Ah! Semantics! I can still find the thread in which you argued that because a platypus is called a duckbill, the bill must be a duck's bill.
It feels so funny, realizing you're not going to read this for a long time yet. I said it on another thread long ago, but what the heck.
Watching you read down a thread, I can imagine I see your lips moving.
I'm bullying again! (Sob!) Stop me!
If I said this
Yes, the change does not need to take place in one person at one time. However, because mutations are rare (else a species would dissappear in no time at all) the first mutation would have to spread itself to other individuals in the species. The problem with spreading the mutation is genetics. Each time it spreads, the mutation only has one chance in two to survive (and no, this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest and all that nonsense). So for a mutation to spread would be pretty difficult (that's one of the reasons for evos developing punk-eek). While you could be having other mutations going on in other individuals, this would not add to the mutations in the group with the other mutation because of the laws of genetics. Even if these two sets of mutatated genes were two be resident one in the father and one in the mother of a child - the child would only inherit one of the genes because of the laws of genetics.would you say I was smart then?
Ah! Semantics! I can still find the thread in which you argued that because a platypus is called a duckbill, the bill must be a duck's bill.
No, not semantics. When scientists name a species, they have scientific reasons for it. It is not semantics therefore to say they gave them the same generic name. I asked you to back up your post, give pictures, tell us what the heck this species is and you start to turn it into a personal thing. Seems you cannot back anything you say Vade. When called on anything you start with irrelevancies and diversions.