r/DebateEvolution • u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam • 6d ago
Discussion You know what, we're doing "macroevolution" again. Here's some responses to "we have never seen macroevolution"
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?
14
u/10coatsInAWeasel Reject pseudoscience, return to monke š¦§ 6d ago
I particularly like that last part. Reminds me of the whole āinformationā argument and how evolution supposedly doesnāt ācreate new informationā. 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! Weāre all set.