Mimicry and neodarwinism

This isn't much of an answer for very specific errors that were pointed out to you.Are you agreeing with them or not?

I find the typo in the wiki article a bit amusing.

Is sure sounds like it from the bit quoted. If so it is a misuse of the term. However, saltationsism would not be the right term either since that means a large change in one generation.I suspect that what they mean to say that there is a single jump to a small amount of (but effective) mimicry and then refinement. That is neither punk eq or saltationsism.It is however a "jump" to have some mimicry appear where there was none. I just don't see why they use the punk eq term and don't see why you would use saltationism unless you misunderstand what the paper might be refering to or the meaning of saltationism itself.We can sort it out if someone has access to the whole paper.Ah, after refering to the whole abstract I see you left out an important bit that helps to guess what they mean. They refer to macromutations and micromutations. As best as I can tell the macromutation term refers to larger jumps but fall short of being saltationist.

The real problem "Martin" is your inability to deal with complexities and subtleties. There is a gradiation between very minor phenotypical effects and what is usually refered to as saltation.Since we have known examples of what, I think, can legitimately be called saltation it can't be ruled out. However, once you are below speciation there is no firm line where we can stop calling it a large mutaion and simply refer to it as 'regular' mutation.The argument being discussed in the paper, as best as I can make out is whether a large jump is ever needed in the development of mimicry or not. However, I don't know where one would try to draw a line defining "large". Such subtle distinctions seem to be a bit difficult for you to grasp. Keep up the good work.Edited by NosyNed, : spelling again