Life, as it exists, is absolutely and completely incapable of staying exactly the same. DNA is a molecule subject to change through mutation, DNA replication itself is a process that introduces mutation.
As such evolution is the inescapable result of life being imperfect replicators.
I don’t get my view of Science from Talk.Origins or any other creationist source; I am a scientists and I get my views on Science from other scientists. Nobody in their scientific work claims that evolution or any OTHER random process excludes God. God apparently is quite fond of using processes that are random in biology and physics and elsewhere, and science is incapable of discerning “truly random” from “random but under the control of God”.
Once again in case you feel compelled to go off on the word “random”, randomness is in no way out of the control of God; EVERY result of any random process is (if you believe the Bible)directed by God.
“The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord” Prov 16:33
Sorry, Talk.Origins is an evolutionary biologist’s site. It purports to speak for the evolutionary biology community. Perhaps they over state their case. Certainly, from my point of view it is full of incorrect assumptions and conclusions.
But, from a biblical perspective, God does not do “random” anything. As noted, even the outcome of the dice roll is determined. Why? Because a universe does not possess the capacity of being self-sustaining. That is, at all moments, if God did not have His mind upon this universe, it would slip into non-existence. Thus, there is the “input” of guidance and development continuously. That is how He can confidently state that all things that occur in history are simply a reflection of plans He laid long. He is now executing them. This is not a compatible perspective with the claims of the evolutionary biologists as they represent themselves. They believe the universe is a “thing” which needs no outside sustaining, control, management. Again, this is contradictory to biblical Christianity.
Not necessarily--the rate of mutations and the rate of change of the environment would enter in too...Not too much change in the oceans in the last couple of hundred thousand years, right? And yet on land, we've been through ice ages, global warming, and the election of Obama during that time. Which is why there have been woolly mammoth fossils but no wooly great white fossils.
Look at this article on armored whales for another example.
I think they'd all drown or starve before they would have enough kids to mutate successfully ;-)
Cheers!