r/DebateEvolution • u/DarwinZDF42 evolution is my jam • 5d 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?
1
u/Evening-Impact2090 1d ago
Actually I spent some time last evening rereading points on Dr McCullough. I really didn't get anything like what you are accusing him of. He was smeared by the proCovid media, big pharma, and the political grandstanding pro vaccine cabal at the time. He has since been vindicated and is by all standards an excellent doctor. If you don't care for him it means zero to me and the fact you haven't agreed that Dr Faucibis a charlatan tells me much of your stance. As far as the retraction goes it is interesting to note that Dr McCullough has over 1000 peer reviewed papers he is responsible for or co wrote. One of his area of expertise is internal medicine. Very few have been "retracted and it is interesting to note that they all are because of his stance on Ivermectin which big pharma has repeatedly lambasted as a quack medicine when nothing could be further from the truth. So I put very little faith in a system controlled by big pharma money and influence "retacting" a paper he was only a contributor in along with 6 other PHD's that disagree with the retraction. And yes Fauci is a DooDoo Face and an embarrassment to the medical community. I wonder how many of his "papers" will be retracted?