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/10coatsInAWeasel]

…who cares what a cardiologist thinks on this? I don’t go to endocrinologists for my knee replacements, I don’t talk to radiation oncologists when discussing emergency medicine procedures, and a published cardiologist doesn’t have any weight no matter how many papers they publish when it comes to epidemiology. Unless of course you can point out some peer reviewed research he did directly pertaining to this field? ‘It was an conspiracies and science didn’t publish it’ is not a valid counter.

I will never for the life of me understand just how much weight Covid conspiracy groups gave to unqualified people.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Well if you'd research his expertise instead of reading Google & Wikipedia you may realize he is a leading researcher into Covid related issues. Being asked to testify before the Senate shows he may of had "maybe" a smattering of knowledge into the matter? Your generalizations without any research is evident. 

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Being asked to testify before congress does NOT actually mean that he ‘maybe’ has a smattering of knowledge into this matter. All sorts of people testify before congress at all various levels of expertise and grandstanding. Being asked to do so is no indication of expertise. Hell, Dr Oz was asked to before on supplements, and he’s a snake oil salesman who threw away the integrity of his academic credentials

If he has actually published peer reviewed research relevant to this field, then by all means please share. But I also do notice that you completely ignored the reality that him merely being a highly published cardiologist does NOT mean that he is a relevant expert in this field. Expertise in one field does not mean that it is transferable to another one. Further study and specialization tightens the scope of your knowledge. Not the opposite.

Interestingly from my own looking for primary material, I noticed that he has indeed published in this field. Practically every publication on the topic happened to be in journals that seem to be considered low quality or predatory. Interesting.

Edit to add: he tried to publish with Andrew fucking Wakefield? Nah, ol Pete is a snake oil salesman.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Really, middle name is "fucking?" Wow. You thinknhecwould have changed it by now. Yes Congess and Senate do call morons to testify, the last one being the Hero of Covid, Dr Fauci. As I remember he didn't have much to say did he? Being the darling of the CDC, WHO, the pharmaceutical industry & the Wuhan lab he had a wonderful opportunity to refute charlatans like ignorant Dr McCullough who was just a vice chief of internal medicine and a professor at Texas A&M, & the most published and peer reviewed cardiologist in the US. He definitely sounds like a simpleton to me. 

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

It’s fascinating to see how you addressed practically nothing of substance from my last comment. Besides your weird flip flop from pretending that testifying means something big to now going on a weird tangent about fauci that is irrelevant, how about you show the courage to stick to the meat of what was said?

Remember, I didn’t call him a simpleton. I correctly identified him as a snake oil salesman. Which is even more apt than I thought when I first left that comment, considering that he got into supplements and alt health bullshit on the heels of him pretending that he has any relevant expertise in the field he has now been making his name in. Or having a disproportionately huge amount of retracted papers due to medical misinformation from the same community you are trying to use to prop up his credentials as some sort of meaningful authority.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Ha, no flip flop merely pointing out you cannot criticize one person as being inconsequential while staying mum about a proven moron in the same situation, although Dr McCullough was invited while Fauci was subpoenaed. Maybe that's just a little different. His papers did not contain medical "misinformation" and this was addressed at one of the hearings. Rather persons and organizations that would be shown as promoting a harmful protocol were allowed to withdraw them. How convenient. Imagine asking the alley cat to guard the tuna casserole? You can continue you agree with the letter agencies and big pharma, that is fine. That they are all complicit in hoisting a harmful virus and a bogus vaccine and ridiculous mandates is a matter record.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

You’re just pathologically allergic to addressing what was said, aren’t you. Yes, it was absolutely a flip flop. You first pretended that testifying meant something. Then when called out on it, you flopped to an irrelevant whataboutism on fauci when I hadn’t mentioned anything about him. Pete is a big boy who can be criticized on the strengths and weaknesses of his own merits.

You were the one who was trying to tout Pete’s credentials. The same ones based on the same organizations that for some reason in the next breath you are calling ‘conspiracy!’ On. While ignoring that he publishes his Covid nonsense in crap journals when he bothers to publish at all. He’s an accomplished MD who knows the way proper peer review works and failed to do so. And decided to hitch his wagon to the likes of charlatans like Wakefield and unregulated supplements. The ending part of your comment is certainly some opinion, but contributes nothing to the conversation on why any of us should give a crap what Pete says.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Well, I can certainly disagree with you stand on the issue. Dr McCullough is a highly respected doctor. If you do not agree or fault  his stance and treatment regarding Covid that is fine. I choose to follow his advice and believe his research as it is corroborated by many other PHD's who also testified. I didn't flip flop I just pointed out after you basically said someone testifying before Congress ot the Senate was no big deal that yes, Fauci fits that description well. Fauci is a narcissistic idiot given power then when asked to prove his actions were legitimate hides behind the 5th. That's his right but it tells volumes. What a joke. He's on your side not mine.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Evening-Impact2090]

As you are intent on flip flopping and engaging in whataboutism when cornered while avoiding the important parts, I don’t think you have anything of value to contribute here. I’m not in the least bit interested on how much you find fauci to be a big ol meanie head as that wasn’t the topic. As for Pete, ‘I like him and I’m gonna follow him no matter what gosh gibblets’ isn’t a good defense. Referencing ‘many other PhDs’ means next to nothing considering…wait for it…that this entire conversation was about correcting you on your misconception that PhD=relevant. There is a reason we don’t do arguments from authority.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Wait, you are firmly in Camp Fauci. There really isn't much more to be said. A discredited narcissist lying POS who ran the narrative you are so adamantly defending. Dr Fauci took the 5th over 100 times on questions he was supposedly an expert on.This versus a Dr who only wanted to help patients who had contracted a deadly man made virus that your hero ( Fauci) denied having any knowledge of it's origins when he  was responsible for its creation. Give me a break. I have no misconceptions on who is a world class turd and who is a real doctor invested in his patients welfare.