Question on how Evolution works to produce new characteristics

I agree.
But if we do not rely on sense, we should see evidence. Do we have the evidence?

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.

okay.
But where is the evidence?
I am waiting for you to show this evidence to me.

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

Evidence to say the environment of 'living fossils' did not change much? Edited by Europa, : No reason given.Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

Prefacing a remark with the word "logically" does not make it logical; some sort of reasoning is also required.One thing to bear in mind is that species are mobile (even a plant species, qua species, is mobile by dispersal of its seeds). And this allows species to stay in the same environment even when environmental changes occur. For example, the evidence shows that during Ice Ages, species requiring a temperate climate neither evolved nor went extinct. They just moved south. When the glaciers retreated, they moved back north.(ABE: I note that you have acknowledged this point in post #60; I began writing this post before you'd posted #60.) Yes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Pick one in particular, and we'll discuss it.Bear in mind that the term "living fossil" does not imply prolonged morphological stasis, which is what you actually want to talk about.

However, the fact is that the evidence shows that some types of organism have remained relatively unchanged (at least morphologically) over long periods of time without going extinct. And this means that there must, throughout that period, always have been some environment that was within their tolerance, otherwise they would have gone extinct, wouldn't they?Now that is logic. The fact that stromatolites (for example) have survived for hundreds of millions of years does in fact prove that for hundreds of millions of years there must have been, at any particular time in this interval, some place on Earth in which stromatolites could survive.So yes, I "honestly believe" that it is possible, because the evidence shows that it has actually happened; and things that happen are of course possible.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well doctor Adequate, according to Katsuhiko Yoshida,
"Living fossils are taxonomic groups surviving for a long time without any remarkable morphological change." Don't know why you want to redefine what a living fossil is. http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/abstract/28/4/464 Since you insist, please tell me how the cockroach managed to remain a cockroach for hundreds of millions of years. Edited by Europa, : No reason given.

Now, now, now. doctor.
You started with an explanation.
Then you called it logic.
And in the end you are calling it evidence.Huntard told me sense [and probably logic too] is not good enough. We need evidence.But a mere label of 'evidence' is not enough for me. If it is so, you can label what i called logic also as evidence.I would still call what you explained an explanation. That explanation unfortunately, for me, is so counter intuitive. When I say it is counter intuitive, you say it is an argument from incredulity. That is what lead me to ask for evidence. Where is the evidence that the environment did not change?

Which of the thousands of species of cockroach were you thinking of?TTFN,WK

Hi wounded, The one that survived without much morphological change, for the longest duration. lol

But if you are going to take that as a definition of living fossil then a lot of things that people call living fossils aren't living fossils, and you should bear this in mind when selecting your example. "The" cockroach? From WP: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And which is that, and how long was the duration?

This is info can be researched but this is not important.
You are evading my question.The cockroach has been around for more than 300 million years. Please give me the evidence that the environment did not change for the cockroach and THAT is why it has been around for more than 300 million years.