[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.

[trek]

"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."

This is getting to the heart of the matter for me. WHICH TRAITS? It is not sufficient simply to assert that differences explain the differences. For the theory to be valid it has to show why difference A leads to difference B. This seems to be missing in the argument.

Specifically in the case of the Ceolocanth {sic?} what is it about this fish swimming in the sea that allowed it to remain unchanged while other fish swimming in the same part of the same sea changed dramatically? (extinction being the most dramatic change)