Let us reason together.

your system is better described as did darwin, descent with modifications. evolution draws at least two more principles out of an examination of the world of life. 1-common ancestor, i think it is an axiom, but i am open to modification of this. assumption that there was 1 primorial organism from which all life as we know it, both alife now and in the fossil record descended.you can not derived common ancestor from your 3 principles. "birth death and slight differences"2-and something about the sufficency of modification to cause all the various forms of life we see. this principle is not universally accepted in the scientific world. sufficency of random mutations plus natural selection is more like a tendative working assumption.without these two additional ideas your system is not evolution. but some much weaker form of descent with modifications.richard williams------------------
homepage

without a principle of common descent, you are stuck with 'puddles' of evolving organisms without explanatory mechanisms to unify them. much like the OEC kinds there will be no evolutionary principles to put them into the usual phylogenic trees.descent with modification does not imply descent of all from last unified common ancestor. the link is to put them, all the fossils and all the living things, together in a nested hierarchical structure.
the first step, maybe the only one necessary to posit as an axiom is common ancestor, or common descent, just something to tie the pieces we see backwards through time.------------------
homepage
blog

i believe it was on this forum that i found reference to _where do we come from?_ by kein and takahata. i owe that person a big thank you for pointing out simply the best book i have seen yet on human evolution. surprisingly he will and does take the time to introduce ideas in such a way that an educated intelligent layman will get the tools to understand the discussions. this is very unusual and very well done.it is good enough, and complete enough to recommend it as the basis for any real discussion of the issues. for it brings everyone who reads it uptodate with the crucial points of evolution. that is really the reason so much of the creation evolution debate is a question of "he said, she said" because the common base of knowledge on the subject is often shallow. people seem to prefer not to do their homework and talk without trying to grasp the facts of the discussion via intensive study of the fields involved.if anyone has similiar recommendations please share them with me.thanks
richard williams