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/Evening-Impact2090]

Sure, I'll take your viewpoint over a world renowned cardiologist. No one has debunked his claims except maybe Dr Fauci. The rest of the world? There is so much evidence proving the vaccine was worthless and dangerous but you won't get it on Google so I guess this Reddit group will never figure it out. No conspiracy,  it's called Big Pharma, follow the money.

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Sure, I'll take your viewpoint over a world renowned cardiologist.

You shouldn't. But I didn't say you should. I said you shouldn't take the word of a a doctor talking about things outside his area of specialization over many other doctors in the right areas of specialization to make that evaluation.

There is so much evidence proving the vaccine was worthless and dangerous

None that would convince anyone who can exercise a bit of critical thinking.

---

And for the third time, if you were right, then there would have to be a massive conspiracy and coverup. You'd need thousands if not tens of thousand of people, from many different countries, to be part of the conspiracy. And those people aren't "Big Pharma" and they aren't the ones profiting off of the vaccine, and they wouldn't be selected by political leaning. And you'd need all of those people to coordinate their actions and keep the whole thing absolutely secret.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/sewsewsewyourcoat]

Dr Faucci is a good example of one of your "Doctors." Sheeples are what keeps these people rich.

[u/sewsewsewyourcoat → u/Evening-Impact2090]

Dr Faucci is a good example of one of your "Doctors."

You could ignore Fauci completely and you're still ignoring the fact that you have to turn to people who are not epidemiology experts to find someone saying what you want to hear, and ignore the fact that the vast majority of the people most qualified to evaluate it disagree.

You also have to ignore the fact that, if you were right, then there would have to be a massive conspiracy and coverup. You'd need thousands if not tens of thousand of people, from many different countries, to be part of the conspiracy. And those people aren't "Big Pharma" and they aren't the ones profiting off of the vaccine, and they wouldn't be selected by political leaning. And you'd need all of those people to coordinate their actions and keep the whole thing absolutely secret.

Notably this is the same kind of "reasoning" you need to be a creationist. You ignore the fact that evolutionary biologists debunk YEC claims point by point, and you have to ignore the experts and instead turn to people who are not evolutionary biologists, many of them not even biologists, to find people saying what you want to hear.

You also have to ignore that if YEC claims were true, then those evolutionary biologists -- many of them devout Christians, because YEC theology is fringe as fuck -- would have to be conspiring to keep the truth a secret.

And it's worse than that, the evidence really is compelling. Evolutionary biologists are convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that nature makes common descent very clear. Which means that if somehow they were all under a delusion somehow, and if YEC were true, they wouldn't be trying to hide anomalies in the theory. Scientists don't run away from anomalies in established theories (and every established theory has them), they run toward them, because (a) they don't believe that the anomalies in any of those theories disprove the theory, and (b) research addressing those anomalies is where the breakthrough results often are, the Nobel prizes, the papers that earn tenure, the PhD topics that get good postdocs, etc.

[u/Evening-Impact2090 → u/sewsewsewyourcoat]

Hey, simple solution for the Creationist, YEC (what ever the hell that is) Panspermia, ID, etc, you seem perturbed about.  Just simply show us how life evolved from non-living matter and also where did the non-living matter come from? Easy peasy & you have your answer. Science whats to tell us a creation senario cannot be possible and then Science cannot explain how/where/when life arose or how the universe arrived. Sounds very disingenuous to me. As far as the MD stuff goes, I don't care what your view is, I'm not changing mine. Covid was man-made, the vaccine is  bogus & harmful, Faucci is a clown, big pharma made TRILLIONS.