The Instigator
MouthWash
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Muted
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Common descent has occurred on Earth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 968 times Debate No: 28338
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

MouthWash

Pro

Common descent is the theory that all organisms on Earth are genealogically related: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

In this debate, I will be advocating the position that every living thing on Earth today, including humans, are descended from a common ancestor. Con's position is that common descent (and by extension macroevolution) has not occurred.

Rules:

1. No semantics or lawyering.


2. Round 1 is acceptance. Con may ask for a rule or definition clarification.

3. No brand new arguments in the last round.

4. All source material must be easily accessable.


Good luck to my opponent.
Muted

Con

I will be assuming that the BoP will be shared. Hence, I will be making arguments of mine own.
Debate Round No. 1
MouthWash

Pro

MouthWash forfeited this round.
Muted

Con

As my opponent has instigated this debate, I will assume that he is versed in basic genetics. As such, I will not specify what exactly is "genetic information," which is not "Shannon Information." I will begin my arguments now, his can wait. (Any source that only contains the abstract means that I"m citing the abstract, which is the essence of the article)

The Cost is Too High
In regards to genetic information, the information coded within the genome, any mutation, by definition, is "new information" in that it is a new allele. However, "new information" does not equate to "beneficial information." Most of the time, it is a very slightly deleterious mutation.[1] This simply means that natural selection cannot act against such mutations in the way that it would act against strongly deleterious mutations (Such as sickle-cell anemia mutation).

There are three main types of mutations,
"The mutations at 1 of these categories of site are assumed to be neutral, whereas mutations at the other sites are assumed to be strongly deleterious, neutral, or advantageous..."[1]

In every human individual (The most widely studied genome), there are about 100-200 new mutations,[2] besides any mutations they might already have inherited.

In fact, populations face a risk of extinction simply due to fixation of reverse as well as deleterious mutations.
"For a given effective population size, the selection coefficient that maximizes the rate of erosion of mean Malthusian fitness, obtained from delta(sR)=deltas = 0, is the solution of 2Nes + e-2Nes = 1 ors = 0:797=(2Ne). Thus, nearly neutral mutations, with s slightly less than 1/(2Ne), do the most damage to the population...
Nearly neutral mutations that maximize the rate of erosion of mean Malthusian fitness also minimize the expected time to extinction. For 2Nes> 1, the expected time to extinction increases almost exponentially with Ne with a constant selection coefficient...
[T]he required number of loci fixed for mildly deleterious mutations to cause extinction is only a small fraction of the total number of loci...
[M]any mutations, such as large deletions of unique DNA sequence, are not reversible..." [3]

Taking into account mutations alone, Kondrashov A.S. has estimated that humans would have died out 100 times over within just the time evolution allows for humans to have been around [4]. Thus, by mutation alone, we can see that not only is common descent in the manner Pro wishes it to happen cannot occur, but that random processes cannot even allow for the retention of information.

What all these leads to is something known as Muller"s Ratchet. In [5], Loewe L. estimated from mutations just from within the mtDNA would have caused humans to go extinct within 20 million years. However, if all known data is taken into account, ie. the fact that deleterious mutations occur in other regions besides the mtDNA, the time t to extinction rapidly approaches 0.

There is also a very big problem in that any beneficial mutations which would override the effects from a few slightly deleterious mutations would not be capable of being selected for. This phenomena is known as genetic linkage, where a chunk of DNA is inherited in the offspring. Genes tend to clump together in linkage blocks. This means simply that the beneficial and deleterious mutations are banded together and as such deleterious mutations cancel out the beneficial mutations. The ratio between deleterious and beneficial mutations also tends to be incredibly high. (See previous citations)

Mutations are also known to cause most of the diseases humans experience [6], besides already being degenerational to the genetic information.

All of these point to the fact that mutations can never allow for common descent in the manner MW wishes. I will expand on this with criticism.

The fact that he has forfeited does not prove common descent on earth.

1. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org... (Mol Biol Evol (2008) 25 (6): 1007-1015.)
2. http://www.genetics.org... (Genetics September 1, 2000 vol. 156 no. 1 297-304)
3. http://link.springer.com... (Genetica 102/103: 21"27, 1998.)
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (J Theor Biol. 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94.)
5. http://journals.cambridge.org... (Genetical Research / Volume 87 / Issue 02 / April 2006, pp 133-159)
6. http://homepages.ed.ac.uk... (Genetics February 1, 2012 vol. 190no. 2 295-304)
Debate Round No. 2
MouthWash

Pro

I concede due to lack of time and interest.

Tie this or vote against me, it doesn't really matter. My apologies to my opponent for wasting his time.
Muted

Con

Vote Con, Pro did not provide an argument.
Debate Round No. 3
MouthWash

Pro

Well, it was my burden to provide an argument first and I never participated... I think whether this should be a tie or be a loss for me is debatable. But like I said, it doesn't really matter to me.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I will use creationist sources when I write something about selection though.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Magic, I did say in the round that there are beneficial mutations. I did say so quite clearly. The caricature that "mutation can never provide new information" is false. This is because a mutation by definition makes new information. Also, nearly neutral mutations, and not neutral mutations. These information were not gained via creationist sources. They were collected by me through reading about genetics (Of which I am doing a course). I only gave examples of mutations because I doubt that natural selection and genetic drift is required in this debate. Also, see what I said regarding beneficial mutations and linkage blocks.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Sorry, I really can't do this. I forfeited because I had to go unexpectedly to Florida for two days and didn't have internet access. I originally started this because I thought it would be a way to relax from harder debates like the one with Danielle, but I'm not well versed in genetics at all and I have absolutely no incentive to research it. My intention was to use the vast amount of evidence from different sciences to establish my case, but that burden combined with the thought of researching a subject I know nothing about in order to refute you as well is simply too much for me. I need a break from debating.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Muted.

You do know mutations isn't the only way evolution works. Most mutations are neutral, but only a few beneficial mutations are needed. The number of harmful mutations is irrelevant.

Many creationists like AIG say there can be beneficial mutations

http://www.answersingenesis.org...
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

That's just my 2 cents and I hope mouthwash doesn't FF all rounds.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
By common descent, he means macroevolution.
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
What is your position?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
MW, in the meantime, do you want to debate me on this? I'm waiting for microsuck to restart our debate...
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
Maybe at a later date. I got too much going on to dive into this at the moment. These debates require A LOT of research, especially for my position, since it's not entirely popular.
I'll play devil's advocate at a later date. Maybe in January.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
MouthWashMutedTied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
MouthWashMutedTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
MouthWashMutedTied
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: The user known as MouthWash has used dishonest tactics...