Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics

Hello europa, welcome to EvC. No it isn't. Lamarckism states that the giraffe got the long neck because the ancestors of the giraffe stretched their necks, leading them to get longer necks because of that, and then passing this on to their offspring. However, this is not the case. The giraffe got the longer neck from a random mutation, was then able to reach more leaves, and because of this could survive better and pass this trait on to its offspring.This is exactly the case with the frogs. They don't aquire the speckles because they need to, they aquire them by chance (or not, then they wil go extinct).

Yes. The environmeent of the one species might not have changed much at all (think deep sea creatures for example), while for the other, a radical change in environmet cuased them to change radically as well (lizards being transported to a completely different island with different foodsources develloping a cecal valve). They are exceptions to what we "normally" see. Well, it doesn't apply any differently. The pressure were simply much less, resulting in far less change than other populations. The environment, and changes to it, is key. -----Also, a free tip for you. If you reply to a post it is better to use the "reply" button on the bottom right of the post you are replying to. This will make it easier to track your replies and will also send an e-mail notification to the person you replied to.Edited by Huntard, : Added a free tip!

Then there is of course also the possibilities that they went on to specialize and fill different niches. The tuataras are well enough adapted to survive in their own niche, yet other reptiles found another niche where they could prosper better, and so, adapted to that particular niche. Think about it as lions and zebras, both inhabit the same environment, but fill very different niches. It's not really a creative force. Mutation screate the adaptations. Natural selections weeds out the bad ones and allows the beneficial ones to proper. The "purpose" of natural selection is to allow the most fit individuals to thrive, the direction is determined by the environment. Because some don't need to. They fulfill their particualr niche well enough to not need to change at all to thirve. Some find a differeent niche in the same environment, not yet filled by another organism, and adapt to make full use of that niche. Or sometimes the environment changes rdically, and this force the creature to adapt as well. Or go extinct of vourse, that's always a possibility. I don't agree it's "BLIND",a t least, it can be argued about. Anyway, even if this were the case, then would that not be a perfect explanations on why some things change and some things don't? Afterall, if it's blind, it doesn't know what to act on.

A living fossil is also a regular animal, there is nothing special about it. And as Dr. Adequate has explained, the term "living fossil" is quite ambiguous. There is no organism alive today that has not changed in a 100 million years. It has been explained to you. So? That's an argument from incredulity: "This does not make sense to me, therefore it cannot be true!". That's a logical fallacy. Like I said, mutations are the creative force. Natural selection is a filter that keeps what that force creates and is beneficial, and discards what that force creates and is detrimental.

Yes.Although this is also an argument from incredulity, what you're actually saying is: "Nothing else makes sense to me, so....".Sense is a very bad way of determining truth.

Do you often laugh when true things are said? what is "logically difficult to believe" to you is irrelevant, what the evidence shows to be the case is. So yes, this is a logical fallacy.

Precisely. In fact, we should always rely on the evidence. For?

Hello again Europa, I see the thread has been busy overnight. He did understand it. His response was that if you are going to argue like that, than literally nothing is evidence for anything.Giraffes? Marduk's brain-ray.
Mars? There because aliens are folling us with superior technology.
Stripppers? The flying spaghetti monster wants us to be entertained.These are all the same reasoning (Special pleading) that you used. But as explanations they are completely useless. That's waht the Dr. was trying to explain.

Don't pay attention to ratings, they're not a permanent feature here anyway, and will be changed so that only positive ratings can be given. I for one never look at a persons rating, just at their posts.