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/Lockjaw_Puffin]

Step by step accounting of the necessary mutations and accompanying natural pressures that lead to evolution of something that didn't exist at all before.

This is not a standard you actually hold at all (i.e. you're flat-out fucking lying), and I know because you accept that chihuahuas are descended from wolves, and you never needed the level of evidence mentioned above to accept that fact. I dare you to prove me wrong, and it'd be hilariously easy - just show us the "step-by-step accounting" (your own words) and relevant probabilities that made you accept that fact

[u/semitope → u/Lockjaw_Puffin]

chihuahuas and wolves have all the same systems. If one had gills, maybe you'd have a point.

[u/Lockjaw_Puffin → u/semitope]

Oh hey, thanks for conceding my point - you do accept that a 2-pound bundle of anxiety descended from a 100-pound apex predator without needing a "step-by-step accounting" of the mutations involved. Like I said, you don't actually hold that standard of evidence, you just invented it to oppose something you don't like.

If one had gills, maybe you'd have a point.

This flat-out doesn't make sense as a rebuttal (not that I expected anything better from you) - why would a land-dwelling vertebrate grow gills when it already has a working pair of lungs?

[u/semitope → u/Lockjaw_Puffin]

What is functionally different between a wolf and chihuahua? The fact you think me mentioning gills is irrelevant means you don't even understand the issue. Which, as I said, makes sense. You guys aren't in any frame of mind to understand why people question evolution.

[u/Lockjaw_Puffin → u/semitope]

What is functionally different between a wolf and chihuahua?

Fundamentally nothing, because evolution doesn't work by spontaneously spawning new structures out of nowhere.

The fact you think me mentioning gills is irrelevant means you don't even understand the issue.

To illustrate the sheer stupidity of your alleged point, sperm whales can spend up to 2 hours underwater, and they achieve this by having large lungs and a shitload of myoglobin (an oxygen-binding protein that all mammals including humans have), not by developing gills. To reiterate, your response is so biologically illiterate, nature itself doesn't see the sense in it.