Hi Hideyoshi, and welcome to the fray,
On the other hand, going in the reverse order doesn't seem so convenient with the terminology at hand. Specifically, "the Common Ancestor" of, say, a human living today in Brooklyn and an African Elephant named Mogri living in the Serengeti today. Much can be inferred toward that end on a very general trend, more primitive primates here, and more primitive proboscidean there. And yet this only gets you so far. ...
That's why I like to talk about a common ancestral gene pool, or a common ancestor population, rather than an individual.
Despite all this, when was the last time anyone described to the public or expected the public to assume that the term "the Common Ancestor" was actually plural, not necessarily distinct, and possibly metaphorical in nature? Is there simply a weakness in the definitions of our language, and we need a new word? Or does the existing terminology need to be readdressed and properly defined to those outside the biological sciences?
It is always useful to be more specific and define the terms as well as can be done, for clarity of understanding is necessary to meaningful debate.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type
[qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type
[quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out
(help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see
Posting TipsFor a quick overview see
EvC Forum PrimerIf you have problems with replies see
Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0