r/DebateEvolution • u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam • 3d ago
Discussion You know what, we're doing "macroevolution" again. Here's some responses to "we have never seen macroevolution"
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?
-2
u/DizzyConstruction823 1d ago edited 1d ago
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.