YECs do NOT reject speciation (macroevolution)

Yes, I know.  You pick and choose what you want.  But there are still many examples of what evolutionary biologists call macroevolution that you accept and have no problem with, so that's at least something positive and an area of agreement and common ground.

We all pick and choose what we want, you think there is anyone who doesn't? There are plenty of things that I agree with yes, but that is no different than anything else. I disagree with some views on ID and YEC, but I agree with many things there too. I hate the idea of getting pigeon-toed as I believe this or that therefore I'm this or that.

OK

Can you give me, @tbwp10, (or anyone else) an example of observable (scientific methodi) macroevolutionic change from one KIND to another. I'm not talking about micro adaptation, but macro change (i.e from a one-celled organism to a frog). Also can you give me any evidence that nature itself could have created the 120 specific complex macromolecules in amnio acids by chance? I am seriously not trying to be disrespectful here, I just want the proof, y'know?

Sure.  First, it seems like you are asking me to comment on two different things: biological evolution and the origin of life/abiogenesis.  That is, your question about the origin of complex macromolecules by chance is a question about abiogenesis/the origin of life, which strictly speaking is different from biological evolution, so let me address that one first.  When it comes to abiogenesis, science currently has no convincing naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.  It seems statistically more likely for a physical law of the universe to be 'violated' or reverse itself, than for the spontaneous 'chance' formation of even a single, functional protein or gene of average length. 

Regarding the issue of evolution and 'macroevolution' specifically let me see if I can illustrate the point of the OP by an example.  I think doing so will help clarify what I'm saying (and not saying).  Here's the example: 

Around the Arctic Circle there are different populations of gulls as shown in the diagram below such that gull population 1 can interbreed with gull population 2, and 2 can interbreed with 3, and 3 with 4, and 4 with 5, and 5 with 6.  Some individuals of population 6 migrated across the Atlantic Ocean to form population 7.  Now as it so happens, population 7 and population 1 do NOT interbreed. 

Now before I go any further let's make sure that we're both on the same page.  All these populations including population 7 are still the *same* type of bird--namely, different varieties of Arctic gulls.  In fact, there is NO noticeable difference in appearance between the gulls in these 7 populations.  Now am I correct in saying that you do NOT have a problem with this type of change (because in fact there has been NO visible change in morphology at all)?  This is NOT the type of *evolution* you have a problem with, correct?  You reject large scale major changes, correct (but don't have a problem when there has been only small alterations or in this case no visible alteration in morphology at all), yes?  

What do the gulls become?

The gulls are still gulls

So it is not changing KIND?

I only have a problem with it because there is no evidence for it

No evidence for what, macroevolution?

But you have no problem with the Arctic gull example, correct?

In the case of the gulls, that is hybridization or microevolution, it is there, we see it, it is true. So, no, I don't "have a problem with it."

And that's the point of this OP: to illustrate the misunderstanding YECs have when it comes to scientific terms like 'macroevolution' and 'speciation'.  

The point of this OP is NOT to argue for or against macroevolution, but simply to show the importance of being on the same page when it comes to definitions. 

The Arctic gull example actually *is* an example of *macroevolution*.  Now you might object that it can't be an example of 'macroevolution' because there was no large scale change in morphology.  But that is NOT the scientific definition of 'macroevolution' and that is what I'm getting at.  YECs often start with an incorrect understanding; a wrong definition of what macroevolution is. 

To biologists, 'macroevolution' is 'evolution at or above the species level', and two organisms are typically considered to be different species if they cannot reproduce and have fertile offspring together.

The Arctic gull population 7 and 1 do not interbreed, so they are classified as separate species.  In other words, the Arctic gull example is an example of speciation--two populations that no longer interbreed--and speciation is an example of 'macroevolution'--evolution at or above the species level.

Now you may still object that they're all still gulls.  And that again is EXACTLY my point!

You see it is a common misconception that speciation involves great, large scale changes in morphology.  But that is not true.  While speciation/macroevolution *can* involve large changes it does not have to and most of the time it doesn't. 

You see, speciation--the origin of a new species--usually does NOT happen with large changes in morphology.   All we need for speciation is organisms to stop interbreeding.  If organisms in a population stop breeding then they are classified as different species *by definition*.

For example, there are thousands of different species of frogs.  Each one is a separate example of macroevolution/speciation.

This is one of the reasons biologists say that macroevolution/speciation is a fact (and an observable fact at that!).

Now remember, I'm not arguing against you.  I'm simply trying to help you see the misunderstanding that happens when YECs use words like 'macroevolution' and 'speciation' in a way that is different from how scientists actually define those terms. 

YECs say 'I don't believe in macroevolution/speciation', just microevolution', BUT they don't realize that there are thousands of examples of macroevolution/speciation that involve *little to no change* that they actually DO accept and have no problem with (like the Arctic gulls example of macroevolution!).

This causes misunderstanding and communication problems right off the bat, because YECs misunderstand what biologists mean by the term 'macroevolution'.

***To correct this problem, YECs should instead say that they have no problem with microevolution AND that they have no problem with MOST examples of macroevolution/speciation; only macroevolution/speciation that ALSO involves large scale changes.

***In sum: YECs don't actually have a problem with most macroevolution/speciation because most macroevolution/speciation involves little to no change in morphology.  If YECs understood what scientists actually mean by 'macroevolution' they would realize they don't have a problem with most examples of macroevolution/speciation.

macroevolution măk″rō-ĕv″ə-loo͞′shən, -ē″və-
►
n.
Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.
n.
Large-scale patterns or processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organism designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations and extinctions.
n.
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups

And the simplest, most basic form of macroevolution is the 'formation of new species' and most new species form with little to no change in morphology like the Arctic gulls example or thousands of different species of frogs that are all still frogs.

Hmm, however that doesn't explain how whales, for example, lost legs, or how fish gained them. 

Those are separate issues we can certainly talk about.  The point of this OP, however, is simply to correct the misunderstanding YECs have about what biologists actually mean by 'macroevolution' and 'speciation'.  From what I can tell you seem to get the gist of what I'm saying, and just by demonstrating that you understand the nuances I'm talking about this will automatically give you a level of respect and credibility that is too often sorely lacking among YECs.

If in a conversation you're able to say, 'Hey, I recognize and don't have a problem with microevolution and most examples of macroevolution/speciation that involve little to no change....it's the cases of macroevolution/speciation that involve large changes in morphology that I question..."

Wow!  That would be impressive.  I am a biologist and if I heard someone demonstrate that level of understanding I would say to myself here is someone who understands what they're talking about.  Here is someone who is starting from a place of understanding--not misunderstanding.  Here is someone who has taken the time to actually learn what scientists mean by terms like 'macroevolution' and 'speciation' instead of continually misunderstanding and misusing the terms.

***It's like I always tell students.  It's OK to disagree, but first understand what precisely it is that you are disagreeing with so you present yourself as educated on the matter.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying!!! I am educated on the matter of Evolution, but more on Creationism and the refutation of Evolutionism. However, thank you so much for having a civil discussion with me even though we don't agree! It is refreshing to know that people are able to do that

Ditto.  Sounds like we're on the same page when it comes to terms.  May I suggest we jump to a new thread and continue the conversation?

First, I think it's important to understand terms and definitions.  It seems like we've accomplished that here.

To me, the next logical step is to clarify what precisely YECs object to.  That is, YECs say they 'don't believe in large scale changes between KINDS, only small changes within KINDS'.  But what *precisely* does that mean? How much evolution is 'too much' and how do you know?  Where do you draw the line and on what basis do you do so?  What exactly is a 'kind'?

I have yet to see any YEC provide clear definitions and objective criteria for distinguishing between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' evolution.  If you can shed light on all this and provide clarification that would be great.

I started a separate thread on the subject so it might be easier to jump to that post where you can respond directly to it with your thoughts on the subject: 'How much is too much evolution?'