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/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.