Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics

I am confused about all the information on evolution, creation and intelligent design. Hence I joined this forum to post this question.First to clarify evolution, I would like someone to tell me how evolution is explained in the following hypothetical scenario.There is a green frog population in an isolated island. All frogs are green in this population and they have been living fine in their green environment for ages.An alien species of plants invades their environment and the environment starts to change. Now, the frogs are no longer camouflaged in this environment. A bit of orange speckling on their green skin will, however, do the job of camouflaging wonderfully.But there is not a single orange speckled frog so far in this island population.Can someone explain to me how evolution will work to make the frogs survive?Will orange speckled frogs be the dominant variety of frogs in this island at a later time?Thanks in advance. Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

"There are undoubtedly already members of this frog population with a hint of orange speckles. These members would have an advantage over the other members, and over time will become the dominant trait in the population."Thanks Taz and subbie.My question is, if the frogs with the hint of an orange speckling survive more and make this the dominant trait of the population, will it not be a response to a 'felt need'? (Lmarkism?)If the froggies on the other hand go extinct, will it not be because they could not respond to the 'felt need'? The 'felt need' being getting themselves orange speckled. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

Thanks guys.Two questions arise in my mind.1. Why do you say this -- orange speckling -- isn't Lamarkism?2. If orange speckling, by chance, occurs due to a single mutation on a single frog, will it be capable of making this the dominant trait of the colony over time? Is this how evolution works? I mean by the chance mutation of a favourable trait on a single organism?

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. But ...The often quoted example of Lamarkism is the elongation of a giraffe's neck. Now, the giraffe did not 'learn' how to have a long neck. But this is Lamarkism.How is the orange speckling of the froggies any different? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

Thanks guys for your input. I am enjoying this.Dr Adequate has summed it up. So I will take one of his statements. If this is so, how do you explain living fossils?
Do they not mutate?
It cannot be that their environment did not change. So, if they mutate and if their environment changes, why are they the same?Isn't natural selection a 'creative force?'

Thanks Dr Adequate for the pictures. Why would there be any exceptions to blind selection?
Natural selection is blind with no direction or purpose. So the exceptions have direction and purpose? You must have seen them before some were resurrected. My question is coelacanth is not the only species that live in deep water. If the other species have changed, why has it not changed? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

Then what are they exceptions to?.................................................................I am no biologist and my knowledge on evolution is pretty basic. I am probably talking more out of common sense.We have some organisms that have not changed very much -- living fossils -- and we have other organisms that have shown remarkable change in a relatively short period of time. If we MUST apply the same theory to explain them both -- evolution -- I think there is something that I do not follow here.And when i ask, you say the living fossils are the exceptions. I thought they were exceptions to natural selection for I could not think of anything else.If they are exceptions because natural selection applies in an exceptional way, when we talk of living fossils, it does not make sense to me.How do you apply the same theory to explain the living fossil and the monkey?

Why not?
The 'quasi-metaphorical' terms are not false.
They are not projecting anything the way it should not be projected.
And I think I fully understand these terms.
So why can't I use them?

It is hard to believe that tuataras and other reptiles lived in the same habitat and yet, the tuataras did not change but the other reptiles did. Okay.
But if natural selection is a creative force that is blind, has no purpose or direction, why do some organisms change and some do not? I think there should be no exceptions because NS is BLIND............. Makes sense.
All my replies appear at the bottom of the page irrespective of the button I clicked.
So I did not bother. I probably must have mostly clicked the reply button of the last reply.

"all-seeing?"This is interesting.
Please explain. Well, thank you very much.
I thought that's what I am truing to do.

I think I understood the explanation.
Just that it does not make sense to me because we are not talking of organisms from a different planet.The living fossils and the rest of the organisms on this planet have lived and continue to live through more or less similar environmental conditions.
They both mutate. Its not that the LFs have a low incidence of mutations.
I would think they should both show similar degrees of evolution.
But we know they don't. So ...
Random mutations and natural selection after all do not adequately explain evolution?

Well, well, well.
This is almost like a story now. Not that a story is unacceptable. But that it is not scientific.Bottom line is ...
We have organism A (a living fossil)
We also have organism B (a regular animal. Say a monkey)A has not changed for 100 million years.
B's ancestors' lives if traced to 100 million years will show fifteen or more species.We are asked to explain this.
So we have to do something.The only rational explanation is to say what you all have been saying: That A's environment did not PROBABLY change that much and that there was no real evolutionary pressure for A to change.Anything else will not make sense.Sorry to say this, but the above explanation does not make sense to me. If it is not a creative force, how do you explain the existence of human beings form something that started as unicellular organisms?

Hi RAZD Well, fine.
My question is why the LFs only? And not everything else? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

Not at all.The concept is easy to understand. The difficulty lies not in understanding the concept. But to make sense of it.You are saying my green froggies will survive as green froggies for 200 million years if their environment remains green and provided everything else is also the same for them.That is fine. I understand this.Suppose we have 2 identical islands with green frogs.What I do not understand is if alien plants can invade one island with green frogs and force them to change and ultimately speciate, why would I think the other island with green froggies can be out of reach for such changes?If you say this island is not invaded by alien plants for another 100 years, that is believable. But when you say for 200 million years, no alien plants invaded that island and that is why the froggies of that island are green, it becomes too much of a stretch.

Hi RAZD Logically, it is also difficult o believe that for one population the environment is more or less the same for millions of years. Now Huntard will say this is an argument from incredulity. lol