Creation is more probable then Evolution
Debate Rounds (5)
Opponent may use any facts, whether its scientific, or even just some sort of common sence.
opponent may start right away.
Evolution is a Markov Process
Organisms' traits are encoded in DNA which consists of long strings of four different nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thyamine), and the sequence of these nucleotides determines the traits an organism exhibits. 
When an organism reproduces its DNA is replicated and passed to its offspring (there are some differences between sexual and asexual reproduction, but these aren't particularly relevant). However, the process of DNA replication is not always exact; random mutations occur changing the sequence of nucleobases, and these changes are inherited by offspring independent of previous ancestor's DNA. Evolution, then, can be modelled mathematically as a Markov process. 
Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny
Bayes' theorem states that Pr(T|D) = Pr(D|T) x Pr(T) / Pr(D)
The probability of each individual tree is a priori considered to be equal. Using Markov processes to determine the probability of the data given a tree allows the posterior probabilities of different trees (ie, the probability that a tree is correct given the empirical data) to be determined. By calculating the p-value, performing bootstraping and jackknifing tests, finding the consistency index, and comparing the congruency of independently created trees, a correct tree can be determined with statistical certainty. 
Evolution is more probable than Creationism
Comparing the likelihoods of different hypotheses, the probability of universal common ancestry can be compared to other hypotheses. As Douglas Theobald shows in "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry", evolution from a universal common ancestor is at least 102860 more likely than the closest competing hypothesis. Thus, Evolution is more probable than Creationism.
zezima forfeited this round.
take a look at this video and it will explain everything.
Err.. I accept my opponent's concession?
Contrary to my opponent's assertion, 4006001 (= 12032 - 1331323 * -3) does not show that evolution is impossible; it doesn't show much of anything, really.. Nor do fat people dancing for that matter...
Additionally, if scientists had found that age of the earth were 4.3 x 1044 times less than the current accepted value (4.6 x 109 years old), the age of the earth would be significantly less than a second old. Certainly, if true, this would be problematic for evolution; but this would also be problematic for any scientists who reached this conclusion as they would not have existed to perform the tests they performed, much less publish these results so that my opponent could use them to support his non-existent case. Hence, I accept my opponent's concession: vote Con.
scientist can be wrong. they are human beings.
I put up a video that shows the outcome of your theory.
I have argued that evolution can be modeled with Markov chains and Markov processes which allows statistical analysis of phylogenetic inference, and that such analysis shows that evolution is more probable than Creationism. My oppenent hasn't done much of anything. Thus, the resolution is negated.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never addressed, let alone refuted, con's opening case.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.