For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Shemjaza]

Well said. It's more wishful thinking than science.

Consider dog breeders, for example, who have over thousands of years tried every trick imaginable in their attempts to produce novel breeds, but they've discovered that exploiting genetic variations has limits ... push the envelope too far and the result is sickly, weak, unfit dogs - that is devolution, the opposite of evolution!
In the light of such genetic limitations, macroevolution (by natural means) appears to be nothing more than a unscientific fantasy.

That is blatantly untrue.

Dogs have been specifically bred and inbred for traits, not for health or fitness in the wild.

If devolution were a consequence then all life would have the same problems... you only have an example of humans creating an environment where sickliness was not a significant disadvantage and novel or specifically unusual traits were significant advantages.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Macroevolution is not an "observed" anything - it has never been observed and is nothing more than an assumption.

If, by 'macroevolution', you mean speciation, i.e. one species giving rise to a new species, it has been observed many times, both in the lab and in the wild.

Furthermore, thousands of years of humans experimenting with microevolution - in the form of animal and plant breeding - strongly suggest that macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

Not really - domestic cattle (species Bos taurus) were bred from a wild ancestor, the aurochs (species Bos primigenius). The same kind of speciation applies to numerous human-bred species of plants and animals.

If speciation is not what you mean by 'macroevolution', what do you mean by it? i.e. what definition are you using?

 

[AV1611VET]

If, by 'macroevolution', you mean speciation, i.e. one species giving rise to a new species, it has been observed many times, both in the lab and in the wild.

Is that how we got Apis mellifera?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is that how we got Apis mellifera?

No, they were brought to America by European colonists.

 

[AV1611VET]

No,

They how they hybrids?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They how they hybrids?

Well, first off, you need the bee from one species that is close enough to the bee of another species that you can crossbreed them together without damaging the genome and creating fertility issues.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that how we got Apis mellifera?

I'm no honey bee expert, but AIUI, they have been selected for certain beneficial features, but are not considered sufficiently different from the ancestral population to constitute a new species - although there are numerous subspecies.

 

[Buzzard3]

That is blatantly untrue.

Dogs have been specifically bred and inbred for traits, not for health or fitness in the wild.

If devolution were a consequence then all life would have the same problems... you only have an example of humans creating an environment where sickliness was not a significant disadvantage and novel or specifically unusual traits were significant advantages.

I can't think of any reason why natural selection would be any more conducive to macroevolution than artificial selection

That is blatantly untrue.

Dogs have been specifically bred and inbred for traits, not for health or fitness in the wild.

If devolution were a consequence then all life would have the same problems... you only have an example of humans creating an environment where sickliness was not a significant disadvantage and novel or specifically unusual traits were significant advantages.

Since artificial selection encounters genetic barriers, so will natural selection.

 

[Shemjaza]

I can't think of any reason why natural selection would be an6 more condu

Since artificial selection encounters genetic barriers, so will natural selection.

But you haven't demonstrated any genetic barriers.

Artificial selection from specifically bred domestic breeds creates an odd environment where traits that would be severely negative in most natural environments are either neutral or positive.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you haven't demonstrated any genetic barriers.

QV please:

God is a god of boundaries,

Psalm 104:9a Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over;

... and He has apparently set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

What that boundary is specifically I don't know.

I would guess it is sterility.

Also:

I too have been asked that question before, and I said it could end at sterility, extinction, or just plain end.

If God has a quota on their generations, I'm sure at some point it would hit a "brick wall."

 

[Buzzard3]

If, by 'macroevolution', you mean speciation, i.e. one species giving rise to a new species, it has been observed many times, both in the lab and in the wild.

By "macroevolution" I mean one Class of organisms evolving into a different Class of organisms.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, first off, you need the bee from one species that is close enough to the bee of another species that you can crossbreed them together without damaging the genome and creating fertility issues.

Those genetic barriers are a jolly nuisance, aren't they?

 

[Buzzard3]

But you haven't demonstrated any genetic barriers.

I want a guard dog as big as a horse, but those useless dog breeders can't build me one. Guess I'll have to get an evolutionary scientist to fill that order.

 

[Shemjaza]

By "macroevolution" I mean one Class of organisms evolving into a different Class of organisms.

What do you mean by class and do you have an example from evolutionary theory that you disagree with?

Those genetic barriers are a jolly nuisance, aren't they?

If they existed, they would be... but I don't think you can demonstrate or even define them.

 

[Shemjaza]

I want a guard dog as big as a horse, but those useless dog breeders can't build me one. Guess I'll have to get an evolutionary scientist to fill that order.

Yeah, and I can't build the pyramids with four friends and an afternoon either... I guess it must have been aliens.

 

[SelfSim]

By "macroevolution" I mean one Class of organisms evolving into a different Class of organisms.

Why?
(No-one who understands evolution has it mean that).

 

[Buzzard3]

Why?
(No-one who understands evolution has it meaning that).

I have deemed that the difference in disparity between different taxonomic Classes is the minimum required for "macroevolution" to have occurred.

Let it so and let it be written in all the land. I have spoken.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have deemed that the difference in disparity between different taxonomic Classes is the minimum required for "macroevolution" to have occurred.

Let it so and let it be written in all the land. I have spoken.

...okay.

So, the variation of humans, whales, apes, rats, kangaroos and platypuses is all micro evolution because they are still in the class mammalia?

That's an unusual take for a creationist.

Take a look at Permian Synapsids, they form the transition from the common ancestors of all amniotes to what would become mammals, as opposed to the sauropsids who were ancestral to reptiles and birds.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Those genetic barriers are a jolly nuisance, aren't they?

Not really, they highlight evolution perfectly. Tigers and lions are still big cats, belonging to the Felindae family, but they can't create viable, fertile offspring. We'd expect to see that in evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

It is easy to say macroevolution is an impossibility yet no creationist has been able to explain how evolution natural selections dead ends at the micro level. Apologetics is not science.

The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. Creationists claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly.​

Observed Natural Selection
The observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.
The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments.
Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution overall; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.

Source...​