The Instigator
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
blaze8
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

All arguments against Evolution is invalid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 19 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,280 times Debate No: 42576
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (65)
Votes (19)

 

Romanii

Pro

I will be arguing that all arguments that supposedly "disprove" the theory of evolution are totally invalid and based on misunderstanding of theory's workings.

Debate Rules:
1) In Round 1, Con will provide his/her main arguments against the theory of Evolution
2) NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 5

I wish my future opponent good luck.
blaze8

Con

I'll accept this debate. Here is my argument:

1) The Theory of Evolution states that animals evolve over millions of years through natural selection. The genes of those creatures selected for survival are passed on, and so on and so on, until we reach current day.
2) Evolution points to the fossil record for its proof.

Unfortunately for Evolution,however, the jump from a Fossil record that shows minute changes in the structure and genetic makeup of organisms to definitive proof of evolution is beyond its reach, for the moment.

We do have a fossil record which appears to consist of, as your video called them, "transitional species." However, we have no causal relationship between the genetic development of those species, and the theory of evolution. It is impossible to establish a causal relationship between the two without observing the change in genetic makeup of every single species, both transitional and non-transitional, in real time. Without a causal relationship, Evolution is truly nothing more than a theory, no matter how much of the fossil record you may unearth. Correlation in the fossil record with the expectations of the Theory of Evolution does not imply causation, that is, we have no real proof Evolution caused the changes in the genetic makeup of those organisms, nor is it possible to obtain such proof. The DNA we may salvage from fossils is incomplete on an extraordinary scale, and any attempts to complete the gene code have a probability of error. It is, therefore, impossible to say for certain that Evolution is the cause of organic and genetic development over the course of Earth's History.
Debate Round No. 1
Romanii

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I'm going to jump straight into the rebuttals:


"...the jump from a Fossil record that shows minute changes in the structure and genetic makeup of organisms to definitive proof of evolution is beyond its reach..."

Fossils don't form that easily, and we have only dug up a tiny portion of the Earth's crust, so it is to be expected that we don't have a fossil showing every tiny change that has ever happened in a species. However, we do have fossils showing all the major stages in pretty much every species' evolution. They are called transitional fossils, leading me into my next rebuttal.

"Correlation in the fossil record with the expectations of the Theory of Evolution does not imply causation, that is, we have no real proof Evolution caused the changes in the genetic makeup of those organisms, nor is it possible to obtain such proof."
Wow, this is a new one: an anti-evolutionist acknowledging the existence of transitional fossils and still managing to denounce evolution by declaring that "they aren't enough to serve as proof". So, if Evolution didn't cause those genetic changes, then what did? According to the Bible, God created all animals in their present-day states.

And by the way, even if transitional fossils somehow didn't count as proof of Evolution, there is still lots more to show (2)


SOURCES:

(1) http://archaeology.about.com...
(2) http://evolutionandgod.com...#

blaze8

Con

Before I address Pro's arguments, I would like to point out that he still has not solved the problem posed by my argument. Correlation does not imply Causation. This is a basic tennent of all Scientific Research. Without providing causal proof, which can only be observed in real time, Evolution falls short of explaining our development. It is, therefore, an inadaquate explanation, and cannot be accepted as fact.

Fossils don't form that easily, and we have only dug up a tiny portion of the Earth's crust, so it is to be expected that we don't have a fossil showing every tiny change that has ever happened in a species. However, we do have fossils showing all the major stages in pretty much every species' evolution. They are called transitional fossils, leading me into my next rebuttal.

The key here is the following excerpt: "However, we do have fossils showing all the major stages in pretty much every species evolution." How do you know? Those fossils are separated by millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of years. Who is to say that a major stage did not take place between the two fossils we have on record and was not captured in fossil form? Your transitional fossils may only be a piece of the puzzle, and the true explanation may elude biologists and archeologists still. Again, Evolution lacks the vital causal factors. Your own statement that fossils don't form that easily undermines your argument. It casts doubt upon what we have unearthed, by exposing the rarity of any fossils. Given that they are, as you have pointed out, a rare occurrence, what reason do we have to logically believe that the fossils we have unearthed are the ones that were selected for? We have none. We can speculate, but we lack the causal factors, and therefore, any speculations we have conducted, including the theory of evolution, is porous in its analysis and has a high probability of misrepresenting history.

With regards to your second point, you have now gone beyond the scope of this debate. My task was not to provide an alternative to Evolution. Rather, my task was to argue against Evolution. I have done so, and you have failed to address my argument. Rather, you have provided me with further justification for my argument. Furthermore, not once did I mention Christianity. So bringing Christianity into this argument is irrelevant. One does not have to be religious to argue against Evolution.

So I challenge you once again to provide me with a reasonable reason to make the incredible jump for correlation to causation that your own Science and mathematics say is impossible to make. Show me the causal proof that those changes in the fossil record are due to Evolution. I ask this knowing that you cannot provide it, with the goal of moving this debate forward.
Debate Round No. 2
Romanii

Pro

"Correlation does not imply Causation. This is a basic tennent of all Scientific Research."
Actually there ARE cases when correlation does imply causation (1). These cases mostly occur when THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR THE CORRELATION outside of Causation. There is NO explanation for why those transitional fossils exist other than Evolution.

"Those [transitional] fossils are separated by millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of years. Who is to say that a major stage did not take place between the two fossils we have on record and was not captured in fossil form?"
If we were to discover a fossil representing a new transitional species between two already known transitional species, then we would simply publish the new findings... I don't understand why the possibility of finding new transitional fossils invalidates evolution. If anything, that possibility only serves to prove the theory of Evolution even further.

"Given that they are, as you have pointed out, a rare occurrence, what reason do we have to logically believe that the fossils we have unearthed are the ones that were selected for?"
We know that the unearthed fossils are those of species who were naturally selected for because we can see that their descendants still continued the survive millions of years later. And again, you bring up correlation/causation, but we CAN assume causation if there is no better explanation for the correlation.

"My task was not to provide an alternative to Evolution. Rather, my task was to argue against Evolution. I have done so, and you have failed to address my argument."
Like I have said two times now, unless you have a better theory, we can assume causation for the correlation. Evolution is one of the most logical theories in the world. No other theory gives a better explanation for all the trends we see than evolution.

And actually, we HAVE seen evolution happening in bacteria by the SAME principles that macroevolution functions on(2).
It is illogical to believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution.

"So I challenge you once again to provide me with a reasonable reason to make the incredible jump for correlation to causation"
Since I have invalidated your correlation/causation argument, I would like to respond with my own challenge: to show even one part of natural history that evolution hasn't explained, or to show one logical fallacy within the theory of evolution itself.
And by the way, you have failed to address the fact that there is LOTS of evidence for evolution OUTSIDE of transitional fossils (see link 2 of round 2 argument).


SOURCES:
(1) http://stats.stackexchange.com...;
(2) http://www.pbs.org...




blaze8

Con

Actually there ARE cases when correlation does imply causation (1)

Actually, there aren't. You have further illustrated my point once again. The example you provided is a controlled experiment, the results of which are observed in real time. Evolution cannot conduct a controlled genetic experiment on animals that are dead. Because Evolution draws its support from the fossil record, it is impossible to conduct an experiment like the one in your example to show that there is a causal link. This is precisely my argument. You once again have proved my point. The presence or absence of a "better theory" does not remove or bestow causation.


"I dont understand why the possibility of finding new transitional fossils invalidates evolution."

Like so: You find a new "transitional fossil." Only rather than progress, the species seems to have regressed. Yet your dating methods place it chronologically between the two existing fossils. How do you explain it with evolution? The finding of the new fossil would invalidate the vital assumption you are making, that each fossil we find is from a species that is selected for survival by nature. Which brings me to your next point. You have no way of knowing whether the fossil you have was selected for survival or against. You may hypothesize that the creatures you see today are descendants of the fossil, but because you lack the ability to observe the course of that species' evolution in real time, you cannot actually say they are descendants. Furthermore, due to the genetic degeneration of DNA in fossils, you have no method of confirming their genetic link.

It is not illogical at all. Bacteria are single-cell organisms. You cannot extrapolate the evolutionary tendences of single-cell organisms to multi-cell organisms. And even if you could, you still have not shown how evolution caused the changes in the multi-cellular organisms you dig up in fossils.

Your challenge is irrelevant to the debate. If you wanted me to offer an alternative, you should have made it a rule. I refuse your challenge, due to it's irrelevancy. The burden of proof is on you to show me that my argument is incorrect.


To sum up my argument so far:
1) Evolution has not established a causal relationship between it's theory and the genetic development of fossilized organisms.
2) Evolution cannot establish a causal relationship between it's theory and the genetic development of fossilized organisms without observing and recording that development in real time, which is impossible without time travel.
3) Because Evolution uses the fossil record for support, and ancient DNA is prone to extensive degeneration and even mutation post-mortem, any attempt to genetically link a fossilized species with another, or a fossilized species with a living specimen will not have the necessary components to make the link reliable.

For these reasons, Evolution fails as an explanation for the development of life on Earth.

Your second link is broken. Lastly, I would like to remind Pro that wikipedia and forum posts are not considered reliable sources when it comes to an intelligent debate. My argument has no sources at the moment because I am relying on logic and a basic tennet of science to make my claim.
Debate Round No. 3
Romanii

Pro



"Evolution cannot conduct a controlled genetic experiment on animals that are dead. Because Evolution draws its support from the fossil record..."
Actually, we HAVE seen evolution. MACROevolution (1). Not just microevolution (which should be enough, anyways, but I will get to that later.)
Additionally, you still have failed to address all the other major proofs of Evolution (2).

"You find a new "transitional fossil." Only rather than progress, the species seems to have regressed. Yet your dating methods place it chronologically between the two existing fossils. How do you explain it with evolution?"
And have you found such an occurence, yet? No. You haven't. When you do, you can come back and we'll talk about it. But since that has NEVER happened before, it is not evidence! It is beyond me how you think that the POSSIBILITY of finding evidence against it automatically invalidates the theory!
In that case, I can say that "We MIGHT some day find evidence that unicorns exist. Therefore, unicorns certainly exist."

"You have no way of knowing whether the fossil you have was selected for survival or against. You may hypothesize that the creatures you see today are descendants of the fossil, but because you lack the ability to observe the course of that species' evolution in real time, you cannot actually say they are descendants."
That is ridiculous. We CAN say that they are descendants because just "looking alike" isn't the only thing scientists go off of to determine that two species are related. There is MUCH more that they have to do before deciding that (1).

"You cannot extrapolate the evolutionary tendences of single-cell organisms to multi-cell organisms. And even if you could, you still have not shown how evolution caused the changes in the multi-cellular organisms you dig up in fossils."
YES WE CAN. The only reason evolution-non-believers are forced to recognize microevolution is because it is so easily witnessable. However, it is TOTALLY illogical to believe that and not macroevolution because
1) Macroevolution HAS been witnessed a few times (2)
2) We have DNA just like bacteria. Our DNA self-replicates and mutates just like their's, so if Bacteria evolve due to their DNA replication, WE DO TOO. ALL organisms have DNA. ALL organisms evolve. You can't believe that only tiny organisms evolve, if all organisms have the same type of genetic code.

"Your challenge is irrelevant to the debate. If you wanted me to offer an alternative, you should have made it a rule. I refuse your challenge, due to it's irrelevancy."
No, you refuse my challenge because it is IMPOSSIBLE to win and you know it.
It IS relevant to the debate because, if a system is...
1) perfectly logical, and
2) there are no good alternative theories, AND
3) that system has evidence,
then it is only rational to accept that system as true.
You are currently trying to prove the third point that there is no evidence behind evolution. And you are failing at it. You are just trying to debunk one form of evidence for it (transitional fossils) simply by saying "transitional fossils aren't proof of evolution because they were most certainly caused by some other process which I refuse to describe because it would be irrelevant to the debate if I did."

To sum up my rebuttals to your arguments so far:
1) You haven't properly proved that transitional fossils don't serve as evidence
2) Even if you did, there is still much, much, more evidence you would have to disprove
3) Without giving alternative theories and proving that there is some sort of logical fallacy in the theory evolution, you cannot claim that it is false.

"I would like to remind Pro that wikipedia and forum posts are not considered reliable sources when it comes to an intelligent debate. My argument has no sources at the moment because I am relying on logic and a basic tennet of science to make my claim."
Yes, you are relying on faulty logic and are misinterpreting a basic tennet of science. Almost every scientist on the planet agrees that the patterns between various transitional fossils is proof of evolution, yet you boldly claim, without any basis at all, that it is not enough to serve as proof.


SOURCES:
(1) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...;
(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...;
blaze8

Con

Neither of your listed links work. Please remedy this.

With regards to your first three sentences, the excerpt from my argument did not deny that we have observed macro-evolution in certain species. Rather, my assertion is that we have no proof that evolution is the cause of the changes in fossilized and past species. We observe an occurrence happening around us, and you assume it must be the cause of what happened in the past. Yet, we can not make that assumption. It is inherently unscientific to do so. That is my argument.

It does not matter if I have not found such an occurrence yet. The theory has holes. That is just one of the holes. It attempts to generalize and compress millions of years of change into two steps, one species to another. It ignores any possibility that something may have happened in between the observed instances. Given your previous assertion that fossils are a rare occurrence, it would seem then that the theory of Evolution makes assumptions based on a small sample, relatively speaking, and not a population mean. As such, it is flawed! As to your oversimplification, the corrected form using my argument would be as follows: "We MIGHT some day find evidence that unicorns exist. Therefore, to assume now that unicorns do not exist and have never existed is incorrect."


Who mentioned appearances? I didn't. I argued that the DNA from ancient fossils is subject to degeneration and even mutation. This renders any comparison between species useless. Unless you have a perfectly preserved and complete DNA sequence for every species in earth's history, transitional or not, you can not assume they are related to current day species. And such a preserved and complete sequence is unobtainable. Appearances did not factor in my argument. Why even mention them then?

Do you understand what macroevolution and microevolution are? It seems to me as if you are operating with a different definition than the one I am accustomed to. Microevolution is the precise mechanism of evolution. Macroevolution is a large scale change in pattern overtime. Evolution has not existed as a theory long enough for such large-scale changes to be observed. Sure, you can show a relatively small number of examples of plant species and flies that have evolved in current day. But you can not say for certain that the process you witnessed by observing those plants and flies is the cause of the changes in fossil record. You have no proof that the process you witnessed is the cause of the changes in the fossil record, and to claim you do is dishonest.

I refused your challenge because it is beyond the scope of my task,as laid out by your own rules. It is not relevant at all. Your assertion itself is illogical. The presence or absence of alternative theories does NOT influence the rationality of the theory. A theory can be completely rational and still exist in a world of alternate, also rational theories. Your system's evidence is flawed. I did not say that transitional fossils are "most certainly caused by some other process." Rather, I said that Evolution has not been proven to be the certain cause of transitional fossils. And you never will be able to prove it. To do so would require time travel and observation of all species on earth over the entirety of earth's history.

To sum up my arguments then:

1) I have proved that transitional fossils don't serve to validate Evolution, because the cause of their existence is not determined for certain. Evolution may not be the cause, it may be the cause. We don't know. To say anything else is unscientific.
2) I need not disprove anything else. The assertion is that species exist they way they do today because of evolution through natural selection. It is the burden of those making that argument to show the causal relationship. Evolution can not do so at all. I need not disprove anything else.
3) Again, an alternate theory's existence or nonexistence is irrelevant. I can claim it is false, and I just did. Evolution may take place in the current day, but no one can prove that the development of species on earth over it's history is due to the precise process observed today.


Therefore, Evolution is insufficient in describing the development of living beings on Earth.

The way you set up this debate meant that I had only to provide my arguments, and then defend them. An alternate explanation was not in the parameters of this debate. Furthermore, I have not misinterpreted anything. My logic is perfectly sound. My basis is the scientific law regarding correlation and causation. I have accurately described it, appropriately applied it, and defended it against your lack of understanding. You have not disproven my position. And you have still failed to show me that evolution is the true cause of the history of the development of life on earth.
Debate Round No. 4
Romanii

Pro

I'm sorry to say this, but at this point, you are just making excuses.
The level of evidence you are requiring hasn't been found for ANY scientific theory. We would never make any scientific progress at all if all of us thought like you did.

"We observe an occurrence happening around us, and you assume it must be the cause of what happened in the past. Yet, we can not make that assumption. It is inherently unscientific to do so. That is my argument."
If we have seen evolution occuring in nature, and we know that all organisms have the same genetic mechanism for such a process to happen, AND we have at least suggestive proof of that it has been happening, then we CAN ASSUME that Evolution is what has been causing organisms to come and go over Earth's history. It is not "inherently unscientific". You are just blindly dismissing evidence because you don't want to believe in the theory.

"That is just one of the holes. It attempts to generalize and compress millions of years of change into two steps, one species to another. It ignores any possibility that something may have happened in between the observed instances."
Well, if we FIND something like that, then the scientific community surely wouldn't just dismiss it. They would do further research into it to see if they can learn something from it. In other words, if we found evidence that a unicorn existed, then we would reconsider our stance on the issue, but until then, it is ridiculous to claim that unicorns exist, since no one has ever witnessed one before. Out of the small sample of fossils we have uncovered 100% of it is in support of Evolution. And once again, it isn't just the fossil record supporting Evolution; there is also a lot of other evidence which you have failed to address.

"Evolution has not existed as a theory long enough for such large-scale changes to be observed."
So? We aren't going to wait for a million years before we proclaim it to be fact! There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution NOW, so why should we have to wait to actually observe it? We don't have to observe something firsthand to know that it is true. We can find evidence that it happened in the past and know that it is true.

"You have no proof that the process you witnessed is the cause of the changes in the fossil record, and to claim you do is dishonest."
Fossil record alone would probably not be enough to prove Evolution. However, I have mentioned MANY times now, that there is MUCH more than that proving Evolution!!!

"Evolution is insufficient in describing the development of living beings on Earth."
You cannot claim that until you either
1) show definite proof against the theory,
2) prove that there is a logical fallacy within the theory, or
3) present an alternative theory with equally valid evidence behind it
You have done none if these.
You made a pathetic attempt at disproving one form of evidence (transitional fossils) by saying it isn't enough, despite the fact that it IS enough and that there are many other forms of evidence out there that you didn't even mention.

"Your system's evidence is flawed. I did not say that transitional fossils are "most certainly caused by some other process." Rather, I said that Evolution has not been proven to be the certain cause of transitional fossils. And you never will be able to prove it."
You're right. I would never be able to prove anything to YOU. That's the beauty of denial; if you just keep saying "no, no, no, no, no, no, no" then I will eventually have nothing left to show you, since you denied all of it. And that, my friend, is what you have been doing this entire debate. You have just been continually refusing to accept the facts, instead saying that "no matter how much proof you give me, I will never accept it, because in my opinion it is not enough even though hundreds of thousands of scientists far more qualified than me, have verified that it IS enough."


"My logic is perfectly sound. My basis is the scientific law regarding correlation and causation. I have accurately described it, appropriately applied it, and defended it against your lack of understanding. You have not disproven my position. And you have still failed to show me that evolution is the true cause of the history of the development of life on earth."
Let me proclaim it loud and proud: you are an idiot. This may result in the loss of a conduct point, but I really don't care. Evolution is perfectly logical, has tons of evidence behind it, and has NO alternative theories. Your logic is flawed and you have no idea how to analyze evidence. You haven't disproved any part of the evidence backing evolution. All you have done is blindly claim that "it isn't enough".

Con has failed to prove anything.
Vote Pro.


blaze8

Con

This is laughable. Pro has not counteracted my argument at all. The level of evidence I am requiring is easily obtainable, for example, with the theory of gravity. If I drop something, and it falls, I can say a force has acted upon it. I have just conducted a controlled experiment testing the theory of gavity. Evolution can conduct no such test, and as such, can not be put on the same level as the theory of gravity, and should be dismissed until it can do so. I can indicate a causal relationship in the case of gravity. Evolution can not indicate a causal relationship.

You cannot make that assumption. You don't know that perhaps some outside force other than natural selection is what resulted in the changes in the fossil record. You are clearly inexperienced in the workings of science, probability, and logic.

All I need is to show that the premise of the theory is flawed. Nothing else is required. If the premise is flawed, the theory is flawed. By showing how it is not proven that natural selection is the reason for the development of earth's organic history, I have shown the flaws in the theory of evolution. By laying out how such flaws may be remedied, I have even helped your case. The fact that the process of remedying your flaws requires time and advanced technology is not my fault. It may be impossible at the moment to prove a causal relationship. When it does become possible, if there is a proven causal relationship, I will have to admit defeat. But because such a relationship is beyond the scope of Evolution as it stands now, we cannot accept Evolution as fact.

You aren't going wait for a million years before you proclaim it as fact? Then you are working off of unverified assumptions, and therefore, have destroyed your own argument.

I can indeed claim it is insufficient. None of the the three conditions you listed are required to show the insufficiency of the theory of Evolution.

Wanna know how you could prove the theory of evolution has a causal relationship with the fossil record? Simple. Observe every species on earth's process of continued evolution throughout history. Until you present me with a flow chart listing the process of every species in history being selected for and against, the conditions which led to the traits we see in their DNA, and the resulting organism, of course all of this having been directly observed and document in real time, you cannot claim a causal relationship. It's that simple. I'll even make it simpler. Using an approximation of the whole history of every species as the sample size, show with alpha equal to 5% or less that evolution occurs in a statistically significant population. That's how a scientist would conduct the experiment. And evolution cannot conduct that hypothesis test. And that hypothesis test alone would still not imply causation! If someone were to conduct this very test, it would still run into problems with the degeneration of DNA, which would represent a confounding variable. It would, however, be a good step towards proving the viability of the theory of Evolution.


Pro has not had a good argument against my main position from the beginning. He has failed to present the causal evidence. He has pointed incorrectly to modern day observations and attempted to extrapolate them back millions of years, something which is not possible to do without breaking scientific rules of conduct. Correlation is not causation. No one can prove evolution is the cause for the history of the development of life on earth. Until we can prove that, we must not accept Evolution as fact. Doing so would be illogical, as it would run against the accepted rules of mathematics and logic.

My task was not to prove anything. Rather, it was to lay out and then defend my position. I have done so. And Pro has failed to undermine my argument. Regardless of your personal views on the matter at hand, please evaluate this debate on the conduct and persuasiveness of the arguments for both sides. I thank Pro for the opportunity to participate, and wish him good luck.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@badbob
Actually, as many supposed vote bombers pointed out, Con only proved that Evolution MIGHT not be a PERFECT theory and therefore did not fulfill his BOP.
I agree I could have done better in this debate, though (by pointing out the above, for example)
Posted by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
There looks like a lot of vote bombers on this debate. I tried to look at the debate itself as opposed to the subject matter. Pro had the burden of proof to meet and did not meet it. Con did.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@DudeStop
No, his argument is that the evidence doesn't necessarily support Evolution.
Posted by tanquish123 3 years ago
tanquish123
very well thought romanii:)
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Is her argument that there is no evidence of evolution?
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Blaze, we can decide whether it is "progression" or "regression" based on whether or not the adaptations are beneficial in relation to the environmental trends of the time.
Posted by blaze8 3 years ago
blaze8
@rabidpenguin and Romanii, because there is no proof that the skeletons we unearth are those animals who were selected for survival or against, scientists would not be able to determine whether the change in the phenotypes represent progression or regression. Scientists speculate that the skeletons we see are selected for, and therefore represent progression, but they have no method of confirming this. Despite RoyLatham's comments on his voting, even genetic markers in non-coded aDNA come with caveats. The fact remains that genetic analyses of ancient DNA is unreliable, at best.

"DNA DEGRADATION AND PRESERVATION Within living cells, the integrity of DNA molecules is continually maintained by enzymatic repair processes (85). After the death of an organism, cellular compartments that normally sequester catabolic enzymes break down. As a consequence, the DNA is rapidly degraded by enzymes such as lysosomal nucleases. In addition, the DNA molecule faces an onslaught of bacteria, fungi, and insects that feed on and degrade macromolecules (26). Under rare circumstances, such as when a tissue becomes rapidly desiccated after death or the DNA becomes adsorbed to a mineral matrix, it may escape enzymatic and microbial degradation. On such occasions, slower but still relentless chemical processes start affecting the DNA..." [1]

The paper I just quoted examines the problems associated with analysis of ancient DNA in detail. With unreliable and incomplete samples, the task of showing one species is directly evolved from another is extremely difficult, and any amplification is based questionable in the integrity of its analysis.

Scientists, therefore, would not no the difference between regression and progression. They can hypothesize as to what might constitute regression, as Romanii has, but they have no way to know for sure.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@rabidpenguin: an example of sustained regression would be an animal evolving to become smaller and less hairy during an ice age. I'm actually not totally sure; it's hard to come up with an example of one since a sustained regression has never been found.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Yes, A-Priori, I realize I made a small grammar mistake in the title...
Kinda embarrassing since this debate has been viewed over 1000 times
Posted by a-priori 3 years ago
a-priori
"All arguments against Evolution ARE invalid."
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refrained from insults. Con started strong with arguments and answered pro's comeback. Con wins.
Vote Placed by supershamu 3 years ago
supershamu
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I can really only throw 1 point into this because I don't think either side drew too much blood on the other. The conduct point was because I feel Con maintained his composure better and didn't use the "loud and proud...you are an idiot" statement. In an argument we really need sources or it is a taking people at their word argument
Vote Placed by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd say that because pro refuted con's arguments, refrained from making insults, and actually used sources, he wins the debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: First, pro wins links because he was the only one that used them. Conduct went a little bit south due to the nature of this debate, but pro did refrain from making insults. As for S&G, con made a few more mistakes than pro and was a bit harder and less organized. On to arguments. I think arguments go to pro because he did successfully refute the majority of cons arguments while making strong ones himself. Please note I am an evolutionist so my vote is likely a little bit biased. Wow. A full seven point vote for pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's basic point is that since not every possible confirmation has been observed, the theory cannot be claimed valid. But that type of argument works against any scientific theory. It's always possible that something will emerge that invalidates a theory under some circumstances. That's doubt, not proof of a theory being invalid. If con actually showed sustained regression in a species over time, that would invalidate evolution, but he didn't show it, he just claimed it was possible. Pro could have made a better case. Genetic markers in non-coding DNA provide solid proof of common ancestors without any use of fossils. There is good theory that any large change can be accomplished by small changes. Pro could also offer expert scientific opinion. But despite But Con didn't even try to provide a proof of the theory being wrong; just a way it might be.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one with notable sources in this debate and took some insults from con. Conduct and sources so Pro. Arguments were equal and verily even on both sides. I wish there was no structure and direct rebuttals, but both sides presented a valid case in which neither clearly won. However sources and conduct to pro.
Vote Placed by 00r3d 3 years ago
00r3d
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro did refrain from petty insults. Argument: Entry level stats classes state correlation does not imply causality... once you get over that, all Pro has it a long list of fossils Sources: EVERY ONE of the links I tried didn't work. I can make a random URL and say that this link proves PRO is some negatively connoted individual and you would never know what it says. Do you then accept my previous summary of the link as true? NO The first two are just to show my biases
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is absolutely correct that correlation DOES NOT equal causation. And there is insufficient evidence provided by Pro to make an argument for causation. What might have been helpful for Pro would be to say that causation is not a vital component of the Theory of Evolution, that the Theory of Evolution is essentially descriptive and predicitve, and that causal theory does not undermine the fact that species seem to change gradually over time. Great debate though on both sides. I was pleasantly surprised by Con's great defense. Anyway, in my opinion Con won in the end that there is insufficient evidence for causation, which according to Pro's case is indeed one part of the Theory of Evolution. Con, I am thoroughly impressed. Good debate all. Oh, and Con was not burdened with providing an alternative since Pro had the clear BoP. Theories are falsifiable and prescriptive, so alternatives are possible. Remember Pro that Con is debating an aspect of Evoltion and does not need to oppose all
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments and sources to back up those arguments, but he made a grammatical mistake in the title so S/g to con.
Vote Placed by rugbypro5 3 years ago
rugbypro5
Romaniiblaze8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both pro and con were well conducted, but pro had much better sources (he was the only one who had them). Con did give better arguments though. Votes go to both, pro for sources, con for argument.