[trek]

My point is very simple. Let me rephrase it for you.

If the Theory of Evolution is to pass muster as a valid Theory it must conform to the principle of uniformity. Consequently, if the Theory of Evolution postulates that changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection then these processes should apply equally to all species in a given environment.

So my question is, in general, how does the Theory of Evolution account for differential evolution of species in a common environment? In particular, what is the Evolutionary explanation for the failure of coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches to evolve in environments that produced the wholesale destruction of other species?

[Dimensio]

If the Theory of Evolution is to pass muster as a valid Theory it must conform to the principle of uniformity. Consequently, if the Theory of Evolution postulates that changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection then these processes should apply equally to all species in a given environment.

But not all environments are the same, and not all mutations are the same even in similar (or identical) but seperate and isolated environments. This can and will result in different emergent species over time.

In particular, what is the Evolutionary explanation for the failure of coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches to evolve in environments that produced the wholesale destruction of other species?

Their existing traits were sufficient to provide reproduction and new traits did not provide any significan reproductive advantage, even when environmental conditions might have changed.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If the Theory of Evolution is to pass muster as a valid Theory it must conform to the principle of uniformity. Consequently, if the Theory of Evolution postulates that changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection then these processes should apply equally to all species in a given environment."

This shows a profound ignorance about the differences between the physical sciences and the biological sciences. The physical sciences deal with entities that are essentially the same; one hydrogen atom can be treated like any other. Biological sciences deal with unique individuals. No two organisms are exactly alike. Even identical twins. Even if two individuals of the same species are in a population together, in the same environment more or less, they will never be exactly alike, nor will their history be the same. It is simply not possible to have such deterministic laws in biology as you can have in physics. Physicists can afford to be essentialist; biologists must use populational thinking instead.

[Coyoteman]

If the Theory of Evolution is to pass muster as a valid Theory it must conform to the principle of uniformity. Consequently, if the Theory of Evolution postulates that changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection then these processes should apply equally to all species in a given environment.

So my question is, in general, how does the Theory of Evolution account for differential evolution of species in a common environment? In particular, what is the Evolutionary explanation for the failure of coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches to evolve in environments that produced the wholesale destruction of other species?

I think you are confusing some basic concepts. You are correct that "changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection," but then there is a problem. Why should different species (genera, orders) react the same way to a specific change in a given environment? Different species (genera, orders) have different genetics, with different ranges of variation. They may occupy very different niches, as do coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches.

To be more specific: You mention coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches. They do not occupy the same niches and they have vastly different genetic makeups! With different starting points and different micro- or macro-environments, why should they react the same way to any given environmental change? A warmer climate will be felt differently on dry land, in a swamp, and in the open ocean.

This leads back to your question of why some species became extinct while others changed little. Some adaptations are just better than others for the given conditions; when things are going well there is no need to change or adapt. When it hits the fan, its root, hog, or die!