[VadeRetro]

You're arguing semantics. It's what I said. The function outputs n+1 gaps and not 2n when you put in n fossils.

You've already admitted your argument is purely semantic. Now go find somebody you fool.

[Last Visible Dog]

You're arguing semantics. It's what I said. The function outputs n+1 gaps and not 2n when you put in n fossils.

Actually you are arguing semantics and I am arguing logic.

There is no question each new missing link creates two new gaps - no matter how you try to word it:

A-------Z one gap a-z

A---M---Z two new gaps a-m and m-z (a-z no longer exists)

A-G-M---Z two new gaps a-g and g-m (a-m no longer exists)

A-G-M-Q-Z two new gaps m-q and q-z (m-z no longer exists)

A-C-G-M-Q-Z two new gaps a-c and c-g (a-g no longer exists)

ad infinitum