[From many - one.]

I think for many people the so-called "tree of life" diagrams have serious apparent limitations.

One reason is the ususal failure to show the species (ususally fossil) that demonstrate the transitions. I've seen it recently in trying to show the development of seed plants for my grandkids, and in designing a popular exhibit on reptiles and amphibians. You just don't see Lumpophyus earlius or Squiffodontus confusus on these "trees."

Another is the problem of showing chronospecies (the dinosaurs "turned into" birds deal).

And another is the difficulty in doing the 3-D visualizing needed for both cladograms and "trees."

Of course this presupposes honest searchers as opposed to argumentative, uneducated twits.

[b_sharp]

"I think for many people the so-called "tree of life" diagrams have serious apparent limitations. "

I certainly won't disagree with you, current taxonomy is part of the reason creationists keep harping on the lack of speciation. Unfortunately, there are only a limited number of ways of visually showing nested hierarchy and trees seem to impart the most accurate information. I include cladograms in this since they are just, more or less, modified trees.

"You just don't see Lumpophyus earlius or Squiffodontus confusus on these "trees."

I not really sure I would like to see these 'transitionals' anywhere but on the same branch as Plene caecus.