DOCSLIB.ORG

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent Version 2.85 Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. [Last Update: undefined NaN, NaN] Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes. Introduction volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated. Outline Introduction Part I. A unique, historical Part 2. Past history phylogenetic tree ● Universal Common 1. Anatomical vestiges Descent Defined 1. Unity of life 2. Atavisms ● Evidence for Common 2. Nested hierarchies ❍ Whales with Descent is 3. Convergence of hindlimbs Independent of independent phylogenies ❍ Humans tails Mechanism ❍ Statistics of 3. Molecular vestiges ● What Counts as incongruent 4. Ontogeny and Scientific Evidence phylogenies developmental biology ● Other Explanations 4. Transitional forms ❍ Mammalian ear for the Biology ❍ Reptile-birds bones, reptilian ● How to Cite This ❍ Reptile-mammals jaws Document ❍ Ape-humans ❍ Pharyngeal ❍ Legged whales pouches, ❍ Legged seacows branchial arches Scientific Evidence and the 5. Chronology of common ❍ Snake embryos Scientific Method ancestors with legs ❍ Embryonic human tail Phylogenetics ❍ Marsupial introduction eggshell and caruncle 5. Present biogeography ● Figure 1: A consensus 6. Past biogeography universal phylogeny ❍ Marsupials ● Cladistics and ❍ Horses phylogenetic ❍ Apes and humans reconstruction ❍ Maximum parsimony ❍ Maximum likelihood ❍ Distance matrix methods ● Statistical support for phylogenies ● Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees? ● Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees Part 3. Evolutionary Part 4. Molecular evidence Part 5. Change opportunism 1. Protein functional 1. Genetic 1. Anatomical redundancy 2. Morphological parahomology 2. DNA functional 3. Functional 2. Molecular redundancy 4. The strange past parahomology 3. Transposons 5. Stages of speciation 3. Anatomical 4. Redundant pseudogenes 6. Speciation events convergence 5. Endogenous retroviruses 7. Morphological rates 4. Molecular 8. Genetic rates convergence 5. Anatomical suboptimal function Closing remarks 6. Molecular suboptimal function What is Universal Common Descent? niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically Other Links: A Critique of Douglas Theobald's "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" Lawyer, Churches of Christ minister, and young-earth creationist Ashby Camp argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique" The author of this essay has written a response to Camp. Search this FAQ gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below. Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct— especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open. Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless. Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life. What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent? Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two Additional Invasive Scarabaeoid Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) in Hawaii
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Entomology Museum, University of Nebraska State 12-2009 Two Additional Invasive Scarabaeoid Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) in Hawaii Mary Liz Jameson Wichita State University, [email protected] Darcy E. Oishi 2Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Plant Pest Control Branch, Honolulu, [email protected] Brett C. Ratcliffe University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Grant T. McQuate USDA-ARS-PBARC, U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologypapers Part of the Entomology Commons Jameson, Mary Liz; Oishi, Darcy E.; Ratcliffe, Brett C.; and McQuate, Grant T., "Two Additional Invasive Scarabaeoid Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) in Hawaii" (2009). Papers in Entomology. 147. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologypapers/147 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Museum, University of Nebraska State at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Entomology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. AProcddition. HawaiianAl inv AEsiventomol scA.r SAocbs. in(2009) HAwA 41:25–30ii 25 Two Additional Invasive Scarabaeoid Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae) in Hawaii Mary Liz Jameson1, Darcy E. Oishi2, Brett C. Ratcliffe3, and Grant T. McQuate4 1Wichita State University, Department of Biological Sciences, 537 Hubbard Hall, Wichita, Kansas 67260 [email protected]; 2Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Plant Pest Control Branch, 1428 South King St., Honolulu, HI 96814 [email protected]; 3University of Nebraska State Museum, Systematics Research Collections, W436 Nebraska Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 [email protected]; 4USDA-ARS-PBARC, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • JVP 26(3) September 2006—ABSTRACTS
    Neoceti Symposium, Saturday 8:45 acid-prepared osteolepiforms Medoevia and Gogonasus has offered strong support for BODY SIZE AND CRYPTIC TROPHIC SEPARATION OF GENERALIZED Jarvik’s interpretation, but Eusthenopteron itself has not been reexamined in detail. PIERCE-FEEDING CETACEANS: THE ROLE OF FEEDING DIVERSITY DUR- Uncertainty has persisted about the relationship between the large endoskeletal “fenestra ING THE RISE OF THE NEOCETI endochoanalis” and the apparently much smaller choana, and about the occlusion of upper ADAM, Peter, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; JETT, Kristin, Univ. of and lower jaw fangs relative to the choana. California, Davis, Davis, CA; OLSON, Joshua, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Los A CT scan investigation of a large skull of Eusthenopteron, carried out in collaboration Angeles, CA with University of Texas and Parc de Miguasha, offers an opportunity to image and digital- Marine mammals with homodont dentition and relatively little specialization of the feeding ly “dissect” a complete three-dimensional snout region. We find that a choana is indeed apparatus are often categorized as generalist eaters of squid and fish. However, analyses of present, somewhat narrower but otherwise similar to that described by Jarvik. It does not many modern ecosystems reveal the importance of body size in determining trophic parti- receive the anterior coronoid fang, which bites mesial to the edge of the dermopalatine and tioning and diversity among predators. We established relationships between body sizes of is received by a pit in that bone. The fenestra endochoanalis is partly floored by the vomer extant cetaceans and their prey in order to infer prey size and potential trophic separation of and the dermopalatine, restricting the choana to the lateral part of the fenestra.
    [Show full text]
  • New Materials of Chalicotherium Brevirostris (Perissodactyla, Chalicotheriidae)
    Geobios 45 (2012) 369–376 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Original article New materials of Chalicotherium brevirostris (Perissodactyla, Chalicotheriidae) § from the Tunggur Formation, Inner Mongolia Yan Liu *, Zhaoqun Zhang Laboratory of Evolutionary Systematics of Vertebrate, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 142, Xizhimenwai Street, PO Box 643, Beijing 100044, PR China A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Chalicotherium brevirostris was named by Colbert based on a skull lacking mandibles from the late Middle Received 23 March 2011 Miocene Tunggur Formation, Tunggur, Inner Mongolia, China. Here we describe new mandibular Accepted 6 October 2011 materials collected from the same area. In contrast to previous expectations, the new mandibular Available online 14 July 2012 materials show a long snout, long diastema, a three lower incisors and a canine. C. brevirostris shows some sexual dimorphism and intraspecific variation in morphologic characters. The new materials differ Keywords: from previously described C. cf. brevirostris from Cixian County (Hebei Province) and the Tsaidam Basin, Tunggur which may represent a different, new species close to C. brevirostris. The diagnosis of C. brevirostris is Middle Miocene revised. Chalicotheriinae Chalicotherium ß 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. 1. Abbreviations progress in understanding the Tunggur geology and paleontology (Qiu et al., 1988). The most important result of this expedition so far is
    [Show full text]
  • Theropod Teeth from the Upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation “Sue” Quarry: New Morphotypes and Faunal Comparisons
    Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation “Sue” Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons TERRY A. GATES, LINDSAY E. ZANNO, and PETER J. MAKOVICKY Gates, T.A., Zanno, L.E., and Makovicky, P.J. 2015. Theropod teeth from the upper Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation “Sue” Quarry: New morphotypes and faunal comparisons. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 60 (1): 131–139. Isolated teeth from vertebrate microfossil localities often provide unique information on the biodiversity of ancient ecosystems that might otherwise remain unrecognized. Microfossil sampling is a particularly valuable tool for doc- umenting taxa that are poorly represented in macrofossil surveys due to small body size, fragile skeletal structure, or relatively low ecosystem abundance. Because biodiversity patterns in the late Maastrichtian of North American are the primary data for a broad array of studies regarding non-avian dinosaur extinction in the terminal Cretaceous, intensive sampling on multiple scales is critical to understanding the nature of this event. We address theropod biodiversity in the Maastrichtian by examining teeth collected from the Hell Creek Formation locality that yielded FMNH PR 2081 (the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen “Sue”). Eight morphotypes (three previously undocumented) are identified in the sample, representing Tyrannosauridae, Dromaeosauridae, Troodontidae, and Avialae. Noticeably absent are teeth attributed to the morphotypes Richardoestesia and Paronychodon. Morphometric comparison to dromaeosaurid teeth from multiple Hell Creek and Lance formations microsites reveals two unique dromaeosaurid morphotypes bearing finer distal denticles than present on teeth of similar size, and also differences in crown shape in at least one of these. These findings suggest more dromaeosaurid taxa, and a higher Maastrichtian biodiversity, than previously appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Epistemology in James' Pragmatism J
    35 THE ORIGIN OF AN INQUIRY: EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY IN JAMES' PRAGMATISM J. Ellis Perry IV University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth "Much struck." That was Darwin's way of saying that something he observed fascinated him, arrested his attention, surprised or puzzled him. The words "much struck" riddle the pages of bothhis Voyage ofthe Beagle and his The Origin of Species, and their appearance should alert the reader that Darwin was saying something important. Most of the time, the reader caninfer that something Darwin had observed was at variance with what he had expected, and that his fai th in some alleged law or general principle hadbeen shaken, and this happened repeat­ edly throughout his five year sojourn on the H.M.S. Beagle. The "irritation" of his doubting the theretofore necessary truths of natu­ ral history was Darwin's stimulus to inquiry, to creative and thor­ oughly original abductions. "The influence of Darwinupon philosophy resides inhis ha ving conquered the phenomena of life for the principle of transi tion, and thereby freed the new logic for application to mind and morals and life" (Dewey p. 1). While it would be an odd fellow who would disagree with the claim of Dewey and others that the American pragmatist philosophers were to no small extent influenced by the Darwinian corpus,! few have been willing to make the case for Darwin's influence on the pragmatic philosophy of William James. Philip Wiener, in his well known work, reports that Thanks to Professor Perry's remarks in his definitive work on James, "the influence of Darwin was both early and profound, and its effects crop up in unex­ pected quarters." Perry is a senior at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmoltth.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Primary Types of the Hawaiian Stag Beetle Genus
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 433: 77–88A review (2014) of the primary types of the Hawaiian stag beetle genus Apterocyclus... 77 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.433.8022 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research A review of the primary types of the Hawaiian stag beetle genus Apterocyclus Waterhouse (Coleoptera, Lucanidae, Lucaninae), with the description of a new species M.J. Paulsen1, David C. Hawks2 1 Systematics Research Collections, University of Nebraska State Museum, W436 Nebraska Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0546 USA 2 Department of Entomology, University of California- Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521 USA Corresponding author: M.J. Paulsen ([email protected]) Academic editor: Andrey Frolov | Received 3 June 2014 | Accepted 31 July 2014 | Published 13 August 2014 http://zoobank.org/065CFC3A-4DD8-4759-B55D-040FCC3351AA Citation: Paulsen MJ, Hawks DC (2014) A review of the primary types of the Hawaiian stag beetle genus Apterocyclus Waterhouse (Coleoptera, Lucanidae, Lucaninae), with the description of a new species. ZooKeys 433: 77–88. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.433.8022 Abstract The species of the Hawaiian stag beetle genus Apterocyclus Waterhouse (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) are re- viewed following an examination of all primary types. Although the continued existence of the species is unknown and some possibly are extinct there are five recently extant species, including one species that is described here as new. The holotypes for all available names are pictured, and synonymies discussed and updated. Lectotypes are designated for Apterocyclus honoluluensis Waterhouse and A. munroi Sharp. A key to species and a revised catalog for the genus are provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Darwin's Theory
    plenty of clues. Scientists from many different concepts. We’ll introduce them here, and examine fields try to piece these clues together to come them in more detail later on. In the Origin of up with possible explanations. Darwin, himself, Species, Charles Darwin formulated a theory with looked at many different lines of evidence as he two main claims. constructed his theory. He considered biogeog- The first claim became known as the Theory raphy (how organisms were distributed over the of Universal Common Descent.3 This is the idea Earth’s surface). He also looked at comparative that every creature on Earth is ultimately descend- anatomy (how species resembled each other) and ed from a single common ancestor somewhere in embryology (how organisms develop). Darwin the distant past. This theory paints a picture of also examined fossils—the mineralized remains the history of life on earth—a picture of a great of once-living organisms. branching tree. Darwin envisioned this “Tree of Using the clues from each of these areas, Life” beginning as a simple one-celled organism Darwin formulated his theory. that gradually developed and changed over many generations into new and more complex living Introduction to Darwin’s Theory forms. The first one-celled organism represented To understand this book and the issues involved the root or trunk of the Tree of Life; the new in the discussion, you’ll need to know a few key forms that developed from it were the branches. The theory’s second main claim has to do with the biological process he thought was responsible for this branching pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerhard Heilmann Og Teorierne Om Fuglenes Oprindelse
    Gerhard Heilmann gav DOF et logo længe før ordet var opfundet­ de Viber, som vi netop med dette nr har forgrebet os på og stiliseret. Ude i verden huskes han imidlertid af en helt anden grund. Gerhard Heilmann og teorierne om fuglenes oprindelse SVEND PALM Archaeopteryx og teorierne I årene 1912 - 1916 bragte DOFT fem artikler, som fik betydning for spørgsmålet om fuglenes oprindelse. Artiklerne var skrevet af Gerhard Heilmann og havde den fælles titel »Vor nuvæ• rende Viden om Fuglenes Afstamning«. Artiklerne tog deres udgangspunkt i et fossil, der i 1861 og 1877 var fundet ved Solnhofen nær Eichstatt, og som fik det videnskabelige navn Archaeopteryx. Dyret var på størrelse med en due, tobenet og havde svingfjer og fjerhale, men det havde også tænder, hvirvelhale og trefingrede forlemmer med klør. Da Archaeopteryx-fundene blev gjort, var der kun gået få årtier, siden man havde fået det første kendskab til de uddøde dinosaurer, af hvilke nog­ le var tobenede og meget fugleagtige. Her kom da Archaeopteryx, der mest lignede en dinosaur i mini-format, men som med sine fjervinger havde en tydelig tilknytning til fuglene, ind i billedet (Fig. 1). Kort forinden havde Darwin (1859) med sit værk »On the Origin of Species« givet et viden­ Fig. 1. Archaeopteryx. Fra Heilmann (1926). skabeligt grundlag for udviklingslæren, og Ar­ chaeopteryx kom meget belejligt som trumfkort for Darwins tilhængere, som et formodet binde­ led mellem krybdyr og fugle. gernes og flyveevnens opståen. I den nulevende I begyndelsen hæftede man sig især ved lighe­ fauna findes adskillige eksempler på dyr med en derne mellem dinosaurer, Archaeopteryx og fug­ vis flyveevne, f.eks.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for Predatory Dinosaur Macroecology and Ontogeny in Later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica
    Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Theropod Guild Structure and the Tyrannosaurid Niche Assimilation Hypothesis: Implications for Predatory Dinosaur Macroecology and Ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica Journal: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Manuscript ID cjes-2020-0174.R1 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the 04-Jan-2021 Author: Complete List of Authors: Holtz, Thomas; University of Maryland at College Park, Department of Geology; NationalDraft Museum of Natural History, Department of Geology Keyword: Dinosaur, Ontogeny, Theropod, Paleocology, Mesozoic, Tyrannosauridae Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special Tribute to Dale Russell Issue? : © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Page 1 of 91 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 1 Theropod Guild Structure and the Tyrannosaurid Niche Assimilation Hypothesis: 2 Implications for Predatory Dinosaur Macroecology and Ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous 3 Asiamerica 4 5 6 Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. 7 8 Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 USA 9 Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20013 USA 10 Email address: [email protected] 11 ORCID: 0000-0002-2906-4900 Draft 12 13 Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. 14 Department of Geology 15 8000 Regents Drive 16 University of Maryland 17 College Park, MD 20742 18 USA 19 Phone: 1-301-405-4084 20 Fax: 1-301-314-9661 21 Email address: [email protected] 22 23 1 © The Author(s) or their Institution(s) Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Page 2 of 91 24 ABSTRACT 25 Well-sampled dinosaur communities from the Jurassic through the early Late Cretaceous show 26 greater taxonomic diversity among larger (>50kg) theropod taxa than communities of the 27 Campano-Maastrichtian, particularly to those of eastern/central Asia and Laramidia.
    [Show full text]
  • Dating Dinosaurs
    The PRINCETON FIELD GUIDE to DINOSAURS 2ND EDITION PRINCETON FIELD GUIDES Rooted in field experience and scientific study, Princeton’s guides to animals and plants are the authority for professional scientists and amateur naturalists alike. Princeton Field Guides present this information in a compact format carefully designed for easy use in the field. The guides illustrate every species in color and provide detailed information on identification, distribution, and biology. Albatrosses, Petrels, and Shearwaters of the World, by Derek Onley Birds of Southern Africa, Fourth Edition, by Ian Sinclair, Phil and Paul Scofield Hockey, Warwick Tarboton, and Peter Ryan Birds of Aruba, Curaçao, and Bonaire by Bart de Boer, Eric Birds of Thailand, by Craig Robson Newton, and Robin Restall Birds of the West Indies, by Herbert Raffaele, James Wiley, Birds of Australia, Eighth Edition, by Ken Simpson and Nicolas Orlando Garrido, Allan Keith, and Janis Raffaele Day Birds of Western Africa, by Nik Borrow and Ron Demey Birds of Borneo: Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak, and Kalimantan, by Carnivores of the World, by Luke Hunter Susan Myers Caterpillars of Eastern North America: A Guide to Identification Birds of Botswana, by Peter Hancock and Ingrid Weiersbye and Natural History, by David L. Wagner Birds of Central Asia, by Raffael Ayé, Manuel Schweizer, and Common Mosses of the Northeast and Appalachians, by Karl B. Tobias Roth McKnight, Joseph Rohrer, Kirsten McKnight Ward, and Birds of Chile, by Alvaro Jaramillo Warren Perdrizet Birds of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, by Steven Latta, Coral Reef Fishes, by Ewald Lieske and Robert Meyers Christopher Rimmer, Allan Keith, James Wiley, Herbert Dragonflies and Damselflies of the East, by Dennis Paulson Raffaele, Kent McFarland, and Eladio Fernandez Dragonflies and Damselflies of the West, by Dennis Paulson Birds of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, and Mammals of Europe, by David W.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's “Tree of Life”
    Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education DARWIN’S “TREE OF LIFE” mon descent. Finally, he demands that text- books treat universal common ancestry as PHYLOGENETIC TREES unproven and refrain from illustrating that n biology, a phylogenetic tree, or phyloge- “theory” with misleading phylogenies. ny, is used to show the genealogic relation- Therefore, according to Wells, textbooks Iships of living things. A phylogeny is not should state that there is no evidence for com- so much evidence for evolution as much as it mon descent and that the most recent research is a codification of data about evolutionary his- refutes the concept entirely. Wells is complete- tory. According to biological evolution, organ- ly wrong on all counts, and his argument is isms share common ancestors; a phylogeny entirely based on misdirection and confusion. shows how organisms are related. The tree of He mixes up these various topics in order to life shows the path evolution took to get to the confuse the reader into thinking that when current diversity of life. It also shows that we combined, they show an endemic failure of can ascertain the genealogy of disparate living evolutionary theory. In effect, Wells plays the organisms. This is evidence for evolution only equivalent of an intellectual shell game, put- in that we can construct such trees at all. If ting so many topics into play that the “ball” of evolution had not happened or common ances- evolution gets lost. try were false, we would not be able to discov- THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION er hierarchical branching genealogies for ells claims that the Cambrian organisms (although textbooks do not general- Explosion “presents a serious chal- ly explain this well).
    [Show full text]
  • An Early Miocene Dome-Skulled Chalicothere
    PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10024 Number 3486, 45 pp., 26 ®gures, 8 tables October 27, 2005 An Early Miocene Dome-Skulled Chalicothere from the ``Arikaree'' Conglomerates of Darton: Calibrating the Ages of High Plains Paleovalleys Against Rocky Mountain Tectonism ROBERT M. HUNT, JR.1 CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................... 2 Geologic Setting ................................................................ 3 Systematic Paleontology ........................................................ 12 Age of the Dome-Skulled Chalicothere ........................................... 28 The ``Arikaree'' Conglomerates of N.H. Darton ................................... 32 Post-Laramide Evolution of the Rocky Mountains ................................. 39 Acknowledgments ............................................................. 42 References .................................................................... 42 1 Department of Geosciences, W436 Nebraska Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0549 ([email protected]). Copyright q American Museum of Natural History 2005 ISSN 0003-0082 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3486 ABSTRACT Fragmentary skeletal remains discovered in 1979 in southeastern Wyoming, associated with a mammalian fauna of early Hemingfordian age (;18.2 to 18.8 Ma), represent the oldest known occurrence of dome-skulled chalicotheres
    [Show full text]