Creationists' examples of impossible macroevolution

What examples have you seen the most, or have stood out to you the most, of things Creationists say couldn't have evolved because they're too macro? For example, do they seem to bring up the difference between flying and not-flying but mostly ignore the difference between egg-laying and live birth, or obsess over the eggs/placenta thing but never mention the variety of teeth & beaks & such? Does it seem strange how much they focus on dogs, cats, elephants, and the fish-to-terrestrial-vertebrates transition and how little interest they seem to have in what you might see as more interesting but neglected areas like how the liver extrudes away from the intestinal lining, or deuterostomes seeming to be upside-down or backward with our heads twisted around or attached the wrong way, or where limbs came from in previously limbless lineages, or practically everything about the non-animal kingdoms, or how anatomical symmetries work?

I've been sort of collecting a list of what seem to me to be the major points to illustrate along the way in the shortest possible summary of evolutionary history from a lifeless Earth to the most complex organisms we have now. Although the idea was partially inspired by Creationist demands for a complete explanation of the whole story "from molecules to man", I started noticing that a list of what seem to be the major points to me and a list of answers to specific Creationist claims/questions/challenges/whatever would make two different lists, with I'm not even sure how much overlap. Does it seem to you that they not only get wrong what they do look at, but don't even pick the right things to look at...

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3ciSrPh