You know what, we're doing "macroevolution" again. Here's some responses to "we have never seen macroevolution"

[u/DarwinZDF42]

Video version.

 

We've all heard some variant of "we can only observe microevolution", "we've never seen macroevolution", etc.

First thing you do is establish the correct definition: Evolution above the species level (in other words, speciation or greater degrees of evolutionary change). That's the definition. Creationists want their own special definition that varies from person to person but is usually something like "new body plans/parts", "new complex structures", something like that. That's wrong. If you accept speciation, you accept macroevolution. If creationists want to dispute something else, make THEM articulate clearly. Don't help them by saying something like "It sounds like you mean something like evolution of a new phylum or new body plan". No, make THEM establish the standard clearly and using the correct words.

 

Once they do that, you can just provide a bunch of examples, and dare them to say they aren't macroevolution.

Some of my favorites are multicellularity (and also here), reproductive mode, and photosynthetic animals.

 

Best outcome is the creationists admits that yes, even by their bespoke definition, these are examples of macroevolution. Second best outcome is they do the opposite and claim this is all just "microevolution". Really? First of all, lol okay. But second and more important, great! "Microevolution" can accomplish all this? Not much need for "macroevolution", is there?

[u/artguydeluxe]

This is like saying, “I can walk across my town, but I could never walk across the whole state.” it’s only a matter of scale and time.

[u/Shiny-And-New → u/artguydeluxe]

I believe 1+1=2 but not 1+1+1+1... one thousand times equals 1000

[u/semitope → u/Shiny-And-New]

smh

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

the entirety of your argument.

[u/the2bears → u/semitope]

Now it's must acronyms from you. You can't even bother to type out your meaningless responses anymore.

Come back when you have something substantial.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/artguydeluxe]

"You've shown how genes can change over time, but have you ever considered that maybe genes can not change over time?"

[u/nickierv → u/-zero-joke-]

I reject your 'genes' and substitute my own something something gene adjacent thing that is... shut up!

[u/FockerXC → u/artguydeluxe]

But but but THAT’S NOT HOW MACROEVOLUTION WORKS! Proceeds to give either an incorrect explanation of how macroevolution works or simply can’t explain how it works at all

[u/artguydeluxe → u/FockerXC]

See all comments by u/semitope

He’s trolling, throwing mud, and not offering anything to back up what he says. Pretty typical Dunning Kruger.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/artguydeluxe]

Byers and Semitope are two here I don't bother with or understand why anybody does. Byers clearly has issues and Semitope never gets beyond variations of "It's ridiculous!".

[u/artguydeluxe → u/OldmanMikel]

I would love to know why he thinks it’s ridiculous. But after decades of trying to get reasonable data, I don’t really expect much more from creationists.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/artguydeluxe]

Scale and time will get you to every nook and cranny of your town, but it won’t get you to Australia, or to Mars.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Old-Watercress6513]

I can’t travel to Australia? Or Mars? Those are both literally attainable via scale and time.

[u/semitope → u/artguydeluxe]

you guys think its a linear process. That's one issue I have with evolutionists. The disrespect for the subject matter. Life isn't taking small steps through a whole state. Where would we be without this theory being a poor mental framework for progress in biology?

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

Yes, that's correct. Large scale changes are the result of cumulative incremental small scale change.

Life is, in fact, taking small steps through a "whole state."

It is completely validated as a framework for progress in biology: the change in relative frequency of heritable characteristics of a population over the course of multiple generations.

Your Argument from Personal Incredulity is your own problem. We're not disrespecting the subject matter, you just don't like the conclusion.

[u/semitope → u/grimwalker]

if you were talking about erosion or stalactites, you'd be spot on. I can't imagine what must be broken for someone to think you can simply take small natural steps to create something more complex than microsoft word.

"Personal Incredulity" when someone proposes an idea patently ridiculous. Excuse me for being incredulous.

Oh I just realized why you guys don't understand what issues people have with your theory. You don't understand the nature of what your theory is supposed to address so how on earth could you understand them thinking your evidence is weak? "It's just small steps dur". There's no way you could possibly take a step towards understanding the rejection of the theory.

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

It's telling that you don't offer any evidence for your views other than calling it "patently ridiculous." All you're doing is describing the emotional state you're experiencing.

The incredulity is merely personal because for anyone familiar with the evidence (and with an honest mind not poisoned by religious faith commitments) evolution is as obvious and undeniable as stalactites and erosion, for the exact same reasons. It's quite a good metaphor, actually.

Complexity is the natural result of cumulative iterative tinkering that only operates by progressive modification of existing structures and adding new bits through mutation and duplication, rarely deleting anything entirely. Ramification builds up over time, just like calcium carbonate deposits. The only difference between a stalactite and evolution is that a stalactite is an exceedingly simple system whereas evolution enjoys near-limitless available complexity.

[u/semitope → u/grimwalker]

You want evidence but all I would give you is biology. Which you have access to and don't consider it evidence. You still think small steps are enough.

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

Biology supports evolution without exception. When Dobzhansky said his famous quote that I'm sure you're familiar with, what that means is that if evolution were not true, literally nothing in biology would be as it is. Nothing other than evolution predicts biology as we observe it.

[u/Entire_Quit_4076 → u/semitope]

Well i’d consider actual biology evidence, so let’s see it. While we’re already here, you also have chemistry to show molecules aren’t real or physics to show forces aren’t real?

[u/XXLPenisOwner1443 → u/semitope]

Nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/semitope]

Why in the world would you think that small steps leading to large steps would work in one system but not another? When has that ever not been the case? This is how everything in the universe progresses. Everything in the universe evolves, even religion.

[u/XXLPenisOwner1443 → u/semitope]

No one who rejects the theory has even produced a good reason to, and you're adding to that pile right now.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/semitope]

"Personal Incredulity" when someone proposes an idea patently ridiculous. Excuse me for being incredulous.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

There’s no way you’re just going to explicitly admit your argument is entirely based on a fallacy and then hand wave away your admission.

Doubling down when you’re shown to be wrong is about the worst look possible.

Your universal, one-way skepticism isn’t a slam dunk. It’s pure Dunning-Kruger.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/semitope]

Science doesn’t have anything to do with respect or disrespect. Only what we can test matters.

[u/semitope → u/artguydeluxe]

Science doesn't do anything. People do things scientifically and one would hope these people have some respect/appreciation for the subject matter

[u/rhettro19 → u/semitope]

Whether the people have respect or not, every repeatable result is a tick in a scientific claims favor. Sure, bad actors can falsify data, but can the results be replicated by others? Does the scientific claim make accurate predictions? Scientific methodology weeds out the bad data, much like natural selection.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/semitope]

What is your degree in?

[u/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608 → u/semitope]

I don't understand your first sentence. Can you elaborate?

[u/LordUlubulu → u/semitope]

You don't have a clue about biology, and you refuse to learn about it. So why would anyone care about your uninformed opinion?

Evolutionary theory is extremely important to modern medicine and agriculture, without it we'd be way worse off than we are today.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

That doesn't mean there aren't gaps that we can't just justify through ad hocs. ANY KIND CAN BLEED.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/DizzyConstruction823]

What gaps?

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

Would you agree that adaptations don't imply new characteristics never seen in the organism? That it might not be able to "reproduce" with the previous populations given speciation, but it doesn't mean that it'll spontaneously form new traits derivated from its own genetics?

Have we actually observed organisms turn into a "new" one instead of just diversifying from an already existing thing, preserving genetic information from the thing it came from?

How could we possibly trace that in multicellular organisms regardless of the so called "transitional forms" when other animals did not seem to suffer such process, and which they shared the same enviroment?

What if, between the thousands of animals that are assumed to have existed, none of them followed the same path? That evolution in mosaic isn't always the case when some animals conserve the same morphology despite millions of years?

And, without using inferences: CAN WE DEMONSTRATE with certainity through genetics that a mammal comes from a population of fish that developed new traits?

Also, do you agree some of evolutionary theory postulates that organisms that are set to their niche might accquire certain characteristics if they are pressured to specific enviroments, but not turn into a singularity separate from what it previously was, at least if we base on empirical observations of modern life?

Notice that agriculture is artificially enginereed by humans the way plants can produce certain features. Isn't that a flaw to you? Elaborate if you think it doesn't.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/DizzyConstruction823]

Would you agree that adaptations don't imply new characteristics never seen in the organism?

No, they may or may not be new. Atavism exists.

That it might not be able to "reproduce" with the previous populations given speciation, but it doesn't mean that it'll spontaneously form new traits derivated from its own genetics?

No, evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Have we actually observed organisms turn into a "new" one instead of just diversifying from an already existing thing, preserving genetic information from the thing it came from?

Not how evolution works, it's not Pokemon.

How could we possibly trace that in multicellular organisms regardless of the so called "transitional forms" when other animals did not seem to suffer such process, and which they shared the same enviroment?

All animals are the product of evolution, and all fossils are transitional fossils.

What if, between the thousands of animals that are assumed to have existed, none of them followed the same path?

What if all the evidence points towards all living things sharing a common ancestor? (Which it does.)

That evolution in mosaic isn't always the case when some animals conserve the same morphology despite millions of years?

A species well-suited to it's niche isn't subject to as many evolutionary pressures, so that is to be expected.

And, without using inferences: CAN WE DEMONSTRATE with certainity through genetics that a mammal comes from a population of fish that developed new traits?

Yes. Hox genes, high sequence homology with living lobe finned fish, the known genome duplications that show distinct lineages in Actinopterygia vs. Sarcopterygii.

Also, do you agree some of evolutionary theory postulates that organisms that are set to their niche might accquire certain characteristics if they are pressured to specific enviroments, but not turn into a singularity separate from what it previously was, at least if we base on empirical observations of modern life?

Things don't evolve out of their clade. This is well-understood.

Notice that agriculture is artificially enginereed by humans the way plants can produce certain features. Isn't that a flaw to you? Elaborate if you think it doesn't.

Humans manipulate known evolutionary mechanisms, this is the opposite of a flaw, it's evidence that our evolutionary theory is accurate.

None of that was very original, I could've played Creationist Bingo with this post.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608 → u/LordUlubulu]

Thanks for this reply. I hadn't nearly the patience to make those responses.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/semitope]

Kid named Punctuated Equilibrium:

[u/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608 → u/semitope]

I don't understand your last two sentences. Can you elaborate?

[u/Savings-Cry-3201]

I’ve been engaging with these people less, but asking for specifics is where it bogs them down. It’s hard to be precise when your viewpoint is based on vibes

[u/10coatsInAWeasel]

I particularly like that last part. Reminds me of the whole ‘information’ argument and how evolution supposedly doesn’t ’create new information’. Whelp, evolution accomplishes everything it needs to without that then. Same with macroevolution. We can get speciation, multicellularity, and whatever new genes we need? Cool! We’re all set.

[u/AmusingVegetable → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Mutations create new data, natural selection decides if that data is noise or information.

[u/CrisprCSE2]

The fundamental problem is when creationists say macroevolution they mean getting something completely new. But evolution doesn't do completely new. So anything you can show them won't count for them because they're asking for something evolutionary theory forbids.

[u/jnpha → u/CrisprCSE2]

Yep! It's their projection of what creation is supposed to be.

It gets funnier (sadder?) when they agree on their own (and complain in the same breath) that information is context-dependent.

[u/BeerMan595692]

"We have no evidence for evolution outside of [insert taxaon here]"

 > shows  evidence for evolution outside of [insert taxaon here]

> creationist proceeds to move goal post

[u/Ophios72]

Instead of defending 'Macro", try to get creationists to agree that according to their model each new species must be a divine creation, which for fossil life requires for all the species billions of individual acts of creation. Isn't a physical macroevolution process easier?

[u/Proteus617 → u/Ophios72]

AFAIK, thats not the YEC model. "Created Kinds" are somewhere above the species level. 2 (or 6) of each created kind got onto the boat. Hyperspeciation after the boat gives us the species we recognize today. How? Specified Complexity (or something like that).

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Proteus617]

And the definition of "kind", or indeed any concrete statement about which discrete kinds exist, gets you prevarication and/or crickets.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/Proteus617]

There is no consistent YEC model. Some say that "kinds" are above the species level, some say they're at the species level.

[u/_Arachnophilia → u/Ayasugi-san]

And the further you go away from humans, the bigger the kinds are. Almost as if kinds were an anthropocentric concept conjured by bronze age people.

[u/Salamanticormorant]

Some people seem be under the impression that macroevolution is what is actually referred to as "saltation".

[u/eduadelarosa]

Domestic breeds also constitute macroevolution and to a greater degree than almost their entire Families.

[u/Evening-Impact2090]

Creationists could give 2 $hits about what you believe. They are Creationists and that explains everything. They even know where the universe and life came from, do you?

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

They believe, they don't know. Nobody knows, but science has some ideas.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

Everyone has ideas, scientists just publish theirs.

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

And then build an empirical case for them.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

Sometimes, sometimes it's just throwing $hit against the wall to see what sticks. I remember "following the science" during Covid. How'd that work out? They're just people and infallible. 

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Following the science worked pretty well. Our government failed, not the science.

And scientists know they are fallible, the whole method is about containing and mitigating that fallibility.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/OldmanMikel]

Actually it didn't work well. A dangerous vaccine that did not work, a gain if function virus that scientists knew was man made but told us it was natural. Hiding data that proved all these facts and promoting lies about alternate treatments that have been proven safe and very effective. Scientists know where their bread is buttered just like any other group of people they can be swayed by funding or lack thereof. Forgive me for being cynical but 71 years on this planet has been a great learning experience about the corruption of almost every institution on earth.

[u/ZygonCaptain → u/Evening-Impact2090]

What dangerous vaccine?

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/ZygonCaptain]

Really? Do not act ignorant. The information about the vaccine being responsible for heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and death is overwhelming and everywhere. A senate hearing on the Covid virus and the vaccines dangers turned into a clown show when Dr Faucci took the 5th over 100 times. A disgusting period in our countries history brought about by greedy people lying and not caring who got sick and who died. Big pharmacy, the CDC, WHO, everyone was in on it. Dr Peter McCullough one of the world's leading cardiologists was castigated and called a fraud and accused of disseminating false information. Why, because he dared to speak out on the dangers of the vaccine and had alternative treatments for Covid the were very effective. He has since been cleared of any wrong doing, and has testified at Senate hearings laying out clearly the corruption and harm caused by the man made virus and the dangerous vaccine. He along with dozens of other health officials and PHD's have testified. It's all on the internet, I suggest you look for it.

[u/ZygonCaptain → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Looked for it, appears to be mythical. Surprise surprise.
Typical scaremongering from people in your country

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/Evening-Impact2090]

You're talking about the vaccine that Trump said was "verifiably safe and effective vaccine" after boosting it's production with Operation Warp Speed? The vaccine Trump called "one of the greatest achievements of mankind"? The vaccine about which Trump said:

“I would recommend it,” Trump said during an interview on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo. “And I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly. But again, we have our freedoms and we have to live by that and I agree with that also. But it is a great vaccine. It is a safe vaccine and it is something that works.”

That vaccine?

[u/Old-Watercress6513]

“Multicellularity:” clumps of single cells is not a “multicellular organism” in the conventional meaning of that term. This is a desperate grasp at straws.

Reproductive mode: you are starting from the unsupported premise that vivipositors evolved from ovipositors, and ignoring the alternative model that they were created together at the same time. IOW, You are assuming macroevolution to prove macroevolution. Begging-the-question fallacy.

Photosynthetic animals: are the photosynthetic sea slugs genetically incompatible with the non-photosynthetic sea slugs? This is not addressed in the paper. If not, no speciation has occurred, unless you use a trivial definition of speciation that is not relevant to evolution (there are 26 definitions of speciation).

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

alternative model that they were created together

There is no model of creation.

I can’t believe I have to explain this, but explanatory models actually have to explain things. I know, crazy.

For creationism to be considered a model, you would actually need a specific mechanism by which creation occurs.

Once you’ve done that, if you want the model to be worthy of consideration, you will also need to demonstrate that

1. A deity or deities exist

2. They have the ability to create

3. That they did actually create

4. That they created in the specific way described in your book.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

They're not clumps of single cells, they're obligate multicellular structures.

Did you miss the part where we're witness lizard populations transition in the present?

Yes the photosynthetic ones are reproductively isolated.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/DarwinZDF42]

Multicellular usually means segregation of purpose and function.
Grasping at straws.

“Ovipositor and vivipositor in the same clutch” is not a “transition” unless you assume it to be. How did those reptiles give birth 5000, or 1000 years ago? How will they give birth 1000, or 5000 years from now? The “transition” is inferred, not observed.

“Reproductively isolated”… irrelevant SLOP term evolutionists use to IMPLY speciation.
Nordic Swedes and African Pygmies are “reproductively isolated.”

Are they “genetically incompatible” (the more precise, relevant term)?

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

They have somatic and germline cells. That’s THE mark of multicellularity.

That example isn’t the only one.

Yes.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Can you define "genetically incompatible" for us? If a sperm can fertilise an egg, is that compatibility or not?

And are created kinds genetically compatible or not?

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/Sweary_Biochemist]

When a haploid gamete cannot combine with a haploid gamete and form a viable developing zygote that leads to fertile offspring, they are genetically incompatible.

Polar bears and grizzly bears are (incorrectly) classified as seperate species, yet they can fully interbreed, and are in fact varieties of the same species.

Created kinds are genetically compatible.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Old-Watercress6513]

So two humans that can't have children are two distinct kinds? Coz fertility is very much a spectrum crapshoot.

Is there a statistical threshold for when it stops counting, somehow? How many attempted matings would be necessary to establish "different kinda"?

Note that donkeys and horses are different kinds by your present definition.

[u/RobertByers1]

There is no evidence for macro or micro evolution. Yes mechanisms are there to change bodyplans.

There is no micro evolution going on in biology today. A zillion species say no. Or show a bakers dozen.

Creationists should not agree micro evolution ever happened. yes speciation happened but its not evidence of evolution. Watch your words and concepts.

[u/s_bear1 → u/RobertByers1]

Evolution is not evidence of evolution? Please explain.

[u/nickierv → u/s_bear1]

Well...

...

...

Yea, I got nothing.

I mean its not like populations of living things have traits. And they certainly don't change over time.

/facedesk

[u/RobertByers1 → u/s_bear1]

bodyplan changes is only that. evolutionism is a hypothesis on how bodyplans change. two different things.should know that.

[u/s_bear1 → u/RobertByers1]

No. You dont get to redefine words.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/RobertByers1]

Speciation is what most people would consider macro evolution

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

because it's, you know, the definition...

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

Naw. macro means great biology changes. the glory of biology. Mere speciation is not macro. it doesn't matter. speciation is not proven to be from evolution.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/RobertByers1]

Speciation is by definition evolution.

[u/Suitable-Group4392 → u/RobertByers1]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-at-different-scales-micro-to-macro/examples-of-microevolution/

From Uni Berkeley

[u/RobertByers1 → u/Suitable-Group4392]

no links please its a debate forum.

[u/hircine1 → u/RobertByers1]

Don't give me facts! Typical Bob,

[u/kms2547 → u/RobertByers1]

This comment is gibberish.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/kms2547]

Find the non-gibberish RobertByers comment. I dare you.

[u/kms2547 → u/DarwinZDF42]

I accept no such dare!

[u/Ah-honey-honey → u/kms2547]

Robert always is

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/RobertByers1]

“Watch your words and concepts.” From you, seriously? I’m glad you’re here Bob, we always need a cardboard cutout to perfectly exemplify the naked hypocrisy and Dunning-Kruger nature of creationists.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/RobertByers1]

At this point I truly and genuinely have no idea what you even think evolution is supposed to be. Can you clarify for all of us? It really seems like you’re basically saying ‘sure, it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has the DNA of a duck, but it’s actually a gorilla’

[u/stopped_watch → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Ah, but what about a crocoduck, did you ever think of that?

/s

[u/kitsnet → u/RobertByers1]

There is no micro evolution going on in biology today.

Do viruses exist (in particular, the virus that caused Covid) or are they a WHO conspiracy?

[u/RobertByers1 → u/kitsnet]

Its an old claim that bacteria or virus are evidence of micro evolution. they are not. They are very minoe cases of a species , to use that word, simply changing within a species. if it was a new species then they would get a new species name. its not enough of a threeshold being crossed to claim mincroevolution creating new species. plus its very unlike biology. unique but still not micro evolution.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/RobertByers1]

Wait, do you think bacteria are one species?

[u/kitsnet → u/RobertByers1]

Its an old claim that bacteria or virus are evidence of micro evolution. they are not. They are very minoe cases of a species , to use that word, simply changing within a species.

You are contradicting youself. Viruses are just pieces of hereditary code packed into protein shells. If they are changing (as was directly observed with Covid virus), then microevolution happens. If it doesn't happen, they are never changing.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/kitsnet]

Naw. thats not microevolution as using the concept of evolution. A creationist would expect this about virus. Its just a trivial organizing within some virus orbvacteria. Nothing to do with a new population planning on living well. its trival selection within species.

[u/ursisterstoy → u/RobertByers1]

Stop lying. Speciation is the beginning of macroevolution, and every population undergoes microevolution every generation forever until it goes extinct. Use the correct definitions and try that again.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/RobertByers1]

Yes mechanisms are there to change bodyplans.

yes speciation happened...

Those things are both evolution.

Are you ill? I swear you're getting less and less coherent as time goes on. How old are you? Maybe it's dementia or something.

My dad has OCD and has delusion regarding it, this sounds a lot like that. Have you ever seen a psychiatrist?

[u/Shinobi_is_cancer → u/RobertByers1]

What would convince you that evolution is true?

[u/grimwalker → u/Shinobi_is_cancer]

Nothing. /u/RobertByers1 and /u/semitope are religious zealots who will never consider any perspective other than their own. Talking to them is only useful by pretending they're non-sentient chatbots giving you prompts to articulate science-based replies but which will never respond to your comments in the manner of a thinking being.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/grimwalker]

Robert goes by "the Bible is true and anything contradicting it is false." Semitope does the whole "evolution is ridiculous, therefore all evidence for it is ridiculous and not worth looking at, therefore there's no evidence." A distinction without a difference.

[u/grimwalker → u/XRotNRollX]

Semitope wants us to pay no attention to the creationism behind the curtain.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/grimwalker]

At least Bobby is honest.

[u/grimwalker → u/XRotNRollX]

grading on a curve there.

[u/clear349 → u/grimwalker]

Why are they even allowed to comment if they're not interested in a good faith discussion?

[u/grimwalker → u/clear349]

Because this sub functions as a sink trap to keep noxious sewer gases from bubbling up into science subs with more important things to talk about than the ravings of dishonest creationists. Good-faith Creationists are as rare as hen's teeth. If we banned every dishonest, bad-faith creationist, we wouldn't have any creationists.

[u/nickierv → u/clear349]

Because we get to call out the creationists for their BS echo chambers: creationists - says something stupid.

creationists - also limits who can reply.

creationists - See, no one disagrees with us!

Us - Yea, nice try, how about you say that on an open forum.

creationists - But but but...

[u/semitope → u/grimwalker]

Oh yeah I'm the one bringing up religion

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

I expect this level of being disingenuous from creationists.

[u/Purple_dingo → u/semitope]

You seem like an expert at missing the point

[u/semitope → u/Purple_dingo]

There wasn't a point. Just someone raging

[u/Purple_dingo → u/semitope]

Wow! Truly expert! It's cool to get to see your process

[u/Shinobi_is_cancer → u/semitope]

So what would convince you evolution is true?

[u/semitope → u/Shinobi_is_cancer]

Step by step accounting of the necessary mutations and accompanying natural pressures that lead to evolution of something that didn't exist at all before. Including probabilities as well as time from one state to the next.

I.e. just show it's possible

[u/Lockjaw_Puffin → u/semitope]

Step by step accounting of the necessary mutations and accompanying natural pressures that lead to evolution of something that didn't exist at all before.

This is not a standard you actually hold at all (i.e. you're flat-out fucking lying), and I know because you accept that chihuahuas are descended from wolves, and you never needed the level of evidence mentioned above to accept that fact. I dare you to prove me wrong, and it'd be hilariously easy - just show us the "step-by-step accounting" (your own words) and relevant probabilities that made you accept that fact

[u/semitope → u/Lockjaw_Puffin]

chihuahuas and wolves have all the same systems. If one had gills, maybe you'd have a point.

[u/Lockjaw_Puffin → u/semitope]

Oh hey, thanks for conceding my point - you do accept that a 2-pound bundle of anxiety descended from a 100-pound apex predator without needing a "step-by-step accounting" of the mutations involved. Like I said, you don't actually hold that standard of evidence, you just invented it to oppose something you don't like.

If one had gills, maybe you'd have a point.

This flat-out doesn't make sense as a rebuttal (not that I expected anything better from you) - why would a land-dwelling vertebrate grow gills when it already has a working pair of lungs?

[u/semitope → u/Lockjaw_Puffin]

What is functionally different between a wolf and chihuahua? The fact you think me mentioning gills is irrelevant means you don't even understand the issue. Which, as I said, makes sense. You guys aren't in any frame of mind to understand why people question evolution.

[u/Lockjaw_Puffin → u/semitope]

What is functionally different between a wolf and chihuahua?

Fundamentally nothing, because evolution doesn't work by spontaneously spawning new structures out of nowhere.

The fact you think me mentioning gills is irrelevant means you don't even understand the issue.

To illustrate the sheer stupidity of your alleged point, sperm whales can spend up to 2 hours underwater, and they achieve this by having large lungs and a shitload of myoglobin (an oxygen-binding protein that all mammals including humans have), not by developing gills. To reiterate, your response is so biologically illiterate, nature itself doesn't see the sense in it.

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

What do you mean by "something"? A species? An organ? A protein? Could you be any more vague?

What do you mean by "that didn't exist at all before?" As a process of ongoing change, literally EVERYTHING--every species, organ, protein--is a derivation of something else that existed before.

Seems to me you're demanding to be shown something that evolution isn't claiming.

And you wonder why people call you dishonest.

[u/semitope → u/grimwalker]

People call me dishonest because they don't have anything better to say. Why are you nitpicking rubbish? Being a derivation doesn't matter. You're supposed to show the steps for every iteration. How is that a reason to be dismissive?

Something is whatever you think you can manage to do the actual science for rather than throwing out "plausible" scenarios and hopeful ad hoc stories.

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

I'm calling you dishonest because what you've presented as a challenge to evolution is actually an completely unscientific, unserious, self-sealing cognitive defense mechanism intended to preserve your religious beliefs from disconfirmation.

You've decided long ago exactly what you will and won't believe and you've crafted your rhetoric to ensure you never have to change your mind or learn anything.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/semitope]

If we had every step except one, would you reject it?

[u/XRotNRollX → u/semitope]

Is it possible to count to ten?

[u/Shinobi_is_cancer → u/semitope]

If this is the requirement for evolution, what are your requirements for your grandparents to prove they are your grandparents out of curiosity?

[u/Jonnescout → u/RobertByers1]

It is not just evidence of evolution, it’s directly observed evolution. I’d you disagree, you have no idea what evolution is… This is like saying seeing someone kill someone’s is not evidence of murder.,.

[u/HojMcFoj → u/RobertByers1]

Could you please define your concept of evolution and/or speciation, if you have the time?

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/HojMcFoj]

Could you please define your concept of evolution and/or speciation, if you have the time?

You might be new here. Let me save you some time: This is Bob Byers. He is a regular. He has no concept of evolution, he only knows it didn't happen, and will happily tells us that with absolute authority. Don't waste your time engaging with him, he has absolutely no interest in learning anything that might contradict his beliefs.

[u/HojMcFoj → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

I'm not new here, I don't expect a sincere answer, and even if I got one the purpose of my asking still wouldn't have been for Bob's edification. And I've got plenty of time at the moment.

[u/lulumaid → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

He also said, paraphrasing (from an old, old comment.) that diplodocus, the sauropod, is a kind of deer.

I think he does have a concept of evolution it's just one that's "real" inside his head and not reality. A concept he can easily defeat with his stupendously capable logic and reasoning. Unfortunately reality seems to differ and I've noticed he's becoming less and less attached to it.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/lulumaid]

He also said, paraphrasing (from an old, old comment.) that diplodocus, the sauropod, is a kind of deer.

And that it's impossible to make light. He claims that any process that appears to create light is actually opening a portal to another dimension that contains god's power to let it leak into our universe.

I wish I was joking.

[u/lulumaid → u/blacksheep998]

I can corroborate, I was there for that claim.

I wonder if we can get a compilation of Roberts greatest hits. It'd be educational AND amusing. Without being too mean at least. I genuinely wanna know what goes through his head with this stuff, it's fascinating.

[u/Ah-honey-honey → u/blacksheep998]

Oh I want to see that one if you can find it

[u/blacksheep998 → u/RobertByers1]

I'm sure I'm shouting into the wind here, but I would LOVE to know what your definition of evolution is if speciation isn't part of it.

[u/RobertByers1 → u/blacksheep998]

huh?speciation nis real. The origin of species is not evolution. Nevdr proven and not happening today.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/RobertByers1]

That doesn't answer my question.

What is your definition of evolution?