Stupid Creationism

Vox Day wields the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" against the Darwinist enemy:

From my admittedly layman's perspective, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution looks remarkably like a historical model, except that it doesn't explain historical events half as well as my stock system did. It's not a reliably predictive model like the Law of Supply and Demand and it doesn't provide what I consider to be convincing answers to simple questions like why one population evolves and another does not when they share the same environment; declaring one to have reached equilibrium while the other is unstable is simply not convincing over the lengths of time that are supposed to be involved.

One would think that merely invoking the phenomenon of extinction would be sufficient to disprove Vox Day's point. In any given environment, some species will adapt to it and some species will die out within it. It is an obvious empricial fact that the abilities of species to adapt to a given environment are different.

There is another perfectly simple reason why one population in an area might evolve rapidly while another population in the same area does not evolving as rapidly. Evolution is ultimately changes in the DNA of members of a species over time. It would be extremely unlikely for the DNA of all organisms to have exactly the same potential for beneficial changes to occur at exactly the same rate when placed in a certain environment. What I would expect is that some species, because of the exact nature of their DNA and the way it is expressed, are going to be more resistant to changes than other species. In the absence of, say, a complete genetic profile of every species ever to have existed on Earth over the last 4 billion years, biologists might therefore have to come up with empirical relations to investigate mutation rates.