| > Perhaps. Certainly if you put me in front of the two trees I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. But that's a different question than whether I can tell the difference. If you put me in front of a pine and a fir I couldn't tell you which was which, but it wouldn't be at all difficult to tell the difference. No, I mean you couldn't tell the difference, other than it being a different tree. If you had a bunch of trees from 100,000 years ago and a bunch from today, you would not be able to sort them. > It might also be relevant that the last time I had any significant contact with any conifer was quite a few years ago. Pick almost any life form. Grass, bird, fish, snake. > This is a myth. Specifically, it's the myth of the "living fossil". It's a popular concept, but not a scientific one. It's not that myth at all, and has nothing to do with it. > Not relevant. It also isn't difficult to tell the difference between two populations that were divided by a barrier 100 years ago. Things drift. The point is that there was no barrier. Most things don't drift very fast at all. Most species in an old ecosystem could have evolved more than a million years ago and had little change since then. There are species that have existed for millions of years, you do accept that at least? |
No, that is the myth of the living fossil. It baffles me how you can deny this. What you are describing is an ecosystem composed entirely of living fossils. Living fossils don't exist.
It is not in fact possible for a species to have evolved more than a million years ago and had little change since then.
> I mean you couldn't tell the difference, other than it being a different tree. If you had a bunch of trees from 100,000 years ago and a bunch from today, you would not be able to sort them.
This might or might not be true, but it's pretty likely. If you give me a year to do the job, though, I'll be able to sort them.