Theory & Law, Theroy of microevolution & macroevolution?

Question

1. Compare and contrast a theory and law. Give one way they are alike and one way they are different.

2. Give one example of how the theory of microevolution may help an organism survive its environment better.

3. The theories of evolution are debated in society. Compare the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution. Respond to the following statement:

Many scientists support the theory of macroevolution.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?

Answer 1

(I'm just curious ... what class is this for? What grade level?)

1. *Key* diff.: A THEORY EXPLAINS. A LAW DESCRIBES.

Specifically:

A theory is an *explanation* ... it is a system of many statements that explains a body of phenomena (evidence).

A law is a *description* ... a statement (usually in the form of an equation) that describes something universal about a set of phenomena.

For example, the law of gravity describes exactly (in an equation) how much two bodies are attracted to each other based on their mass and their distance from each other ... and this is a *universal* description .... it applies whether the bodies are the earth and an apple, or a cluster of galaxies a billion light-years away. But the *theory of gravity* is an explanation of why this is true (whether by curvature in space-time, or through particles called 'gravitons'). The law of gravity *describes* the phenomenon ... the theory of gravity *explains* that phenomenon.

That is why they are fundamentally different types of statement ... and why a theory can never become a law, and a law can never become a theory. A theory is NOT some inferior sort of 'unproven law' (as 'In Flames' seems to think). It is a *completely* different kind of statement.

2. Huh? As worded, that question makes no sense. No "theory" itself can help an organism survive. (The awkward wording here tells me that it is written by a bad textbook writer or teacher.)

There is also no such thing as "the theory of microevolution."

If asking how evolution can help an organism survive: say a rabbit species is isolated on an island with two types of grass ... a crabgrass that it digests very well, but is sparse ... and a scrubgrass that it doesn't digest very well, but is plentiful. I.e. the rabbits avoid the scrubgrass unless there is no other food available because it makes it ill. If a rabbit is born with a mutation that better digests the scrubgrass, that rabbit will find food far more plentiful than the others in its species ... will live a longer, healthier life ... a life spent with less time looking for food and more time looking for lady rabbits. The result ... that rabbit leaves more offspring than the other rabbits ... and those offspring in return have the same mutation and will themselves (on average) leave more offspring ... and so on. After many generations of these rabbits breeding like ... well ... rabbits, this mutation will have spread throughout the population until most if not all the rabbits are now able to eat the plentiful scrubgrass without feeling ill. The organism has evolved to survive its environment better.

3. "Many scientists support the theory of macroevolution."

This is a loaded question! It is not possible to agree or disagree with this statement because it is ill-formed.

Scientists don't use the term "theory of macroevolution" ... so they can't "support" a theory that doesn't exist. Really, try and Google it and all you will find is references to creationist sites. The wikipepedia entry on "macroevolution" mentions that phrase only in reference to Lamarckism ... a long-abandoned theory.

Instead, since Darwin, scientists find no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution on a longer time scale.

And not only do "many scientists support the theory of evolution" ... almost ALL of them do. If you include *all* sciences (like computer scientists and psychologists), the rate of support is about 95%. If you include only those scientists in the biological fields, this is more like 98% to 99%.

So whoever wrote these questions is obviously a creationist. They are using non-scientific phrases like "theory of microevolution" to try and steer the answers ... and using sloppy phrasing (like "how the theory of (whatever) may help an organism").

Is this for a Bible class? A science class in a religion school?

Answer 2

1. A theory is some phenomenon that is supported by convergent hypotheses and the resulting evidence from varying fields. While not all possibilities can be ruled out, the best theory is still the best fit for the evidence, and has the most predictive power.

A law is immutable. If some phenomenon happens under some set of circumstances, it will always happen the same way under those same circumstances. There are no other possibilities under those same circumstances.

2. Microevolution is just change within a species. It doesn't necessarily have to be due to natural selection. The salamander example given by Chris is very good, and has a natural selection cause. Bacterial resistance is another good example.

3. Again, in general, microevolution refers to changes that occur within a species. It can include genetic drift or any type of change in the gene frequency in a population. Macroevolution refers, generally, to speciation, the change of one segment of a popultation into a new species. While they refer to different things, it still, on the whole, the same process. The same mechanisms within an individual are doing the same thing in both cases.

Yes, it is a fact (not a theory) that at least 95% of all scientists agree with macroevolution. Even if you happen across a list of scientists that disagree with macroevolution (which most creationist sites are happy to provide), you get about 200-300, which counts for a very small percentage of all scientists. The number would get even smaller if you include thost that agree with microevolution, and since the same mechanisms are occurring within micro and macroevolution, it seems silly that they think one is okay and not the other.

Answer 3

In science, laws refer simply to physical observations. They do not explain anything, they are simply factual data. The law of gravity is that things fall. The law of evolution is that offspring are genetically different from their parents. These are verifiable, absolute facts, but they don't explain how, or why those conditions exist, nor do they extrapolate any predictions of other facts that might be observed.

Scientific theories are tested explanations to explain why we observe the laws and facts that we do. Theories can modify laws, such that the law of gravity can be more accurately described as objects attract each other according to their mass and relative distance. Theories can extend outwards from observed laws, and come to conclusions that can be verified with more evidence. For example in evolution, the fact that offspring differ from their parents genetically can be extrapolated to predict that if there is some method of selection that favours certain differences, then the genetic make-up of an entire population can shift over time.

2 - The theory of microevolution wouldn't help an organism survive. However, an organism that inherited some advantageous trait (i.e. resistance to an environmental poison, increased ability to absorb nutrition from a certain abundant food, slightly longer legs that increase running speed, etc. etc.) may have a higher chance of surviving, and passing that same trait onto their offspring.

3 - There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. They are the same process. The terms are often used by Creationists who can no longer dispute the laboratory demonstrated instances of evolution, and so they now claim that 'microevolution' is true, but 'macroevolution' (which they vaguely define as evolution between 'kinds') is just a theory. They have yet to properly define what a 'kind' is, or why the principles of evolution wouldn't work at certain scales.

Many scientists do support the theory of 'macroevolution', or more correctly, the vast, vast majority of scientists, and an overwhelmingly vast majority of biological scientists support the theory of biological evolution. Creationists have produced lists of over 500 'scientists' (which include political scientists, historians, dentists, and 'creation scientists') who doubt evolution. Meanwhile, there is a list of over 600 scientists - all actual biologists, who are all named Steve who do support evolution.

That most scientists support the theory is fact. Whether or not you agree with the theory, that cannot be disputed.

Answer 4

1) Theory=Law. Science never proves anything. A theory is something that is well supported by the evidence and is highly unlikely to ever be disproven, as is a law.

2) A group of salamanders live in shallow water and are preyed upon by a species of hawk. The bottom of the pond/lake is pink, as are the salamanders. There is a mutation that exists in the population that can result in all white salamanders, but they are easily seen by the hawks and seldom survive to reproduce. A new species of bacteria begins to thrive in the waters, changing the color of the bottom from pink, to white. Now the pink salamanders are easiest to spot, while the white ones are able to escape detection far more easily. They survive the most and reproduce. Soon, all of the salamanders are white, with only an occasional pink one left.

3) Microevolution is one species changing in response to selective pressure by some discrete trait, such as color, or size.

Macroevolution is the process of one species giving rise to another, new species.

I support the theory of evolution, because it best explains the phenomena that we see in nature, and is able to make falsifiable claims. It is science, where the competing "theories" are superstition, at best.

**In_Flames is wrong about every claim that he makes. Rather than wasting my time beating the well punished equine corpse, I would refer any interested parties to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html for a thorough debunking, complete with primary source material, of this buffoon's claims.

Answer 5

HELL NO! Any one who wants to incriminate and jail a person for simply getting intoxicated is right out full of sickness and hate and the stinkers who make weed illegal are the ones who should be JAILED! Damned oppressive TYRANNICAL legislators like that should be HANGED! IT IS TIME TO DECRIMINALIZE WEED AND LET PEOPLE WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW BUT SMOKE WEED OFF THE HOOKS OTHERWISE THIS IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY AND IT IS TIME FOR A BLOODY WAR ! ! The government HAS NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHETHER I CAN GET HIGH OR NOT AND THEY ONLY USE THAT FOR LEVERAGE OVER THE PEOPLE AND THEY SHOULD BE PUBLICLY HANGED FOR IT!! Yes that's right I said so ! ! The time is ripe for the law abiding citizens of America to RISE IN STRENGTH AND FLEX A LITTLE MUSCLE AND TAKE SOME RIGHTS FOR OUR OWN!! WE HAVE A COUNTRY TO TAKE BACK FROM THE BANKER DICTATORS. Making it illegal just to get high is not only totally with out reason, but is only a means of getting legally spawned power and leverage over the people who use it. There is so much they can use against those people including especially when they are applying for a job!! I think we should hurt those who refuse to decriminalize it and we incriminate the incriminators and see how they like it! BLOOD FOR BLOOD! Then things may change because in Washington and in other upper offices MIGHT IS RIGHT.

Answer 6

1. A scientific theory is a rule proposed to explain phenomena; example: Einstein's theory of special relativity. A law is a rule which is routinely used to predict phenomena; example: Ohm's law to predict the current in an electrical circult.

2. There is no such thing as macroevolution or microevolution; there is simply evolution, which is a proven fact. A common example is the development in bacteria and insect pests of resistance to chemicals intended to control them.

3. See above. A proof of evolution is available on request. (Please provide an e-mail address.)

Answer 7

1. A theory is an idea that can be believed to be true, but tests have not shown that it is a LAW, which is something that we know to be true, such as the earth is round, because after many scientific tests, we have concluded that the world is round etc etc..

2. Microevolution is a series of mutations that randomly help a microorganism survive a specific environment.

3. Disagree.....people who believe the theory of evolution, such as Democrats, public school teachers, etc, have no proof that macroevolution could have happened from an almost infinite amount of mutations to turn a bacteria into a human. The fossil record shows no transitional links between one species or kingdom (such as reptiles/dinosaurs) to another (like the birds). There also is no evidence that life began at a point.....in fact, life began at a wide base with animals randomly appearing, and species dying off until we have what we have now....thus giving ammo to the intelligent Design theory.

Answer 8

difficult situation. research onto yahoo and bing. that will could actually help!