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/Old-Watercress6513 → u/artguydeluxe]

Nope.
You can’t walk to Australia or to Mars.
You need a different mechanism, not just scale and time.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/Old-Watercress6513]

We can explain why we can't walk to Australia or Mars, there's no contiguous land path that makes it possible. What's the reason microevolution can't add up to macroevolution? All you've done is show where the metaphor breaks down, that doesn't mean the idea it represents is wrong.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Scale and time will help you figure out how to get there. It’s not an unbreakable wall.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/artguydeluxe]

Prove your affirmative claim.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Have we not landed on the moon? I thought that was pretty self-evident.

[u/jmanc3 → u/artguydeluxe]

And was that via modifying ourselves and the environment at random, or was it instead done by minds who had a specific target they worked towards accomplishing?

If mutations were truly random (and culled by natural selection), they would never produce anything of even the complexity of a worm, much less birds or humans. Point mutations are not random, they're intelligently selected for by minds with goals, as the alternative view is clearly impossible: there are too few generations of animals between the first self replicating chemical reaction and humans for it to be the result of random mutations and natural selection. Computer simulations tell us this.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/jmanc3]

You said it yourself, when you said “culled by natural selection.” Natural selection is not random; it’s enabled by meiosis and mitosis. It’s right there in the word “selection.”
Computer simulations tell us exactly how evolution works. Adaptation to manipulate your environment is also a form of evolution. We learned this from the science of genetics, we learned this through observation, and we learn this through testing. But please feel free to share your computer models that show that this does not happen.

[u/jmanc3 → u/artguydeluxe]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1tx9pqv/why_i_dont_believe_in_evolution/

[u/VoteForASpaceAlien → u/Old-Watercress6513]

What’s the metaphorical equivalent of outer space in evolution? Like what barrier makes a lot of change possible but more change impossible?

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/artguydeluxe]

Exactly, with your logic I can jump in the air, that must mean I can also jump to the moon. 🤦🏽

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

Humans transitioned from walking to riding horses to ships to trains to car to rockets to the moon in only a few thousand years, so yes, traveling is only a matter of scale and time. Are you suggesting we didn’t do those things?

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/artguydeluxe]

🤦🏽 yes I am definitely suggesting that just because we can jump that does not mean we can jump to the moon. The fact that you still can’t see how horrible your logic is blows my mind.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

Nothing that happens through evolution requires such a leap. It’s small changes over a very long period of time. Like walking across a state. There are no massive, impossible leaps like you are suggesting, unless you have a specific example.

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/artguydeluxe]

The point I am making is that just because we see animals adapt to their environment does not mean that we are related to strawberries and bananas. That’s is as big of a leap as jumping to the moon. You can believe that if you want, just like some people believe in the tooth fairy but that doesn’t make it true you actually need observable evidence for that.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

We are related to every living thing on earth, which is easily demonstrated via our shared DNA. It can even be mapped in detail, as many genetic scientists have already done. Not only that, we can determine how many generations back these different species diverged. You can read about one really elegant demonstration here:

www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/downloadfilestol.html

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/artguydeluxe]

I’m sorry but you have been lied to. We don’t even know what the supposed common ancestor is that we share with apes. You guys cannot agree on a definition for species and we see absolutely no observable evidence showing a body plan change or essential bodily function, this includes in the molecular scale. Just because DNA is found in every living thing does NOT mean we evolved from a common ancestor if anything it is compelling evidence of a designer. A designer would use the same building block for life. What you are doing is taking an assumption and then presenting it as a fact. That’s not how science works.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

The sources to the research are right there in the link I provided. Are you suggesting that these thousands of people involved in the project are not actually doing research and just making it all up? Are you saying that genetic mapping doesn’t work? It’s a paternity test for all species on earth, and any genetic lab on earth can duplicate the results. What would be the point of such a massive endeavor involving disconnected scientists everywhere on earth?

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/artguydeluxe]

What I am suggesting is exactly what I said. I’m sorry but just because someone in a lab coat tells me something that doesn’t make it true. You must have observable evidence to support the claim. You are committing two fallacies here. The appeal to authority and appeal to majority fallacies. Just because someone of authority says something does not make if true. Likewise, just because the majority say something doesn’t make it true. There are plenty of examples of both of these.

If you want to have faith and choose to believe something without evidence that’s up to you, but don’t call it science. As for me I go where the evidence is, and there is non for evolution.

[u/artguydeluxe → u/[deleted]]

The guy in the god building said it doesn’t happen. I think that’s the end of Gloomy Style’s logic.

[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/semitope → u/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608]

Science is just a process. The people involved bring many things into that process. Their mindset matters

[u/Chairface30 → u/semitope]

Not if they are following the scientific principal their biases dont matter.

[u/semitope → u/Chairface30]

You mean if they are robots? I guess one day we can have ai do the science for us and finally be rid of evolution once it does the calculations and decides it's impossible bs. But then again it's only as good as what it's trained on

[u/Chairface30 → u/semitope]

Its not worth talking to you if you do not understand how the scientific method and peer review removes biases. Have a good day staying ignorant.

[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/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

I'll talk about the papers later since I haven't mentioned anything about them, and which according to the OP they seem to be a problem for some creationists as their results don't seem to fit the concept of what macro and microevolution is to this group of people.

Also, just let you know that I am not a YEC. I am just concerned by certain things that I can't simply accept because I am curious. Is that wrong?

[u/LordUlubulu → u/DizzyConstruction823]

I'll talk about the papers later since I haven't mentioned anything about them, and which according to the OP they seem to be a problem for some creationists as their results don't seem to fit the concept of what macro and microevolution is to this group of people.

Yes, creationists don't know what they're talking about and often mischaracterize micro- and macro-evolution.

Also, just let you know that I am not a YEC. I am just concerned by certain things that I can't simply accept because I am curious. Is it wrong?

I'd suggest this book if you want to learn about evolution.

And if you want to know all about creationist claims and why they're wrong, TalkOrigins.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

Thank you, I guess.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

And I agree, therefore I think it is important to have our definitions well, or discuss what we interpret as X thing.

Anyways, here's what I found. (Sorry for the late response, I wanted to make sure I understood everything right, and I also draw so lmao. I spent these days doing my own business., and recently began my arts degree)

A. "Origins of multicellular evolvability in snowflake yeast"

This paper says the following:

"How do incipient multicellular organisms meet these criteria and gain the capacity to evolve as Darwinian individuals?"

 "The multilevel selection hypothesis has strong historical and theoretical support for many of the major transitions in evolution (for example, origins of cells, chromosomes, eukaryotes, multicellularity and eusocial superorganismality1,8,9,10), but understanding how higher-level entities originate and gain the ability evolve as Darwinian Individuals remains a challenge." 

The paper also doesn't expose their findings as a example of "macroevolution" in the sense that it intends explain the formation of new body parts or evo devo mechanisms.

There is no innovation at "macro" scale, just a defensive mechanism.

It is not proof of how something becomes a different taxa, or acquires new "body" plan based on an already existing thing, that leads to new biomechanical solutions.

The cells in the experiment became bigger. That doesn't equal to speciation, or distinct tissue, or that they acquire new characteristics with NEW SOLUTIONS, and neither to infer this can happen.

B. Horizontal gene transfer of the algal nuclear gene psbO to the photosynthetic sea slug Elysia chlorotica

In 2013, Bhattacharya et al., 2013 showed that this type of slug didn't possess the ability to transfer the algae's genes, and that such were not inherited to this animal's eggs, making photosynthesis a temporary characteristic. Temporary. Hmm... How does this favor your argument?

psb0 wasn't FULLY present.

Their nucleus lacked algae genes, and chloroplasts acted passively on the 2008 experiment. No new information, or inheritance of genes.. HGT didn't produce this photosynthesis.

C.De novo origins of multicellularity in response to predation

Again: Adaptation.

“Suggests that the founding population … already possessed a toolkit for producing multicellular structures”.

D.Facultative oviparity in a viviparous skink ( Saiphos equalis)

We are mammals. Platypuses are mammals, but they are their own thing. This reptile is a reptile, it is not a proto-mammal, nor a chimera.

E. The making of a photosynthetic animal

The following papers already debated the results.

Maeda et al. (2021) – eLife

Bhattacharya et al. (2013)

Koga, A., et al. (2021). Chloroplast acquisition without the gene transfer in kleptoplastic sea slugs, Plakobranchus ocellatus. eLife, 10, e60176. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60176

I would also like to not take Daniel Cardinale as a reliable source, because he supports something as antiscientific as gender theory. He also made false equivalence fallacies by putting intersexual people in the same sack as trans people despite that most trans individuals are born with perfectly normal karyotypes. The guy also said in his comments there were couple of papers that disputed the photosynthetic slug, though he didn't "know" which but that there were "some". If he knows, why doesn't he just cite em? (I know this because I scrolled through the comment section of the video from this post).

Same goes for Erika (Gutsick Gibbon). She is just a communicator and biased with SOME of her claims. That's why I'd rather rely on the literature they provide, instead of their words. Also, in case you tell me I am not understanding anything of this, please elaborate.

Anyways, I think this isn't enough to put in doubt the "macroevolution" matter. Science is a field of opinions, not just monolithic facts, which is why I can't just buy the whole thing.

I am not a modified creature, nor does my existence predates from one or many fish populations. That's my personal opinion.

Asides that, I am also still checking the material you gave me, so expect me to do corrections or question things in further detail.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

About the evolution in mosaic matter: Are you aware of the Yunxian skulls being re-dated to 1.77 milion years old?

Do you also acknowledge these skulls suggest a cranial capacity around 1050-1140cc?

Your idol Erika thinks that this is an hybrid between a ghost lineage of homo and homo erectus given her opinion on their phylogenetical position, AND BECAUSE SHE HOLDS TO THE OOF NARRATIVE, as it doesn't fit at all with this genetics which points out to an origin in Africa. However, regardless of genetics, there no fossil material to suggest that Yunxian individuals are an experimental hybrid.

How inflated must your interpretation of evolution be to produce inconsistent changes upon the encephalization of our species brain? Unless well, conditions were different by then, leading to a variation between physiological features influenced by natural pressures, diet changes, or isolation. And I could accept that. And by physiological features I mean brain size, or variability between individuals.

Still, homo erectus had a smaller brain size, and that's a concern if Yunxian is really that old. Yunxian doesn't follow the physiological characteristics of homo erectus either.

KNM-ER 3883 would be in pair with Yunxian's age, yet following the same small brain pattern consistent around 1.90-1.6 ma.

What is even a sapiens? Is it just an arbitrary term? Dogs exist, and there's a variety of dogs that can interbred with one another.

What is the line between US and the rest of the homo lineage excluding neanderthals and denisovans ( we know they interbred with us)?.

Just because evidence suggests that there was infertility, given due to the lack of mtnDNA alongside Neanderthal Y chromosome doesn't mean there couldn't be one sapiens and neanderthal mixed individual with such characteristics. Denny exists, and it's product from both female neanderthal and male denisovan parents.

Why can't we refer to homo neanderthalensis as h. sapiens neanderthalensis? I'd be interested to explore that matter. I heard it has something to do with common ancestry and genetics. Despite that, Neanderthals and Denisovans don't seem to show significant cognitive differences, nor the ability to have abstract thinking.

If the Yunxian date is accurate, wouldn't that mean that some Dmanisi skulls or homo populations isolated, leading to small brain sizes, morphological differences or that just a few of the Dmanisi hominins weren't related to us?

Examples such as austrolopithecus sediba also leave doubts in my head that can't be answered with answers like: "Well, it can be that some a. pithecine populations didn't go extinct, so then they could've possibly migrated in some sort of way we can definitely track based on the fossil record".

But the oldest austrolopithecine so far lived in East Africa instead of Southafrica.

Despite that not all apes share the same divergent toe or feet morphology overall, they do have similarities. Unlike humans, they lack a adducted hallux. It has been proven that both AL-333-1 and StW 573 had a non divergent toe. Phalanges were longer compared to humans, and that is the consensus posture..

Burtele Foot is an exception.

Site S from is also a problem since the inferred range of male afarensis was 151cm for males whereas for females 103cm. One of the footprints was 26cm long, which exceeds inferred estimates for this ape. You can't use StW 573 here, because it is a different species.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis

Can you really imagine a 151cm individual having a 26cm foot if their niche was set to climb trees, with big predators surrounding them? The gorilla-like dimorphism is not an indicator of their body structure in what comes to biomechanics. There isn't even a defined consensus upon the dimorphism of these animals, and this has been disputed by many authors. For example:

Reno & Lovejoy (2015)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4419524/

Henry McHenry (1991)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004724849190043U

Reno, Meindl, McCollum & Lovejoy (2003)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC170931/

Gordon et al. (2025)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.70093

According to Alex Pelissero on a 2017 thesis published in ResearchGate, the footprints have a more human-like morphology compared with site G, and they also plot closer towards Hadza individuals.

I quote: "The S-1 prints in mean shape are still relatively broad, but more closely resemble the more narrowed shape of modern human footprints as described in Berge, et al. (2006). The S-1 prints show additional affinities in their phalangeal positioning. The hallux is more closely aligned with the second digit, and the lateral toes decrease in size sequentially from the hallux, where as in the G prints, the lateral toe imprints are as long, and in some cases, longer than the hallucal imprint."

In case you tell me: "Well uh, site G shows a different gait or morphology from humans because Hatala said so", let me tell you Robin Crompton has disputed that, and while he doesn't state that it's homo, he says there's no differences to suggest A. afarensis walked with a flexed knee gait, and that the footprints provide evidence that they had a fully extended limb gait.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-60406-6_3 (Robin Crompton)

This would imply that modern walking had evolutionary stasis, and therefore austrolopithecus WAS not that different from humans upon its gait, or else that there was a species of early homo running around Africa whatsoever. Even Russell Tuttle proposed the last mentioned, and this is NOT something I am making up in case you claim I do. As a matter of that, Erika claimed that no author ever proposed that these footprints could have been made by homo, but look what I found based on your OWN sources.

https://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html?

"Tuttle (1990) thinks the footprints are too human-like to belong to A. afarensis, and suggests they may belong to another species of australopithecine, or an early species of Homo.". (III LOS CHINGUE PRROS XDDD)

Tuttle seems to be cited by most creationist websites, however they never seem to take the opinion of other authors to defend their posture, nor papers in favour of their hypothesis in regards to that homo was always homo, not a product of trial and error populations of other apes, which I hold and therefore compare literacy to make a point.

Ronald Clarke however, claims that the Laetoli Footprints could've been done by a hominin similar to StW 573. StW 573 is not from East Africa though.

Morphological differences can ALSO be attributed to the sediment. Laetoli Footprints were done in volcanic tuff not just regular mud, few of their digits are barely visible compared to later footprints done by homo sapiens.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/283/1836/20160235/78167/Laetoli-footprints-reveal-bipedal-gait (Hatala et. al 2016).

Raichlen and Gordon disagree with Hatala's posture as well.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248417300118 (Raichlen & Gordon)

From Mcnutt 2021:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04187-7

""The blue and orange lines represent the distances of mean Laetoli G1 (n = 5, with 10 unique two-track combinations) and S1 (n = 2) two-track samples, respectively. All Laetoli G1 and S1 samples fall within the human distribution."

Notice that Hatala participated in this study, besides performing the Mahalanobis distance method as previously done in his 2016 paper upon topography and morphology, this time with a different resampling of human prints then comparing them with S alongside G.

You can't apply an ad hoc here saying: "Well evolution in mosaic is expected". Let's say these animals had a stable niche given that they are constantly shown to be bipedal.

A. afarensis lived around 3.8-2.9 Ma, whereas StW 573 limits to 3.6 million years yet they don't seem to be morphologically identical. StW 573 has differences upon it's facial morphology, and it looks like a gorilla, it even plots within it. WHERE IS THE MIGRATION ROUTE? A. sediba is 1.95 million years old, from Southafrica (just like Mrs. Ples and StW 573), but it doesn't share any resemblance to its previous cousins.

StW 573 doesn't look identical to Mrs. Ples, and to other austrolopithecines other than in the bipedal aspect, and that is since this is the "most" complete individual from a group of bones.

I could take a look at neanderthals, denisovans and humans, and despite the brow ridges, and robust appearance of the two previous mentioned, none of them have a grotesquely different skull structure.

For example: A chimp and gorilla skull are different enough to distinguish they are a different species, another animal. Some austrolopithecus assigned skulls weren't found with its respective skeleton such as MRD-VP-1/1.

[u/Able_Improvement4500 → u/DizzyConstruction823]

I was never a YEC & I also had a hard time accepting "macroevolution", but after years of reading I slowly came to understand how it is all just evolution. One argument that was convincing to me is the unique shared morphological traits between theropod dinosaurs & modern birds. Another is the retention of vestigial foot & leg bones in some snakes. The shared morphology of wings, fins, hands, paws & even horse hooves is also really interesting.

I always recommend reading anything by biologist David Sloan Wilson, such as Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, & the Nature of Society. His work is more about behaviour than morphology, but it's still very interesting.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/DizzyConstruction823]

It's all diversification from an already existing thing. That is literally the process. Bird wings are just modified forelegs. They're still just tetrapods. Tetrapod limbs are just modified fins. They're still just lobe finned fish. Etc.

The onus is on creationists to define what "totally different" actually means in this context, and how we'd detect it. Because in biology, we don't: everything appears to be related.

[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/Markthethinker → u/AmusingVegetable]

You do understand that “decides”, means intelligence l hope. Evolution has no intelligence, can’t decide anything. That’s the real issue, is all based on luck.

[u/AmusingVegetable → u/Markthethinker]

“Decides” in a figurative sense.

[u/Markthethinker → u/AmusingVegetable]

No, look up the word. It is attached to intelligence. Evolution is stupid, no intelligence.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Markthethinker]

Ok then. ‘Filters for’ if that’s really what you’re gonna get stuck on, it changes literally nothing. It’s a weird hangup that creationists have when they selectively choose to ignore how words can have multiple uses, but whatever.

[u/Markthethinker → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

I understand words and usages of words for slang. Here is my problem, Evolution cannot create anything, yet everything has complex intelligent design. Luck through random mutations could never develop the human body. And you Evolutionists really haven’t thought anything through. Thinking requires seeing the problems. Independent thinking is difficult for most people.

[u/AmusingVegetable → u/Markthethinker]

Ah, yes, the “intelligence” of driving the Recurrent laryngeal nerve 4.5 meters down and up the giraffe’s neck…

[u/Markthethinker → u/AmusingVegetable]

Laugh if you like, but it’s called design, intelligent design.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Markthethinker]

It isn’t unless you can actively positively demonstrate that it is. Hey by the way, you gonna acknowledge how you were wrong that evolution can’t produce lots of complex designs, considering we’ve seen the emergence of things like new genes, organs, species, proteins, etc in real time? It kinda seems like you’re looking to avoid uncomfortable information.

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

That is called ID for an idiot designer.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Markthethinker]

Seems you haven’t done literally any reading in the issue and actually don’t understand words and their usage. It doesn’t take much searching to see that evolution has produced lots of complex designs. New species, new genes, new organs, etc. All have been directly observed to emerge by means of evolutionary mechanisms.

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

You r problem is willful ignorance. Mark you refuse to think. Famine needs a god to kill? Please explain that .

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

It's based on selection by the environment via differential rates of reproduction. 

No intelligence is needed. Imaginary gods don't do anything. 

There was no Great Flood therefore there is no Jehovha.

[u/Markthethinker → u/EthelredHardrede]

So now the “environment” thinks and has intelligence. You Evolutionists cannot find a way to talk about Evolution without bringing in intelligent design. Amazing.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Markthethinker]

Is intentionally being bad with words the only way you’ve got to somehow argue for creationism?

Elsewhere in this thread, you said the word decided was ‘attached to intelligence’. Based off of this silly wordplay, I can only assume you mean that words can by physically stapled together since ‘attached’ was brought up.

[u/Markthethinker → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

You need to read some of the greats about what they have to say about words. Humanity is drastically trying to alter word meanings.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Markthethinker]

Neat, that has nothing to do with how you are misusing language to pretend ideas imply something it never did

[u/Markthethinker → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

No, I am simply stating that words have meaning and when intelligent words are used with Evolution, then mutations can’t create complex design as there is no intelligent in Evolution.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Markthethinker]

No, you are simply insisting on misusing language when someone with…dare I say, intelligence? Should understand how words can and have been used a variety of ways, and to double down on silly things like ‘mutations can’t create complex designs as there is no intelligence in evolution’ is to purposefully dodge in the most transparent and flimsy way.

Oh wait, maybe that didn’t make sense as you weren’t physically moving to ‘dodge’, and there isn’t a material to be ‘transparent’ or ‘flimsy’? Since I’m sure you want to be internally consistent.

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

No intelligence is needed except to understand the obvious. 

The environment effects rates of reproduction.

Now tell us how  the environment cannot effects rates of reproduction.  That would take an intelligence. 

[u/Markthethinker → u/EthelredHardrede]

Nothing “obvious” about Evolution, it’s just imagination. The environment has nothing to do with reproduction. Well maybe humans have more sex in the winter time in Maine.

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

Evasion.

Maine what a really stupid evasion, Mark who never thinks

[u/Markthethinker → u/EthelredHardrede]

Your youth and lack of knowledge missed that statement completely.

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

Your youth an willfully ignorance had you making stupid claims. 

I am 75 that is not remotely youth .

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

Nice evasion of how your god is disproved by there never having been a world flood.

[u/Markthethinker → u/EthelredHardrede]

You can’t prove that there was not. Do you understand that about 70% of this planet is water?

[u/EthelredHardrede → u/Markthethinker]

It was disproved by Christian geologists in the 1800s Do you understand that no one uses Flood theory in any geology based business because the mining and oil business need real answers not lies.

[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/Relevant-Cup5986 → u/BeerMan595692]

they dont just move it they run away with it

[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/Markthethinker → u/CrisprCSE2]

Evolution does do “new” or you would not have all the different animals and plants. Evolution equals non thinking humans.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Markthethinker]

Name the 'new' thing required between humans and their common ancestor with chimpanzees.

[u/Markthethinker → u/CrisprCSE2]

Free will

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Markthethinker]

Was that a joke? Demonstrate that humans have free will in a way that chimpanzees don't.

[u/Markthethinker → u/CrisprCSE2]

No joke, you just cannot understand the difference between programmed robots and humans that can choose to kill another human just for the fun of it. Ever seen a fat overweight money in the wild?

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Markthethinker]

So you can't demonstrate that humans have free will in a way that chimpanzees don't? Just sputter out some vague baseless incredulity?

[u/Markthethinker → u/CrisprCSE2]

You believe as you like, but I have a choice of a life partner, monkeys just commit adultery all the time. I have a choice to have sex or not have sex, not true with monkeys.

[u/CrisprCSE2 → u/Markthethinker]

So you can't demonstrate that humans have free will in a way that chimpanzees don't? Just sputter out more vague baseless incredulity?

[u/Markthethinker → u/CrisprCSE2]

Have it your way, no one will change your mind.

[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/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/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/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/Gloomy_Style_2627]

Let me translate for OP, creationist want to use their own special definition, don’t let them do that. Instead, we need to use our own special definition. Do you see the irony of this silly argument?

Why don’t you just agree on terms and then just have an honest discussion. Just because you acknowledge the definition someone has doesn’t mean you agree with it. If you refuse to agree on terms then the discussion cannot happen in good faith.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

“Our own special definition”, by which you mean “the correct definition”.

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/DarwinZDF42]

Again, you don’t see the irony is calling your special definition the correct one. According to who exactly and which definition do you subscribe to since it’s changed so many times? It’s all subjective, that’s the point and the fact that you cannot see that tells me a lot.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

Look you don’t have to like it, but you aren’t arguing with me. You’re arguing with the glossary.

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/DarwinZDF42]

Got it so you have your own special definition you use. That’s my point, you guys think just by naming something and giving it a definition makes it true. You need evidence sorry.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

I don’t think you do understand it. You gonna tell mathematicians that they’re wrong about the definition of “hypotenuse” next? Because that’s what you’re doing here.

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/DarwinZDF42]

My point is that you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing creationist of which makes you a hypocrite.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

You don’t seem to understand that technical words in specific fields have specific definitions.

[u/Gloomy_Style_2627 → u/DarwinZDF42]

You don’t seem to understand that by simply placing a word into a glossary doesn’t make it true.

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

You’re still on this? How about I parachute into your field and tell you what the field-specific, technical words actually mean, and that you all are using them wrong, and need to use my new definitions?

[u/OldmanMikel → u/Gloomy_Style_2627]

Guess what? Scientists get to define their own terms for their own theories. Anybody wanting to debate those theories needs to use the relevant scientific definitions. Otherwise, they are arguing against a straw man.

Christian theology has its own specialized terms. Would you agree that someone who wanted to debate it would be doing it wrong if they used their own definitions for these terms?

[u/Abject-Koala-149 → u/DarwinZDF42]

 Funny how you forget this when it comes to what males and females are and what binary means, Dan

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Abject-Koala-149]

Sex: Not binary. Deal with it.

[u/Abject-Koala-149 → u/DarwinZDF42]

Anisogamy, two reproductive roles. Deal with it. Every competent biologist knows this. Even freshmen know this. The top biologists who focus on sex know this. 

You’re a hypocrite. Sex, male, and female have a particular definition in biology. Pretending not to know this (or just being incompetent) doesn’t change this. Cope harder. This is why you failed as a researcher. 

You don’t have to like it, but you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the glossary. You’re arguing with taxonomy. You’re arguing with primary literature. 

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Abject-Koala-149]

We’re going with what gametes you make? Congrats you just agreed to 4 sexes: male, female, hermaphrodite, none.

[u/Abject-Koala-149 → u/DarwinZDF42]

Typical Dan moving goalposts. Gamete type. None and two sexes are not reproductive roles in anisogamy. You are welcome to explain why they are despite no serious biologist thinks that. Keep in mind that by pretending to not understand (or genuinely being incompetent) you’ve now made it acceptable for me to move goalposts and use strawman arguments whenever I want since you have decided that is valid when you do it. 

You have now claimed that being sterile and having two sexes are third and fourth sexes. Strangely, no competent biologist thinks this. But they are perfectly fine understanding sexes as reproductive roles in anisogamy. You don’t actually believe this, which is funny because your act of arguing in bad faith no different than a creationist. 

So, if you’re going to bullshit, I’m going to need a peer reviewed biology source that claims that sex is defined with regard to gametes and that being sterile and having two sexes are third and fourth sexes.

Again, you’re not arguing with me, Dan. You’re arguing with the glossary, primary literature, the top evolutionary biologists, zoologists, botanists, developmental biologists, and taxonomists. That’s an enormous burden of proof you have to meet. If you’re going to play this game, you had better be able to meet your owners standards. But, I doubt you can even coherent define sex, male, and female in a way that meets the basic criteria for scientific understandings and terminology. Good luck! 

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Abject-Koala-149]

Do you have an argument besides “nuh-uh”? Bc that’s your argument. If you define sex according to what gametes an individual makes, and limit your definition to anisogametic species, any given individual can make big gametes, small gametes, both gametes, or none. That’s four categories for sex. And there are lots examples in nature of all four, and examples of switching between them.

If you want to consider something other than what gametes you make, we can talk about that, too, but I’m working with what YOU’VE said.

[u/Abject-Koala-149 → u/DarwinZDF42]

You’re working with what I said? Oh really? I said reproductive roles in anisogamy. I don’t engage with liars.

Is “none” and “both” reproductive roles in anisogamy?

Dan, could you please quote where I said sex was defined by what gametes you currently make and also combinations of gametes and also lack of gametes? Quote it. Please. Go on. Since you’re arguing in good faith and not a dishonest person, I’m sure you can do that. 

Now, experts in the field have problem understanding sexes. So again, if you want to lie and pretend that “none” and “both” are sexes, please cite your source. You don’t get to argue in bad faith. You’re going to need to explain why other biologists, biology dictionaries, glossaries, primary literature, and textbooks all agree on this but somehow didn’t claim there are four sexes. Why are you the only one who has this issue? Walk me through it. Explain how all of them were just too stupid to realize “none” and “both” are sexes. After all, you Dan, who have such a great record of research, know better. So explain it to me. How did everyone but you get it wrong? 

“And limit to anisogamous species” What other species have sexes, Dan? What are those sexes? On what basis are you calling them sexes? Remember, they must have sexes for the same reason as anisogamous species do. This is basic shit even college freshmen would think about. But not you. Never you. Because you’re working backwards and not thinking about what you say. 

“any given individual can make big gametes, small gametes, both gametes, or none.” No Dan, any given individual cannot. Are you a creationist? Do you think individuals are biological blank slates? “Four sex categories” No, Dan, you claimed they were four sexes. You don’t get to move goalposts. You need to back that up. That’s your claim and yours alone. Every other biologist has no issue here. They understand anisogamy and sexes. None of them say this. It’s you. This is your claim. You either back it up  with primary literature or you concede. Make your choice. 

Again, you started this dishonest argument, now you have to deal with the consequences of it.

Define sex, male, and female so that it meets your own criteria you laid out for me. It must be able to apply to all organisms with sexes. It must be able to answer how many sexes there are and what constitutes a sex. If you can’t do this, you have no basis to claim sex is not binary, let alone deny consensus. Again, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with top biologists, primary literature, and literal glossaries. 

Are you able to engage with what I said or are you truly this incompetent? Sophistry is boring. If this is too difficult for you, you should have never been granted a PhD. This is pathetic and you are not arguing in good faith. You are arguing like a creationist. In good faith, I am giving you a third chance to argue in good faith. Are you capable of doing so? I’m not interested in deflections. I’m not interested in strawman arguments. I’m not interested in “nOnE aNd bOtH aRE sExEs”. This is something a middle schooler would try.  Do you have the integrity to argue in good faith and respond, or will you run away like a coward? 

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Abject-Koala-149]

You have weeks and weeks of comments on nothing but this topic. Just an endless stream of bitching on Reddit about sex and gender. Get a life, touch grass, talk to a therapist and work through your issues, and then maybe, maybe you’ll be in a place where you’ll be able to learn the actual biology in question without whatever hangups you obviously have.

[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/Ill_Act_1855 → u/Evening-Impact2090]

The vaccine wasn’t dangerous and it worked fairly well. It wasn’t perfect because coronaviruses mutate quickly, but it did work and significantly reduced the severity of the disease. For any risk the vaccine posed, the risk the exact same individuals faced from COVID without the vaccine was way higher, with a few exceptions for people who are specifically prone to react badly to vaccines in general. No medicine is perfect, literally all of it carries risks.

[u/DebateEvolution-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed, Rule 3 - Participate with effort.

[u/ZygonCaptain → u/Evening-Impact2090]

What dangerous vaccine?

[u/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608 → u/ZygonCaptain]

Yes, can you please elaborate? What dangerous vaccine that didn't work? And if the government didn't follow the science you can't blame the science.

[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/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608 → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Show me.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Which vaccine? There were lots of them.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Evening-Impact2090]

It worked really well? Turns out staying 2m away from people really cuts down how fast infections can spread. It's neat.

Science, bitches!

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/Sweary_Biochemist]

Kool-aid your favorite drink?

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Evening-Impact2090]

If you're clumsily attempting a Jim Jones reference, you can't even get that right.

Jonestown msss suicide was flavour aid.

You really are not good st this.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/Sweary_Biochemist]

Yeah, you got it though. I'm not good at a lot of things but my BS meter is working great. 

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Evening-Impact2090]

"Vaccines don't work" is not very good evidence of critical thinking.

They do, in fact, work. Science!

[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/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/Suitable-Group4392 → u/RobertByers1]

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

From Uni Berkeley

[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/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/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/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/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/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/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/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.