quote:
I am guessing the argument from the evolutionist would be that the species has done well, in that there hasn't been much change in the gene pool. Maybe there were no populations that were isolated, and therefore genetic drift wasn't as likely. Maybe the species didn't require change. This would probably be my evolutionist argument...how close am I ?
That's it! You got the answer correct. An evolving creature does not have to change morphologically. If its present form fits it well, it won't change any more.
quote:
But then I must ask as a creationist, why they are stuck in this rut. Surely some natural Selection must have taken place. Why is there no change in such a vast amount of time? Could it be that some animals evolve and others don't? Has there ever been a "non-evolving" creature? Is that possible.....If abiogenesis is not part of evolution then surely it is possible.
Why are they 'stuck'? IOW why didn't they change? Well, if a certain morphology is successful, then any more change is likely to lower the fitness of the creature and will be selected against. It's called 'normalizing selection'. Cockroaches stay like cockroaches even though others come and go, because they found their winning formula some hundred million years ago. Well, they did escape the onslaught that killed dinosaurs with that shape, so I think they will keep it for the future. Every peopulation of creatures is subject to natural selection; some respond by evolving, others respond by staying the same.
™ Version 4.2
