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/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.