[Taxacom] Evolutionary misconceptions (mother-daughter pairs)

[Jim Croft]

Way to get around 'Taxacom Rule Number 1' (*), mate... :)

But everyone seems to be hopping on this topic - not only the highbrow
erudite broadsheet of Taxacom, but now even the tabloids are pumping
it out:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html

jim


(*) Taxacom Rule Number 1 - "Taxacom subscribers are not permitted to
post the question: 'What is a species?'"


On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
> Maybe I completely misunderstand what you mean when you say "an ancestral
> species totally transforming into a descendant species without
> lineage-splitting ... never happens".  But by my reckoning, *every* species
> is the product of a sequence of reproductive events in which an ancestral
> species transforms into a descendant species -- whether or not any of the
> siblings or cousins happened to persist long enough to exist today or be
> represented in the fossil record.

-- 
_________________
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
http://www.google.com/profiles/jim.croft
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point
of doubtful sanity.'
 - Robert Frost, poet (1874-1963)