Originally posted by 7ate9
of course they should link together. in science the land changes as the effects of evolution (on those shells) are taking their roles. obviously with science, the whole earth isn't gonna change at the same time, so shells from different evolutionary ages would be working their way up the mountains.
together they logically dictate time!
Yes, the geology is important, since it represents the background on which evolution occurred. And there will, of course, be records of what happened through evolutionary time within the geology, in the form of fossils.
In the case of the Ruahine range (the hills near Palmerston North, NZ) the fossils were dated at 2 million years old, but nothing younger has been localed. This suggests (along probably with evidence about techtonic plate movement) that the Ruahines started their uplift around 2 million years ago. This normally happens when 2 plates collide, one is forced down (subducted), and the other uplifted (imaginatively called uplifting). The oceanic plate normally gets subducted because continental plates literally "float" higher on the mantle, since they are less dense. Anyhoo, the crinkle zone where mountains are formed is normally located a bit back from the edge of the plate, in the same way that a sheet of paper folds a bit back, not right at the edge, when you push against it. The himalayian mountains are a great example of mountain building, indeed with fossils being found high up in the ranges, suggesting that they were part of the continental shelf, the sea bed that extends out from the shore, which is part of the continental plate.
2 million years is not long in evolutionary time, so it's unsurprising that there are few changes between fossil shells then and real shells now. If it'd been 2 billion years ago, that'd be a big challenge for evolutionary theory!!