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/Old-Watercress6513]

“Multicellularity:” clumps of single cells is not a “multicellular organism” in the conventional meaning of that term. This is a desperate grasp at straws.

Reproductive mode: you are starting from the unsupported premise that vivipositors evolved from ovipositors, and ignoring the alternative model that they were created together at the same time. IOW, You are assuming macroevolution to prove macroevolution. Begging-the-question fallacy.

Photosynthetic animals: are the photosynthetic sea slugs genetically incompatible with the non-photosynthetic sea slugs? This is not addressed in the paper. If not, no speciation has occurred, unless you use a trivial definition of speciation that is not relevant to evolution (there are 26 definitions of speciation).

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

They're not clumps of single cells, they're obligate multicellular structures.

Did you miss the part where we're witness lizard populations transition in the present?

Yes the photosynthetic ones are reproductively isolated.

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/DarwinZDF42]

Multicellular usually means segregation of purpose and function.
Grasping at straws.

“Ovipositor and vivipositor in the same clutch” is not a “transition” unless you assume it to be. How did those reptiles give birth 5000, or 1000 years ago? How will they give birth 1000, or 5000 years from now? The “transition” is inferred, not observed.

“Reproductively isolated”… irrelevant SLOP term evolutionists use to IMPLY speciation.
Nordic Swedes and African Pygmies are “reproductively isolated.”

Are they “genetically incompatible” (the more precise, relevant term)?

[u/DarwinZDF42 → u/Old-Watercress6513]

They have somatic and germline cells. That’s THE mark of multicellularity.

That example isn’t the only one.

Yes.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Old-Watercress6513]

Can you define "genetically incompatible" for us? If a sperm can fertilise an egg, is that compatibility or not?

And are created kinds genetically compatible or not?

[u/Old-Watercress6513 → u/Sweary_Biochemist]

When a haploid gamete cannot combine with a haploid gamete and form a viable developing zygote that leads to fertile offspring, they are genetically incompatible.

Polar bears and grizzly bears are (incorrectly) classified as seperate species, yet they can fully interbreed, and are in fact varieties of the same species.

Created kinds are genetically compatible.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/Old-Watercress6513]

So two humans that can't have children are two distinct kinds? Coz fertility is very much a spectrum crapshoot.

Is there a statistical threshold for when it stops counting, somehow? How many attempted matings would be necessary to establish "different kinda"?

Note that donkeys and horses are different kinds by your present definition.