Rev 276: Fill & Download for Free

While GPS will tell you where you are, to a high degree of precision, and while knowing where you are is a very important piece of information, it is not navigation.Navigation is what you do with that information.So, you are coming into a highly congested port. Ships are leaving, crossing your track, ships are coming in, in front of you, behind you, some are faster, some are slower.There is a thunderstorm coming down the hills, whipping up a local 40 knot wind, from changing directions, as the tide changes from running in, to running out, and the channel you are entering is not much more than twice as wide as your ship.And the ship is maybe 2 or 3 hundred meters long, and is full of oil, or propane, or stacked high with containers.And the pilot, who has done this with without incident a thousand or more times, says something like “10 degree stbd rudder, please, and hold it until the wind picks your bow up at the E6 buoy.”Then on the VHF, “Tugs, can you stand by E8 to take lines, please,” and to the helmsman,”Steady at 276^, revs for three knots.”Yes, he is looking at the GPS, but he is also looking at the wind, the tide, the other ships, the tugs, the rocks, how much water he has under him, the readiness of the ship for a sudden crisis, such as a steering motor failing, and could he have another coffee, please.None of which is on the GPS.

Oh yeah. Which way would you like it proved?Phylogenetic analysis. A prediction from macro-evolution is that DNA sequences from widely divergent organisms will show historical connections. OTOH, if macroevolution never happened, those DNA sequences would be independent observations. Scientists have been doing phylogenetic analyses ever since DNA sequencing became cheap and fast in the 1980s. The result?“"As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.Macroevolution proved, special creation of independent “kinds” falsified.2. Observed speciation. The only biological reality is species. All the “higher taxa” are groups of related species. Therefore macroevolution = speciation. Once you have speciation, getting “higher taxa” is simply multiple speciation events spread through time. There have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of observed speciation events both in the lab and in the wild. I have partial lists in several answers on Quora. Macroevolution proved.3. Fossil record. What many people don’t realize is that sometimes the fossil record is fine enough to have a series of transitional individuals that link one species to another. Below is a picture of one such sequence:There are 4 examples of 15,000 specimens linking the species on the left with the one on the right. All arranged in the appropriate time sequence. There are examples in the fossil record where the series of transitional species extends from species to species to species to new genera, families, orders, and even a new class (mammals and birds are examples of class).This is macroevolution by anyone’s standards. I have a very partial list of these series, because I am a biochemist looking through summaries of the fossil record.Transitional individuals from one class to another1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.Transitional individuals from one order to another1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 19642. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.Transitionals across genera1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera1. Introduction to the Foraminifera2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm3. A Smooth Fossil Transition: ForamsAgain, macroevolution proved.There are probably other proofs people can think of, but 3 should be enough to nail down that macroevolution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

YES. Of course, you can always duck the evidence by equivocating on what is a “kind”. “Species” is Latin for “kind”, and up until modern day creationism, evolution of a new “kind” meant a new species. After all, the title of Darwin’s book is On the Origin of Species.But when the evolution of species was observed, creationists began to have “kind” mean various higher taxa. For instance, creationists sometimes say that all “flies” are a kind, so the observation of new species of flies is said to be “variations within a kind”. Of course, “flies” are the Order Diptera that has over a million species. This allows creationists to ignore cois nsiderable evolution.In the fossil record, there are examples of transitional individuals. These are individual fossils that link one species to another. An example is:These are 4 representative individuals out of 15,000 fossils that connect the species on the left to the one at the right.There are examples in the fossil record where the transitional individuals connect species to species to species to new genera, families, orders, and class (mammals and birds are examples of a class). This level of taxonomy should be a “kind” by any measure. Below are just a few examples of “observable evidence”:Transitional individuals from one class to another1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.Transitional individuals from one order to another1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 19642. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratigraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera1. Introduction to the Foraminifera2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm3. A Smooth Fossil Transition: ForamsThere is another, general, test of the general idea of evolution from a common ancestor. This involves sequencing the bases of the DNA of widely separate species, i.e. humans, corn, birds, reptiles, C. elegans (a worm), fish, cats, dogs, etc. If evolution from “one kind to another” has happened, those DNA sequences should show historical interrelationships. If instead, “kinds” are separate creations, then the DNA sequences should be independent observations. Historical interrelationship could only happen with “descent with modification” and having one kind evolve to another kind.Starting in the late 1980s and then early 1990s, the ability to sequence large amounts of DNA became easier and cheaper. Of course, by now scientists routinely sequence whole genomes and you can have large stretches of your DNA sequenced by the various companies to determine your ancestry. the comparison of DNA sequences between species is called “phylogenetic analysis”.DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997."As phylogenetic analyses became commonplace in the 1980s, several groups emphasized what should have been obvious all along: Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections."There are the observations of several research groups: one kind evolved into another kind, and the evidence of that is in the DNA.