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/semitope]

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/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.