> Gary DosSantos <dossantos at paprican.ca> writes:
> Chris Barry wrote:
> In fact, there is not
> a single example of intermediate species to be found anywhere among the
> fossils uncovered to date. Does this mean that neodarwinism is wrong?
>>>>
There is an interesting dicussion going on over in SCI.BIO.EVOLUTION . In that group
Ronald Bates wrote:
>I think the main sticking point is the presence of the intermediates.
>Although (to continue with our example) chihuahuas and great Danes
>can't interbreed, one could arrange a series of matings across a
>range of breeds of dogs of gradually increasing size, such that
>genes from the chihuahua gene pool are transferred to the great Dane
>gene pool.
>This is similar to the situation with Arctic gulls. Populations of
>this species are distributed across the north circumpolar region.
>There is a clinal gradation of characteristics as one moves east
>across Eurasia. The interesting thing is that, although adjacent
>populations have no trouble interbreeding, those at the far eastern
>and western ends of the cline cannot interbreed. So is this one
>species or two (or more)? Nature is never as tidy as we'd like
>it to be.
