Macroevolution vs Variation within Kinds - What's the difference really??

Call Me Emo

New Member
Written by; Emotionally Stunted Emoticon

Argument: "There's no evidence for Macroevolution or Macroevolution is impossible" - Standing For Truth

SFT seems to have no problem accepting Microevolution as he usually labels it "variation with kinds", but he doesn't accept Macroevolution and argues that not only is there no evidence to support it, but also that it cannot happen.
But SFT also accepts speciation, and Macroevolution starts with speciation, which means that he already accepts Macroevolution….. Right???
Wrong,.....SFT attempts to redefine Macroevolution to mean biological change from one "Kind" to another "Kind" of organism, and since we've never witnessed the evolution of a new "Kind" he can easily dismiss any observed evidence of Evolution as being microevolution.

During a debate I had last year with Bill Morgan, I argued that macroevolution can be indirectly confirmed the grafting of different plant species, since only closely relay plants that are capable of Grafting successfully [2], to which I then showed that for example Tomatoes and Tobacco can be be grafted. So SFT and RawMatt later did a "response" to my opening statement of that said debate, and strangely enough, both SFT and RawMatt accepted that plants which can be grafted to each other are related [1], and even went as far as to accept that all of the members within each of three plant families (Solanaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Poaceae) are related "the same kind"........ But regardless of the actual diversity present within each of the families [figure 1-3], because they're now regarded as being of the same "Kind", SFT/RawMattt only consider it as being microevolution.
Screenshot_20200315-212918.png
Figure 1: Various Species with the 'Nightshade Kind'.

Screenshot_20200315-212927.png
Figure 2: Various Species within the 'Cucurbitaceae Kind'.

Screenshot_20200315-213020.png
Figure 3: Various Species within the 'Grass Kind'.

What is obvious here is that because SFT never defines or give criteria as to what he would accept as Macroevolution, he can easily lump any number of species within the same "Kind" regardless of how different they are, and argue that the differences between them are only microevolutionary changes because they're still the same "Kind".

At the end of the day, SFT doesn't get to redefine words in biology that were invented by Biologists. He either uses the terminology in the way they're meant to be used, or invent his own. The grafting of closely related yet vastly different plant species is a testament to the fact that Macroevolution can and has occurred, regardless of what Creationists have to say about it. And quite frankly I fail to see how someone could accept that Tomato and Tobacco, or Corn and Bamboo are related and argue that this STILL doesn't count as Macroevolution. I suspect the only reason why it doesn't count as Macroevolution is because "its still a plant" and not a fucking frog.

Question For Standing For Truth
What are your most minimum criteria for what counts as Macroevolution, and explain how it is different from the variation you already accept within "Kinds"??


  1. Creationist Camp - Emotionally Stunted Emoticon gets educated (part 1) [Time stamp 27:35]
  2. Plant Grafting, Charles W.Melnyk et al. 2015 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215000603
 
Top