Sentences with phrase «of macroevolution»

From Darwin's time to the present, paleontologists have hoped to find the ancestors and transitional intermediates and trace the course of macroevolution.

First, note that the «holistic» approach of macroevolution implicitly incorporates the geologic time scales within the fossil record, allowing for comparison and contrast of the relatively minor and major morphological divergence of various forms (i.e. morphometric cladistics).

There is little or no empirical evidence supporting Darwin's claim of macroevolution yet on «faith» someday we will prove it.

Not exact matches

So your entire basis of why macroevolution can not be valid is to compare it to an inatimate object being able to put itself together?

The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.

Gould states that «the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,» and then proposed that «macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by continuous small changes within populations.»

You only have to look at your dog to see the benefits and proof of «macroevolution».

If we find an example of irreducible complexity in nature, macroevolution (Darwin's theory) is disproved.

You ignorant nutters have to believe in a super duper double top secret magical hyper macroevolution to account for all these species of beetle!

I understand that creationists who can no longer deny the evidence of evolution, because we can observe it happening in bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics, insects evolving resistance to pesticides, etc., now suggest that «microevolution» can occur, but «macroevolution» can't.

If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution).

He said: «The Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms — maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.»

Michael Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) points out that there is abundant evidence for «microevolution» (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn't exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to «just - so - stories.»

This leaves macroevolution sitting atop a boundary (or wall) with an outlook no better that that of Humpty Dumpty.

In addition to vestigial molecular fossils, we can point to any number of anatomical vestigial traits supporting macroevolution, e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the appendix, male nip - ples, arrector pili, etc, etc..

At last, we would have a truly experimental way of studying macroevolution, the kind of changes that lead to the creation of new species.

Are these the cumulative outcome of the same processes that drive microevolution, or does macroevolution have its own distinct processes and patterns?

If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change.

Soot is a strong, light - absorbing aerosol that caused global climate changes that triggered the mass extinction of dinosaurs, ammonites, and other animals, and led to the macroevolution of mammals and the appearance of humans.

Biology textbooks define the difference between micro - and macroevolution as a matter of degree.