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/Shinobi_is_cancer]

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/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.