Evolution as put forth by Darwin was already coevolution. Darwin had never heard of a point mutation. More on what the real model says in 680 to Aquinasfan. (I mention you in there on something you haven't answered yet.) Nobody has seriously proposed a model in which all changes necessary for a new function must be done serially, with one fully complete and fixed in the population.
OK, that's actually a pretty good decription of "Haldane's Dilemma." Haldane, a sober enough scientist, made a bad model of how things work back in the fifties, realized it would evolve very, very slowly, and asked, "Where did I go wrong?" Creationists like Walter Remine and medved have been pretending ever since that nobody knows. Many changes happen in parallel in a diverse population. From A Page on the Wistar Symposia:
The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously [Note: if he sounds a little vague, it was 1966, although you'd probably still have to guess. -- VR]...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)So many creationist arguments are against strawmen that not only don't reflect current thinking, they don't reflect the view of sober science ever. That stuff Aquinasfan posts which is just the Duane Gish parody of punk-eek. "One day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird! But where was there another bird for it to mate with?"
Yours reflect the actual theory of evolution with similar accuracy, although you do seem to make up a few of your own strawmen. Points for creativity, anyway!
We could give Aquinasfan benefit of the doubt and assume that he is wondering about the evolution of reproductive barriers where geographic isolation is not a determining factor for speciation.
First, organisms in which drastic genetic upsets create a reproductive barrier, such as polyploidy in plants, normally have asexual methods of reproduction.
Second, genetic mutations lead to a progression of reproductive isolation. The first mutation is somewhat isolating, a further mutation leads to male gamete insterility, a further mution leads to female gamete insterility, and so forth. Thus, at each level, there is opportunity for reproduction within a group of like or near-like individuals.
Third, major genetic mutations, for instance, chromosome fusion, are not necessarily the cause of reproductive isolation and are carried forward in the next generation as rare mutations, initially.
If a mutation is sufficiently large to cause instant reproductive isolation and there is no asexual option, the organism simply doesn't reproduce.
We are concerned with facts here. What Darwin said or did not say is irrelevant. If he gave proof of it that would be relevant, but of course he did not. He never gave proof of anything.
The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one..
First of all, the above has nothing to do with the kind of co-evolution we were speaking of. We were talking of different genes, different characteristics, arising. This tells of just one gene, one faculty. However, let me just say this regarding the above. It is hogwash. Here's why. 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. The article is therefore absolute hogwash.
BTW - the above is one of the many things in which Darwin has been thoroughly refuted. He thought that the differences of the parents "melded" in the progeny.