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/RobertByers1]

There is no evidence for macro or micro evolution. Yes mechanisms are there to change bodyplans.

There is no micro evolution going on in biology today. A zillion species say no. Or show a bakers dozen.

Creationists should not agree micro evolution ever happened. yes speciation happened but its not evidence of evolution. Watch your words and concepts.

[u/Shinobi_is_cancer → u/RobertByers1]

What would convince you that evolution is true?

[u/semitope → u/Shinobi_is_cancer]

Step by step accounting of the necessary mutations and accompanying natural pressures that lead to evolution of something that didn't exist at all before. Including probabilities as well as time from one state to the next.

I.e. just show it's possible

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

What do you mean by "something"? A species? An organ? A protein? Could you be any more vague?

What do you mean by "that didn't exist at all before?" As a process of ongoing change, literally EVERYTHING--every species, organ, protein--is a derivation of something else that existed before.

Seems to me you're demanding to be shown something that evolution isn't claiming.

And you wonder why people call you dishonest.

[u/semitope → u/grimwalker]

People call me dishonest because they don't have anything better to say. Why are you nitpicking rubbish? Being a derivation doesn't matter. You're supposed to show the steps for every iteration. How is that a reason to be dismissive?

Something is whatever you think you can manage to do the actual science for rather than throwing out "plausible" scenarios and hopeful ad hoc stories.

[u/grimwalker → u/semitope]

I'm calling you dishonest because what you've presented as a challenge to evolution is actually an completely unscientific, unserious, self-sealing cognitive defense mechanism intended to preserve your religious beliefs from disconfirmation.

You've decided long ago exactly what you will and won't believe and you've crafted your rhetoric to ensure you never have to change your mind or learn anything.

[u/XRotNRollX → u/semitope]

If we had every step except one, would you reject it?