Well, CTD, it seems you are back to just repeating assertions, and totally failing to demonstrate your thesis.

Saying this does not make it so, taking the premises (the observations) and then showing that the conclusions do not follow logically is how you actually demonstrate claims like this.

I agree, that all anyone has to do is read the post, see that it follows from the first post (you call them theory one and theory two, when the second post is just developing the points of the first and using actual observation to back it up -- what we call substantiating a position in real debate).

The fact that you don't find it coherent doesn't mean that it isn't -- only that you are unable to understand it. We know you don't understand evolution, epigenetics, recombination, Darwin's descent with modification through variation and natural selection, and a host of other things, so we just add this to the list. Nobody else complained about coherence, so we only have your word on it.

If you can't demonstrate that the logic is faulty then the logical conclusion is that the logic is valid and the problem is with the receiver. Of course cognitive dissonance plays a role here -- a normal intelligent person can seem to be stupid when confronted with contradictory evidence for a basic belief, because they just can't fit it in to their world view.

Sorry. foraminifera change gradually over millions of years, with a virtually complete record of the evolution for over 65 million years, with examples of speciation and a rather constant rate of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Whether you call it stasis or not is irrelevant, it certainly is classic gradualistic change in morphology, and no puncuation was involved.

Pelycodus, on the other hand, show a population that is fairly stable, growing in body size gradually with time, but otherwise no significant change in morphology - the basic body plan is the same generation after generation - and then we have a speciation event where the population divides into two different populations with a rather sudden (in geological time, still takes many generations) shift of one population away from the other. If there were no fossils from the period of divergence it would seem that a second species appeared in the fossil record next to the parent population: classic punk eek, sudden change in morphology.

Change in morphology with and without stasis: ergo stasis is irrelevant, no matter what you think or what you think other people think (you do know that the appeal to popular opinion is a logical fallacy don't you?)

First off, this is equivocating Lamarck's original thesis - that environment has an effect on organisms - with "lamarckism" , the theory that acquired traits are heritable (a theory that Darwin also included, btw).

Heritable as long as the organisms remain in the environment and subject to the effect. What this means is that the effect keeps happening, generation after generation, while the organisms are in that environment, not that the effects are permanent. It is possible that neutral mutations that cause similar effects occur and are selected for along with the epigenetic effect. If so then when the population moves or the environment changes some of the effects remain, but it isn't necessary.

As I said before, being skeptical is laudable, if you are universal in your skepticism rather than use it to mask your bias. You choose not to be skeptical of the "Russ position" because it suits your bias just as you choose to be skeptical of the "anti-Russ position" because it suits your bias. Thus this isn't being skeptical, it is being biased.

Genetic change is due to mutation (including recombination changes), and not to environment, selection is dependent on how well the organism can survive and reproduce, but the environment does not cause genetic change.

No, it just demonstrates that your understanding of evolution is false.

Enjoy.