@1952190
"Evolution is all about constant change..."
"That's a misconception. Evolution is about adaptation to an oranism's environment and living conditions. If a creature's habitat does not change and it is not exposed to new threats, stresses, or is not forced to make a change in its diet to accomodate the loss or introduction of new flora and fauna for prolonged periods lasting generational cycles nothing will trigger an evolutionary respose."
Actually, not necessarily. You've got natural selection and adaptation down quite nicely, and while those are the first concepts to spring to mind when the topic of evolution is being discussed, they're not the only processes that drive evolution. Depending on the population in question, Genetic Drift can play just as much, if not more, of a role than natural selection in shaping a species.
Genetic Drift basically deals with changes of allele frequency from one generation to the next, independent of natural selection. It basically boils down to sampling error during reproduction and the formation of the next generation, and is more or less random. So while the environment might be stable and unchanging in nearly every aspect that would affect selection (resource availability, presence of predators, environmental conditions, diseases, etc.), you could still get significant changes in allele frequencies from one generation to the next, which is still viewed as evolutionary change ("Microevolution"). And these alleles might not all be selectively neutral either.
Whether or not Genetic Drift on its own (without any input from natural selection and adaptation) is enough to lead to speciation ("Macroevolution") is debatable, but it is known that Genetic Drift has much more of an impact on smaller populations than larger ones. Really, this whole debate over constant change versus change only in the face of shifting environmental conditions is basically the debate between Punctuated Equilibrium and Phyletic Gradualism (I, personally, favour the latter model), which itself goes back to debates over whether Genetic Drift or Natural Selection drive evolution more, which goes back over a hundred years. As with a lot of things, there isn't really a nice, simple "either or" answer.
So, this quote actually isn't very far off the mark, as much as some of the posters here are ridiculing it. Of course, what makes the OP a total idiot is thinking that this quote supports an argument against evolution when it's totally the opposite, but that context isn't part of the quote itself.
Meh'ed.
