Why Evolution is science

Independence in tracings among different genomes are sustained
by Carter, for instance, through a conceptual nexus of successional vs. divergent change("independency" in blue). Snakes would have undergone less divergence with respect to a track to kangaroos than turtles. There is more succession for the supposed unitary reptile than the exemplar amphibian wise. One has to get quite nuanced with one's next sentence in this series as no one would do well to insist that succession and anagenesis are the same.I have a feeling that Croizat's tracks, as modified in construction by me here
http://aexion.org/rings.aspx
and studied here
http://axiompanbiog.com/default.aspx
express the common figure formed by the total work of succession and divergence among demes and serve to cut out that modern difficulty in continuing the discussion of the changes that relate phenocopies and genotypes affected across geography etc if more than an epiphenomenon in the history of evolutionary thought.The actual literature is marred by drawing distinctions among "vicarience", "dispersal", and "historical" biogeography, largely I think, because the motive powers of plants and animals *appear* to be different. I can not say that these purely biological adumbrations may not also inform the notion of "hybrid bound baramins." I tend to think they may, at least functionally when not formally.

I dont think you chose bad examples. You have to visualize how you are going to "scale" the change into longer time frames.It only seems to me to stand if you dont desist in an idea that anagenesis IS succession in your "macro-information" and that Gould is completely correct that PE had a huge relative frequency in history. I personally doubt this is.But you want no jumbo words....So, no, I do NOT think your point can stand if you are challenging how there can be independent trails of information binding reptiles closer togther than between reptiles and mammals (disregarding birds and dinos as you suggested) genotypically. I can paste the earlier chapter where genetics is discussed if you think that will help.The independence is due to the relation of the Linnean (which YOU brought up) SUBspecies and the micro-evolutionist's "deme" which on Carter's view is due to a fusing and unfusing over ICEAGE time that diverges to create geographic differentiation that can become a speciation event. The geometry of this splitting and branching when succession binds a larger clade system, such as the reptiles, will look like the root of a tree with "bush" the succession and another bush, the mammals another succession but the total disjunction (not divergence as you seemed to have read) will be longer between the snake and kangroo than between the snake and the turtle. This has to be visualized pangraphically and not simply in terms of the phenotypes themselves.If the view of change IS as Carter draws it up, I do not see how the "weakness" of the hybrid offspring does not indicate a baramin/like kind boundary. This notion of strength however depends on a change in space over time by form. The difficulty then comes in with the notion of "form" but the difference of succession and divergence is not dependent on that shape except insofar as the Earth revolutions and rotations draw in the genomic differences. It is hard to say what those would be but there is no indication that the independence is only phenotypic. I know of no proposal such in the evolutionary literature nor have I seen such a idea in the creationist literature. Only an artist might try to draw that.Here is a biologically motivated image independent of monophyly that might show you that words can only be "bent" so far to ones own personal definitions.
Edited by Brad McFall, : trouble presenting the double negativeEdited by Brad McFall, : worth 1o0o words added