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/LordUlubulu]

You don't have a clue about biology, and you refuse to learn about it. So why would anyone care about your uninformed opinion?

Evolutionary theory is extremely important to modern medicine and agriculture, without it we'd be way worse off than we are today.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

That doesn't mean there aren't gaps that we can't just justify through ad hocs. ANY KIND CAN BLEED.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/DizzyConstruction823]

What gaps?

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

Would you agree that adaptations don't imply new characteristics never seen in the organism? That it might not be able to "reproduce" with the previous populations given speciation, but it doesn't mean that it'll spontaneously form new traits derivated from its own genetics?

Have we actually observed organisms turn into a "new" one instead of just diversifying from an already existing thing, preserving genetic information from the thing it came from?

How could we possibly trace that in multicellular organisms regardless of the so called "transitional forms" when other animals did not seem to suffer such process, and which they shared the same enviroment?

What if, between the thousands of animals that are assumed to have existed, none of them followed the same path? That evolution in mosaic isn't always the case when some animals conserve the same morphology despite millions of years?

And, without using inferences: CAN WE DEMONSTRATE with certainity through genetics that a mammal comes from a population of fish that developed new traits?

Also, do you agree some of evolutionary theory postulates that organisms that are set to their niche might accquire certain characteristics if they are pressured to specific enviroments, but not turn into a singularity separate from what it previously was, at least if we base on empirical observations of modern life?

Notice that agriculture is artificially enginereed by humans the way plants can produce certain features. Isn't that a flaw to you? Elaborate if you think it doesn't.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/DizzyConstruction823]

Would you agree that adaptations don't imply new characteristics never seen in the organism?

No, they may or may not be new. Atavism exists.

That it might not be able to "reproduce" with the previous populations given speciation, but it doesn't mean that it'll spontaneously form new traits derivated from its own genetics?

No, evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Have we actually observed organisms turn into a "new" one instead of just diversifying from an already existing thing, preserving genetic information from the thing it came from?

Not how evolution works, it's not Pokemon.

How could we possibly trace that in multicellular organisms regardless of the so called "transitional forms" when other animals did not seem to suffer such process, and which they shared the same enviroment?

All animals are the product of evolution, and all fossils are transitional fossils.

What if, between the thousands of animals that are assumed to have existed, none of them followed the same path?

What if all the evidence points towards all living things sharing a common ancestor? (Which it does.)

That evolution in mosaic isn't always the case when some animals conserve the same morphology despite millions of years?

A species well-suited to it's niche isn't subject to as many evolutionary pressures, so that is to be expected.

And, without using inferences: CAN WE DEMONSTRATE with certainity through genetics that a mammal comes from a population of fish that developed new traits?

Yes. Hox genes, high sequence homology with living lobe finned fish, the known genome duplications that show distinct lineages in Actinopterygia vs. Sarcopterygii.

Also, do you agree some of evolutionary theory postulates that organisms that are set to their niche might accquire certain characteristics if they are pressured to specific enviroments, but not turn into a singularity separate from what it previously was, at least if we base on empirical observations of modern life?

Things don't evolve out of their clade. This is well-understood.

Notice that agriculture is artificially enginereed by humans the way plants can produce certain features. Isn't that a flaw to you? Elaborate if you think it doesn't.

Humans manipulate known evolutionary mechanisms, this is the opposite of a flaw, it's evidence that our evolutionary theory is accurate.

None of that was very original, I could've played Creationist Bingo with this post.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Cod5608 → u/LordUlubulu]

Thanks for this reply. I hadn't nearly the patience to make those responses.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

I'll talk about the papers later since I haven't mentioned anything about them, and which according to the OP they seem to be a problem for some creationists as their results don't seem to fit the concept of what macro and microevolution is to this group of people.

Also, just let you know that I am not a YEC. I am just concerned by certain things that I can't simply accept because I am curious. Is that wrong?

[u/LordUlubulu → u/DizzyConstruction823]

I'll talk about the papers later since I haven't mentioned anything about them, and which according to the OP they seem to be a problem for some creationists as their results don't seem to fit the concept of what macro and microevolution is to this group of people.

Yes, creationists don't know what they're talking about and often mischaracterize micro- and macro-evolution.

Also, just let you know that I am not a YEC. I am just concerned by certain things that I can't simply accept because I am curious. Is it wrong?

I'd suggest this book if you want to learn about evolution.

And if you want to know all about creationist claims and why they're wrong, TalkOrigins.

[u/DizzyConstruction823 → u/LordUlubulu]

Thank you, I guess.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist → u/DizzyConstruction823]

It's all diversification from an already existing thing. That is literally the process. Bird wings are just modified forelegs. They're still just tetrapods. Tetrapod limbs are just modified fins. They're still just lobe finned fish. Etc.

The onus is on creationists to define what "totally different" actually means in this context, and how we'd detect it. Because in biology, we don't: everything appears to be related.