PZ Explains Evolution

PZ Meyers, over at his blog, explains evolution to Ray Comfort:

"Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female — they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female."

This is a favorite Materialist obfuscation that is never mentioned in any of the literature that I have found. If you have references, let me know.

The obvious consequence of such a theory is that, if it doesn't require mutations (changes) within the existing group genome, then the genes for all possible creature combinations and permutations must have been available right there in the very first DNA. This has implications that evolution-agendists will dispute; they might as well just deny it outright and invoke some other form of magic.

When you hear that "populations evolve, not individuals", ask for details and mechanisms and see what you get. I can tell you, having been there: you will get mumbo-jumbo that amounts to claiming that mutations are not mutations. You will get additional obfuscations, for example gene doubling or viral introgression, which are, in fact, mutations.

The reason for this can't be missed. If mutations are required to exist as positive changes in the adaptation to changing environmental niches, there are mathematical proofs that the probabilities are so low that to believe they occurred is merely absurd. Even the materialist rationalizations can't get around that.

So they take the next step in defending the irrational: they deny that changes to the genome (mutations) are required.

This, coupled with ancillary obfuscation, serves well, until the issue of how the original DNA came to have so much information in it. The dodge then becomes "it is not information, it is just is (or was)". So they don't have to explain it or find a reason that it would be predicted to occur from raw chemical soups. They have dodged the issue altogether, and may therefore continue in their belief system contentedly.

As I have said before, evolutionary science is the weakest of all the sciences. It has no empirical wins, no predictive power that is useful to modern biology, and all modern biology is retrofit into it after the fact, using stories of how it "might" have happened. Stories of ridiculously non-probable occurrence.

So now I repeat my frequent request: If you know of an empirical study that successfully demonstrates actual evolution (not just big dog-little dog stuff) please let me know. Not story telling, real empirical, replicated experimental data.

Thanks.