PE does not require anything except an atheist turn of mind. It denies the need for evidence since there is no way to tell that anything transformed itself into something else. It just 'happens'. It is therefore not science, but absolute garbage.
The problem of a whole species, or a large portion of it evolving at once is a difficulty which evolutionists have not explained very well. The problem of random changes spreading through a population is quite difficult. Even Darwin thought that evolution could more easily take place in small populations. The problem is that any change has to be small so that the individuals can still mate with each other. The changes also have to occur evenly throughout the population. In other words, the whole species sort of has to evolve together. This is all much easier said than done, this is especially problematic when we come to sexual reproduction. In fact, this problem by itself, seems to me to completely destroy Gould's punk-eek.
PE does not require anything except an atheist turn of mind.
Ad hominem attack.
It denies the need for evidence since there is no way to tell that anything transformed itself into something else.
Nonsense. Horse manure, in fact. Genetic studies, for example, can easily trace ancestry trees, and are further confirmed by fossil evidence.
It just 'happens'.
Straw man misrepresentation -- there's far more to evolutionary biology than such empty statements.
It is therefore not science, but absolute garbage.
Unsupported conclusion from false premises.
The problem of a whole species, or a large portion of it evolving at once is a difficulty which evolutionists have not explained very well.
"Whole species" do not evolve -- straw man misrepresentation.
The problem of random changes spreading through a population is quite difficult.
False, there are many proven mechanisms for them to do so, as well as field studies which have seen it occur.
Even Darwin thought that evolution could more easily take place in small populations.
You're undercutting your case, that *supports* punctuated equilibrium.
The problem is that any change has to be small so that the individuals can still mate with each other.
Trivially disproved nonsense: Many large changes would not intefere with mating.
The changes also have to occur evenly throughout the population. In other words, the whole species sort of has to evolve together.
Astounding ignorance of actual evolutionary biology. No, it does not. Splinter groups can evolve away from the main population.
This is all much easier said than done, this is especially problematic when we come to sexual reproduction. In fact, this problem by itself, seems to me to completely destroy Gould's punk-eek.
The evolution of gender has already been explained to you, don't pretend it's an insoluble mystery.
Final score: Strike out.