Is this right, a microscope is needed to observe evolution?

Answer 1

an other yoyo that cannot see past his nose that were created, not evolved from some geww pile

Answer 2

No. You can observe some physical changes to the outside by just the eye.

Microscopes and electron microscopes are needed to observe other interior or genetic changes.

Answer 3

No. Mico-evolution is a concession made by creationists that somewhat agrees with the theory of evolution. It still follows the same creation theory held by many fundamenatlist religions, but it agrees that since that time some evolution has occurred. It partially endorses evolution, but not to the point of evolving from monkeys.

Answer 4

It's not needed. But its A WAY to observe evolution.

Answer 5

No. They did not bring microscopes to the Galapagos Islands.. they merely watched the animals and recorded the changes in writing and by photography.

Answer 6

Even in a life form like a virus that has millions of generations every season and yet a virus has never become anything but a virus... Evolution is a lie... Jim

Answer 7

an electron microscope is needed to see the part of your brain that is used for realistic critical thinking

Answer 8

No, 20-20 vision that's not clouded by the beliefs of ancient people who also believed that the Earth was flat.

Answer 9

Yes, because you cannot see the changes that take place in your lifetime because it is too short. A telescope is also used.

Answer 10

"How did we get a residing cellular out of nonliving count number?" the answer to this question belongs to a diverse theory in a diverse medical self-discipline. Abiogenesis is area of molecular biology. Experiments have shown that, less than the atmospheric circumstances of the more youthful earth, that is really conceivable for amino acids or perhaps nucleobases to have emerged obviously. once you consider that existence, at its maximum elementary is merely chemistry, the idea of emergence would not seem up to now-fetched. "Genetic code is quite correct in its duplication. " No, it isn't. .5% of your genome is made out of mutations and also you income extra as your cells replace themselves. that is partly via a phenomenon noted as "wobble" is which tRNA will in certain circumstances bond to a codon it would not thoroughly correspond with. "the subsequent immensely problematic leap of religion one ought to take to trust in evolution is the leap from one-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms" there are various species of the dominion Protista that are multicellular. some slime molds bypass from unicellular to colonial to multicellular as area of their existence cycles. that's really no longer a leap of religion in any respect. "it would want to seem basic to trust that a frog might want to evolve right into a toad" using person-friendly names journeys up various human beings at the same time as speaking about evolution. operating example, there is not any phylogenetic huge difference between a frog and a toad. you need to be commonplace with phylogeny with the intention to trance branches contained in the evolutionary tree. "Evolution would not clarify what forms of species lie between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles," that is a person-friendly false impression, amphibians did not branch off into reptiles. "reptiles and birds" Birds are reptiles. they are the in user-friendly words extant individuals of the clade Dinosauria. lower back, phylogeny is major. "birds and mammals" Mammals did not branch from birds. Mammals share a person-friendly ancestor with reptiles. "mammals and self sufficient human beings" human beings are mammals. "why are not there any nonetheless contained in the technique of evolving?" All species are continuously evolving. "each and every widely used organism that has ever lived has in good structure properly into an truly particular crew with honestly no exceptions." via the undeniable fact that is what we invented communities for. there has been existence for for much longer than there has been taxonomy.