[bvw]

Point the first. It's obvious, that if there were radical steps of development within a species or into a new sepcies, say reptile egg to hatchling bird, turtle egg to chicken, that those would come about during the process of forimg the zygote. Yet we don't have any chickens or repitles in observed natural history that break out of an egg into novel species-hood, tmk. And that includes observed periods and populations in extreme stress. Does that raise any alarm-bells to you?

Point the second. If some Jungian-like super-consicousness of the group was savvy enough to intuit that birds popped out of reptile eggs at some point in natural history what do you think the possibility is that that super-consciousness would encode that finding into a creation legend of turtle upon turtle upon turtle "all the way down", eh?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

It's obvious, that if there were radical steps of development within a species or into a new sepcies, say reptile egg to hatchling bird, turtle egg to chicken, that those would come about during the process of forimg the zygote. Yet we don't have any chickens or repitles in observed natural history that break out of an egg into novel species-hood, tmk. And that includes observed periods and populations in extreme stress. Does that raise any alarm-bells to you?

The question was: Were all animals created in their present form with no changes whatsoever to their physiology from the time they were created until now?

[Ichneumon]

Point the first. It's obvious, that if there were radical steps of development within a species or into a new sepcies, say reptile egg to hatchling bird, turtle egg to chicken, that those would come about during the process of forimg the zygote. Yet we don't have any chickens or repitles in observed natural history that break out of an egg into novel species-hood, tmk. And that includes observed periods and populations in extreme stress. Does that raise any alarm-bells to you?

Yes indeed, it raises alarm bells over the shoddy state of science education which produced someone so grossly uninformed as yourself, able to make such bizarrely cartoonish misrepresentations of biology as the kind you just made, so grossly misinformed that most gradeschool children would know better.

Even Darwin himself explained the fallacy of this in his 1859 book -- it never ceases to amaze me when creationists are over 130+ years behind on their education.

[spinestein]

[It's obvious, that if there were radical steps of development within a species or into a new sepcies, say reptile egg to hatchling bird, turtle egg to chicken, that those would come about during the process of forimg the zygote. Yet we don't have any chickens or repitles in observed natural history that break out of an egg into novel species-hood, tmk. And that includes observed periods and populations in extreme stress. Does that raise any alarm-bells to you?]



I know this answers a slightly different question than the one you pose, but I think it's relevant and helps explain more clearly where I'm coming from, and I apologize in advance for the length of it.

Examples of the "creation" of new species within the boundaries of evolutionary theory are seen all the time and I'll use as an illustration of this a more or less typical example to be found among birds in the popular book "Birds of North America- A Golden Guide to Field Identification".

All birds are the same class of animal ('Aves') and one of the orders is 'falconiformes' which includes vultures hawks and falcons.

There are 3 families of 'falconiformes' and they are: vultures ('cathartidae'); kites, hawks, eagles and ospreys ('accipitridae'); and caracaras and falcons ('falconidae').

There are only two species of eagle listed for North America and they are the golden eagle and the bald eagle. They both have very similar appearances and behaviors and also share a similar but not identical habitat, but they are not the same species since they don't appear to be able to interbreed.

Evolutionary theory provides an explanation for the mechanism for how these two species originated from a common ancestor fairly recently as small, random, but harmless mutations build up in populations geographically isolated from one another (even if only by small distances during breeding season) and differences become apparent (such as white head and tail feathers instead of brown, or a slightly different call or a minor change in the size of the beak.

There comes a point where the increasing genetic variation between the two isolated populations prevent them from interbreeding and by definition there are now two species instead of one.

An even more striking example of this is in the closely related hawks where the diversity of species such as the northern goshawk, coopers hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk among the accipiters, and the rough-legged hawk, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, swainsons hawk, broad-winged hawk, and red-shouldered hawk among the buteos can be explained by the same mechanism of mutations building up in relatively isolated populations until a point is reached where the lack of genetic viability of offspring creates, by definition, a new species.

This new speciation is visibly occurring among the red-tailed hawks where there is a sub-population in the Rocky mountains called "Harlan's race of red-tailed hawk" which is clearly distinct from the common red-tailed hawks but occasionally interbreeds producing offspring with a mingling of characteristics.

To look for a new species to "break out of an egg into novel species-hood" is to look for something that no evolutionist is predicting, and while the evolutionary method for speciation is subtle and takes place over a time period greater than a single human lifetime, it is still visible to observers and becomes unmistakable if one knows where to look.