New Chapter. No need to get pissy. If you remember correctly I asked what was meant by evolution? Some have a different idea of what it means. As for the Big Bang, don't scientists believe that it was the basic start of our universe as we know it? So it is related to the start of life. Still, leave that out if you want. Slow adaptation over time, and evolution...how do you distinguish them?That is another reason I asked what some believe evolution is.I certainly don't believe in life from lifelessness with no intelligent design. That is my belief, I can't prove it.But you can't prove that one creature evolved into a totally different creature, the fossil record does not PROVE that. Can PROVE a hoofed mammal swam into the sea millions of years ago and became a dolphin? No you can't. You can say, " Dolphins are here so I must be right.". Creationist say the same thing. Outlaw is right. It takes faith for either belief because there are so many unknowns.
The above is my demonstration to C.A. on how some of us can take in information without cluttering our thoughts. Just the gist---the rest is fluff.
Now to answer it.
Data, you keep suggesting that slow adaptation is something different than evolution, when it is actually a part of evolution. Which is why I don't think you fully understand your argument. So since you have asked the question again, I'm going to start from the beginning and save you the research.
Natural selection acts on populations, picking and choosing individuals that are better able to negotiate an environment. There are 3 necessary factors for natural selection to take place.
1. Variation of Trait. (this could be neck length, snout shape, digestive enzymes, mutations---whatever. A variation)
2. The trait must be inherited. (genetic. If an individual suffers an amputation, even if it is advantageous for some reason, they cannot pass it on to offspring. That's Lamarck's reasoning and has been falsified. A parent can stretch their necks all they want, and maybe achieve some adaptation for THEM, but they don't pass longer necks on to their offspring.)
3. The variation must affect Differential Fitness. (This is a measure of reproductive success. Reproductive success is the ability to produce offspring that themselves are able to go on and produce offspring. If the trait makes the individual less fit, they will have less reproductive success, and their numbers will dwindle. If the trait make them more fit, they will have more offspring, who will have more offspring, and their numbers will increase)
Now imagine a population of reptiles. Some in the group have longer necks, but all within a spectrum. But the longer necks can reach higher for food on bushes. So more food is available to them. As long as low lying food is available in abundance, this may have no effect in fitness. But if something happens, and low food becomes scarce, the longer necks may be able to migrate to sources of higher food, but the short necks will not be able to follow. If the environment changes, and the low hanging food becomes nonexistent, the short necks may even die out. Or they just may become separated from the long necks who migrate where they can't go. Natural selection will continue to favor the long necks in the new group, and the genetic flow between the short necks and long necks diminishes. If you add a barrier of sorts, perhaps a flood changes the region and separates the long necks from the short necks, then you will have genetic drift. No more transfer of genes between short necks and long necks. The barrier can be anything--including a major migration to food sources. Eventually, those two group will become genetically so different, they cannot interbreed. This is speciation. It's not dog to bird, but dog with a longer neck--- and it's not about frisbees and cars, but about getting more food. As more time passes, more variations will become advantageous, and after a time, the first and second group no longer even resemble each other.
The fossil record. I think you are looking for a 'missing link' which is a bad name. Think in terms of transitional species. There is not one link, but a series of changes over a time period---more gradual. This may not be immediately evident in the fossil record. If you find a fossil at the beginning of the spectrum, and a fossil from the middle, and a fossil at a later end, it may not be evident immediately that they are related or there was a chain between them. We are not going to find every fossil representing every gradual change between 2 species. HOWEVER, we HAVE found quite a few transitional fossils. Fossils that have traits of fish and amphibians---google it. They are turning up all the time, especially recently. Sometimes we just have to know what to look for, and where we would logically find it, to fully understand context. But it's there.
And finally, read some about gentics. We are able to trace what we can't always see. It's very cool. You should check it all out. But call it pissy if you like, your post betrays a misunderstanding of Evolution, which makes discussion very difficult with you. I feel I need to educate before I can even challenge. Read a science book---a real one---and then you will be better prepared to have this debate.
...OUTLAW