so scientist can see them evolve over time.
or
Viruses, they evolve, that's why we have to constantly change are vacines.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoComparing DNA is the most direct evidence to show evolutionary between animal species. It does not come from looking at fossils or anatomy.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Compare morphological and biochemical evidence supporting evolution?
The morphological evidence which is shown in fossils to modern animals supports evolution because some dinosaurs, for instance, had feathers and we can obviously see that trait today in birds. The biochemical evidence, which comes in the form of DNA comparison and amino acid similarities, shows that we related closely to monkeys and pigs, which suggests that we have close ancestors to these animals.
What evidence did scientist use to support evolution theory?
First of all, evolution is a FACT not a theory. You must be referring to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection. There is no denying the fact that evolution happens, scientists just didn't know exactly how it worked until Darwin suggested one plausible scientific explanation which he called natural selection. Natural selection is simply the change in allele frequencies of an organism which results that organism becoming either better or worse suited to survive in its environment. Being better suited to survive means that the organism is more likely to pass on the beneficial genetic trait to it's offspring. Rather than asking for evidence which helps prove evolution, try looking for verifiable scientific evidence which disproves it. After all, science is not about making claims and looking for evidence to prove them, but rather generating hypothesis and looking for ways to disprove them.
Which best describe evolution?
the evolution comes to the origin of species.
If your skin comes into direct contact an unknown material the first thing should do is?
Notify a lab supervisor
What absolute proof is there for the theory of evolution?
There is no absolute proof of evolution.Three main points of conjecture: 1: evolution has never been witnessed.2: We in science are constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with the theory that life self generated is a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance....so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have come to no result. there is some evidence supporting RNA based molecules though. Also if successful this would pose an interesting paradox about creation..being we Science created a self replicating molecule...it did not create itself as theory of evolution works.3: Fossil record is incomplete, yes sure we share similar bone structures to other animals etc.. but there is no defined developmental line of slight mutation per generation to warrant it being evidence for the time being, but it is getting stronger.Now I am not even saying Evolution is incorrect. I'm being very open minded.In fact, I think if you were to ask Richard Dawkins (the prince of evolution) he would say similar and he has:Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."Circumstantial for the moment.Remember I am answering the question at hand....."Absolute Proof?"There is no absolute proof.The theory has a lot evidence in its favor and is the leading idea behind the how did we get here? but it is not absolute.Definition of EvolutionThere seems to be some confusion about what exactly evolution is. Now, when most people say 'evolution' they are referring to Macro-evolution (or speciation), which is the process of one animal slowly changing into another animal. People also tend to refer to Micro-evolution (or adaptation) when trying to prove Macro-evolution but they are two separate processes.Macro-evolution requires the addition of new genetic material as well as mutations to genetic material in order to bring about enough change to be considered. To be clear, a genetic mutation is the removal of, or change to present genetic material.Micro-evolution is essentially genetic variation in a species due to genetic mutation. No one argues against Micro-evolution because it is clearly evident. Look at all the different breeds of dogs (or finches) there are today. But there is a limit to how much information you can breed out of dog (or finch) DNA before the animal becomes so unhealthy that it is either unable to reproduce or cannot survive long enough to reproduce.Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is a theory based on speculation that there is no intelligent designer that created the universe and life, therefore it must have arisen by natural causes. This theory postulates that natural adaptations seen in animals today can eventually lead to the establishment of new species of animals, if given enough time. There is no experiment using the scientific method that can be used to prove that the theory of evolution is correct. That is unless you conduct an experiment over millions of years, but it still would not prove that evolution had occurred in the past.So the short answer is:'There is abundant proof of Micro-evolution, but no proof of Macro-evolution.'For more information and discussion of this topic visit the Discussion Page.
Indirect evidence of earth's interior comes from studying rock samples?
direct evidence from rock samples and indirect evidence from seismic waves
What is direct approach?
When you use the direct approach, the main idea (such as a recommendation, conclusion, or request) comes in the "top" of the document, followed by the evidence.
How do paleontologists help with evidence of evolution?
Palaeontologists uncover, examine, categorize and publish about fossils. An important part of what we know of the natural history of life on Earth comes from fossil evidence.
What is direct approach of business letter writing?
Direct approach of business letter writing is when the main point or purpose of the letter comes first followed by the evidence.
What evidence do we have of evolution?
Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor.
Is there more information for or against evolution?
On almost a monthly basis, more data comes to light in the form of new fossils and other finds, that further support the Theory of Evolution.Charles Darwin (1809-1892) was not the first to study evolution, but he developed the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection after observing the evidence for evolution during his voyage in HMS Beagle, and followed up by decades of research. This theory says that species evolved over time in response to changes in the natural environment, and was seen by scientists as the best explanation for the facts.There is ample evidence of the transition from one species to another, demonstrating that evolution really did occur. Conversely, there is no real evidence that evolution has not occurred. Those who debate the facts of evolution are left with unsupported hypotheses, often claiming that the world is too young for evolution to have occurred, or that the Laws of Thermodynamics disprove the theory. A third viewpoint is offered by a minority of creationists, such as Willian Dembski. As a qualified scientist, he accepts the immense age of the earth and the reality of evolution, but believes that there may be natural systems that cannot be explained entirely in terms of natural causes and that exhibit features characteristic of intelligent design.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Compare morphological and biochemical evidence supporting evolution?
The morphological evidence which is shown in fossils to modern animals supports evolution because some dinosaurs, for instance, had feathers and we can obviously see that trait today in birds. The biochemical evidence, which comes in the form of DNA comparison and amino acid similarities, shows that we related closely to monkeys and pigs, which suggests that we have close ancestors to these animals.
Where does the most evidence for evolution comes from?
The most compelling evidence, as well as the greatest amount of observational data to support the evolutionary model and aid in its refinement, comes from genetics and comparative genomics. The genomic record (the complete library of all sequenced genomes and the genes they contain) is by far the most complete record of evolution that we have at our disposal. Additionally, the fossil record can be used to test and verify hypotheses regarding timing of emergence, behaviours and morphology of ancestral forms.
Are you in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution?
It does not matter to the truth whether I am in favor of it or not. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not only no longer Darwin's it is supported by myriad line of converging evidence and explains much about the fact of evolution. No other explanation comes close. The question is ill posed and smacks of religious thinking that does not understand science or even logical analysis.
What does Victreebel evolve on HeartGold?
Victreebel does not have an evolution. It is the second and final evolution of Bellsprout. Nothing comes after Victreebel.
Is most of the evidence that's for evolution come from mathematical models true or false?
Evidence, in a scientific context, is an observation that confirms, is consistent with, a falsifiable explanatory model. If a mathematical model is based on sound (consistent with observed reality) premises, and the results from this model are consistent with expectations based on the model under scrutiny, then it is true that the observation that the results are consistent is evidence for the model. If they're not consistent, then the statement that the observation of inconsistency is evidence for the model is false - although this does not necessarily imply that the observation of inconsistency is evidence against the model.No. Most of the theory for evolution comes from fieldwork and personal observation and not mathematical models.
What evidence did scientist use to support evolution theory?
First of all, evolution is a FACT not a theory. You must be referring to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection. There is no denying the fact that evolution happens, scientists just didn't know exactly how it worked until Darwin suggested one plausible scientific explanation which he called natural selection. Natural selection is simply the change in allele frequencies of an organism which results that organism becoming either better or worse suited to survive in its environment. Being better suited to survive means that the organism is more likely to pass on the beneficial genetic trait to it's offspring. Rather than asking for evidence which helps prove evolution, try looking for verifiable scientific evidence which disproves it. After all, science is not about making claims and looking for evidence to prove them, but rather generating hypothesis and looking for ways to disprove them.
