Did you happen to notice your link is from 10 years ago?
It’s unclear just what ‘recent’ criticisms are lacking foundation.
“Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. Several generations of science students were taught this as ‘one of the best documented cases of evolution’ in the fossil record.
However, today it seems that coiling is a built-in programming response to the environment, i.e. mud-sticking oysters grow into a coiled cup-shaped form, while oysters attaching to firmer substrate2 grow to be ‘flat, fan-shaped recliners’.3 So, coiling is an individual growth response to local environment; not a millions-of-years evolutionary twist.”
Yet another example of evolutionary fraud. Eventually the fabrications catch up to you...
“However, today it seems that coiling is a built-in programming response to the environment, i.e. mud-sticking oysters grow into a coiled cup-shaped form, while oysters attaching to firmer substrate2 grow to be ‘flat, fan-shaped recliners’.3 So, coiling is an individual growth response to local environment; not a millions-of-years evolutionary twist.””
And that response by the oyster disproves evolution, how?
How about the age of the rock in which the fossils were found? The flat shells were found in earlier strata than the coiled shell oysters. How come radiometric dating of igneous strata above and below fossil baring limestone or mudstone correlates with fossil based dating? How come some fossils are found in very old rock and not in newer rock?
Why do we adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis but we no longer adhere to the dietary and grooming law also found in the Old Testament?.
Strange complaint. Did you happen to notice that the references in the article are from 2001, 1998, and 1976?
The only "fraud" I see here is perpetrated by people like yourself, who insist that any mistake, correction, update or re-think reflects a "fraud" of some kind.
The truth is that seeing and correcting past mistakes is a basic part of what science is & does.
It's the way science is supposed to work.
So, when are you going to see, confess and correct your own numerous mistakes, FRiend?