[Lev]

How could the "daughter" species produce creatures "reproductively isolated" from the "parent" species without being "reproductively isolated" from the other members of the "daughter" species, unless some members of the "daughter" species mutated favorably in the same way in the same generation?

Isolation is not a necessary condition. It only increases the chances that a beneficial mutation spreads to the whole population by reducing the size of the 'reproductively available' population.

[Aquinasfan]

Isolation is not a necessary condition. It only increases the chances that a beneficial mutation spreads to the whole population by reducing the size of the 'reproductively available' population.

How?

The problem remains: How does a member of the "daughter" species become "reproductively isolated" from the "parent species" without becoming "reproductively isolated" from the rest of the members of the "daughter species"?

There can only be two possibilities under evolutionary theory: either variation by micromutation or variation by simultaneous, favorable, comparable macromutations in two opposite-sex members of the daughter species.

[gore3000]

Isolation is not a necessary condition. It only increases the chances that a beneficial mutation spreads to the whole population by reducing the size of the 'reproductively available' population.

Amazing, you contradict yourself in the same sentence and think you are being profound! You cannot have it both ways, and punk-eek (to explain the lack of fossils) sends its specimens on vacation to Hawaii so no one will be able to find the bones while all this is going on.

There is also another problem with punk-eek. If the species is reproductively isolated (like in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, etc.) how does it get back in the mainstream? The answer is it does not. So this nonsense theory does not explain the vast majority of species which are not to be found in such isolated places.