Going from flying birds to swimming birds is not the same as a completely new species. And as of yet, there is no evidence of macro. A bunch of micro does not mean macro.
Discussion
They are different species. Penguins can’t mate with flying birds.
Yea and Im pretty sure an eagle cant mate with a robin either. But they are all birds.
Yes. Eagles and robins are different species though.
Still birds. You know what I meant
I’m not sure why you keep saying they’re still just birds. Micro evolutions that lead a flying bird to becoming a swimming bird would be macro evolution.
No thats micro. The mechanics of the wings and the flippers are the same. Adaptation to their environments. Micro. Macro would be a completely different animal. No different than a black bear or polar bear. Adaptation to environment, not a major evolutionary change
What is macro evolution then? Because I’m not understanding
Things like a fish craws out of the water and becomes a whole new creature. Or a single cell organism suddenly births a complex life form. I mean its possible Im misunderstanding it, but that's the type of thing I think of when its spoken of
dNA begets dNA
It doesn’t just crawl out and become a new creature. The sea animal evolves through natural selection to survive better closer to the surface. Then natural selection favors the sea animal that spends some time outside of the water. So it’s like a hybrid that can live sea and land. Think of hippos, frogs, and alligators. Then natural selection starts to favor different areas of land and different diets. Some animals lose their efficiency to breathe underwater because it is metabolically inefficient. Those animals have better survival rates and that eliminates the more efficient hybrid breathers. Eventually the ability to breathe underwater is completely lost. 
You can explain neo-darwinism to me all you want. Its not gonna change my mind. I know the arguments and I disagree with the claims. I get the impression you think Im some young earth Biblical creationist or something like that or that I am just coming to conclusions without having put in the time to understand all sides. None of which are the case.
No brother I don’t think that about you. I’ve discussed with you enough times in the past to know you’re not ignorant.
i was taking no offense, just got the impression you werent getting where I was coming from with what I was saying. Using the word creation sometimes gives the wrong impression of where Im coming from so just wanted to clarify a bit that I wasnt arguing Genesis as fact or anything.
I also want to add, my original post wasnt really about whether evolution is real or not. Just that if life can be created in a intentionally designed solution of primordial goo, then it proves creation/design as the experiment was designed and created by an external force. Even if macro is true, I dont see how it automatically rules out creation/ design. And to be clear, I am not really speaking of Biblical creation or similar. Just that some entity/ force/ spark/something made all of this. Not implying a bearded dude in the clouds or anything, just a force we have yet to understand, and probably never will
I recommend you read a book called why evolution is true. All the evidence you can ask for is in that book.
One book has it all? Yea I doubt it. I avoid anything and anyone on any topic that claims to have all the answers.
The book compiles and summarizes the research from
Darwin, to the archaeologists studying the fossils, to the research on dna. There are hundreds of references to other research and books. It’s a collection of evidence.
Well, Darwin's research is flawed and even he questioned some of his own conclusions later in life, particularly the micro proving macro theory.
How is it flawed?
When he himself re-thinks his conclusions but his advocates ignore that part, its flawed. He stated that eyes being the same in all animals that have them disproves evolution. That evolution could not have possibly lead to all operating identically and being structurally identical. His words not mine
That’s normal. You’re supposed to question and scrutinize your own theories. What matters is if the theories have been disproven.
Yes it is, but his modern devotees ignore those things since it breaks their narratives
Idk about those people so I won’t comment
The scientists who promote darwinism is what I am talking about. Like those who's resesrch would be in the book you told me about. They ignore all of Darwins questioning of his own work. Modern Darwinism is very divergent from Darwin.
I can’t comment on that idk what those questions are. The eye ball one I already shared the evidence for. I will add that Darwin came up with his theory a long time ago and he didn’t live long enough to expand on the new evidence that we’ve found. New fossils and dna gave us a clearer picture. Also a lot of his focus was on plants and how you could actively select for certain traits. Darwin talked about how breeders of plants and animals seem to understand evolution better because they’re seeing it in a simulated environment.