0
What is the most important information evidence against evolution in the fossil record?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
The fact about fossils that is the most important to scientists who study evolution is their age. Advancements in carbon dating has made age determining possible. By knowing the age of a fossil, scientist are able to determine migratory and evolutionary phenomenon.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoNo Such Exists. TRUST US. New Author: Trust us? Seems like you just want people to blindly follow. Although there is no %100 proof either way, there is evidence for both sides. Some evidence against evolution would be lack of transitional fossils said to prove evolution or anomalies like human skulls dating back millions of years ago going directly against evolution. However as I mentioned there is no definitive proof either way. So people out there, please don't blindly follow people who just say TRUST US, when there actually is proof for both sides.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agothat they are big brow and they arae very rare and collective to scientists.
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoThe lack of transitional Forms
TSB-_- EaZy
ionk
Blaise Durgan
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is the geological column evidence for macroevolution?
Some creationists use this argument as "evidence" against evolution. However, the flaw in their argument is that fossils do occur, they are in order, they are separated by a large time difference, and they are transitional. The argument is commonly called the "missing link" problem, and when Darwin first developed his ideas, it actually was. He explicitly recognised it as such, and came up with several ways it would either deny or help support his theory (such as by finding rabbits in the PreCambrian era, or by the presence of missing links, which were later found). However, in the 140 years since then, we have uncovered thousands of fossilized species, each of which is a tranistional form in the evolution of several other species. The best example is that of our own ancestry; several species have been discovered, each getting closer and closer to human as we know it, and at the same time, further from the simple ape-like mammals we began as. All of this happened - according to the geological timeframe - over a period of several million years.
What is the explanation for the evolution of thorns?
Thorns are a plants systematic defense against predation by herbivores. In plants with this defense there must have been a variant that had a proto-thorn that helped it defend against herbivores and leave more descendants with the thorn trait. ( simplistic explanation, but valid )
Does Tiktaalik Roseae serve as evidence for evolution?
Tiktaalik's fin bones were not connected to its main skeleton, and so could not have supported its weight out of water. And the similarity between species could also reflect common design. Answer Isn't the modern mudskipper evidence enough? Answer No. Recent discovery of the prints of a four-footed animal that dates in evolutionary terms at 18 million years earlier than Tiktaalik have forced scientists to reconsider their earlier assumption that Tiktaalik represented a missing link. Answer Tiktaalik serves as simply another transitional form linking the evolution between two groups of animals, akin to Archaeopteryx. It has become landmark but more work remains to be done. As new fossils are uncovered Tiktaalik will be likely be moved around the evolutionary tree.
Should you let castrate your dog?
No, unless it gets aggressive against you for a longer period. Then, i recommend an implant. You should ask your veterinarian for more information.
Would rats go for human babies?
Rats can, have, and will bite human babies. It is important that babies and small children be secured against rat bites, which can carry rabies.
How do you use the word countervail in a sentence?
"The evidence for evolution countervails over the arguments against it." THis means that evidence for evolution counteracts the arguments against it.
What is the evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution?
None exists.
Is evolution a pseudoscience?
No. Evolution is accepted as legitimate evidence-supported science by virtually 100% of professional biologists, by 95% of scientists in general, and almost every National or International Academy of Science on the planet has issued one or more statements confirming evolution is legitimate science well supported by all available evidence.
What was man exercising in the naming of the animals?
He was exercising the vast wisdom which God had breathed into him.See also:Is there evidence against Evolution?Can you show that God exists?
Is evolution a fact or theory?
Rather both. Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is an observed and observable fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains this fact with overwhelming evidences from many different disciplines.
Is there evidence that man was created?
There is no evidence, whether historical, anthropological or scientific, that man was created and did not evolve. In fact, our bodies contain characteristics more suited to walking on all four legs than walking upright, which would either be evidence of our evolution from ancient four-legged ancestors or evidence that man did not come from a competent creator. On the other hand, fossil evidence now shows our hominid ancestry back almost six million years to the very beginning of our line.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
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
Why do fundamentalists oppose all forms of evolution?
Because they feel it disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis......they will say that evolution has no scientific evidence to support it and try to come up with arguments against it, but the bottom line is they just don't WANT to believe it, and so reject it at face value.
What are the arguments for and against DNA evidence?
There are many arguments for and against DNA evidence. One argument is that it cannot be disproved as deciding evidence.
Why is evolution more widely believed than creationism when in all my years of studying I have seen equal evidence for each?
If you admit creation then there must be a creator. If there is a creator then you need to consider 'what is your relationship to the creator?'To deny the existence of God/creator leaves you free from any obligation or responsibility towards the creator.
Information against the accused that cannot be used?
It is evidence that has been ruled "INADMISSABLE" by the trial judge. One is tempted to answer this question with "hearsay" evidence. HOWEVER - that would be wrong. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the only way the admissability of hearsay can be determined is by submitting it to the trial judge and having the judge rule on it. It is entirely possible that, due to the legal cirecumstances of the case, hearsay evidence could be included. However, if the judge rules against it, it becomes "inadmissable." THUS - information that cannot be used against the accused is called "inadmissable evidence."
Do they use discovery more in civil cases or criminal?
Discovery is an important phase in both civil and criminal court cases. This is the process by which the defense gets access to the evidence being presented against the defendant so that the defense can address the information in court.
