The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Darwinian Evolution

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 89642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I would like to debate Darwinian evolution. The person that is Pro MUST believe Darwinian evolution. It does not matter if you are atheistic or agnostic or any other thing, but you MUST believe Darwinian evolution. Good luck!

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Argument
Round 3 - Rebuttal
Round 4 - 2nd Argument/More Rebuttal
Round 5 - 3rd Argument/More Rebuttal


I accept, and saw a definition for neither "Darwinian" nor "Evolution," so I shall supply my own.

Darwinian - relating to Darwinism.

Darwinism - the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection and decent with modification advanced by Charles Darwin.

Evolution - the process by which animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Debate Round No. 1


RoyalDark forfeited this round.


Thanks Con for the debate.
Con forfeited last round, but whatevs, I'll start my case and keep it brief...a brief case if you will.

*Evolution Is A Fact*

Darwinian Evolution by way of natural selection and descent with modification is a fact because...

1. genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on than genetic characteristics that don't allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce.

2. speciation has been directly observed in hawthorn-->apple maggot fly

3. human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is definitive evidence that humans descended from apes.

4. early hominid fossils explain our bipedal-ism and ancestry

Therefore I affirm.
Debate Round No. 2


RoyalDark forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


We DO see evolution. (i.e. hawthorn--->apple maggot fly). However, that is not what Darwinian evolution is. That is micro evolution, while Darwinism teaches that one species can change to a completely different species (macro evolution). That is what the first premise says with mutation. It is merely micro evolution, but it is not an entire species changing into another species.

There is no "middle" animal, for lack of a better word. We do not see fish with half legs, or little stumps in the fossil records. For Darwinism to be true, there would have to be a complete jump to the next stage, which Darwinism does not support, as they say evolution is slight changes over millions, even billions of years. This proves that early hominids did not evolve into modern humans because there is no middle point.


Thanks, Con for that...rebuttal? 2nd argument? More rebuttal?
Thanks for whatever that was...

I'm glad to see that Con agrees:
"We DO see evolution. (i.e. hawthorn--->apple maggot fly)."

My response:
Con agrees that the species of Hawthorn Fly evolved into a different species, the Apple Maggot Fly.

But then Con says:
"That is micro evolution, while Darwinism teaches that one species can change to a completely different species (macro evolution)."

My response:
The definition of Darwinism is "the theory of evolution of species."
The definition of evolution is "the process by which animals...have developed and diversified from earlier forms"

Neither of these include the arbitrary distinction between micro and macro evolution.

Con agrees that we do see the evolution, the process of developing and diversifying from earlier forms, of the Hawthorn Fly, which is both an animal and a species.
Con has affirmed the resolution.

But I will respond directly to this micro/macro claim.
Macroevolution is evolution happening at or above the level of a species.

Con agrees that Hawthorn Flies evolved to Apple Maggot Flies at the species level, so Con agrees that macroevolution has occurred.

Species are organisms that can potentially or actually reproduce viable offspring with each other; that's it.
So, if Apple Maggot flies can no longer reproduce viable offspring with the parent species, Hawthorn Flies, then we now have a new distinct species, the Apple Maggot Fly.

The change from using the fruit of hawthorns for their maggots to using apples for their maggots resulted in genetic incompatibility between Hawthorn and Apple Maggot, such that they can no longer potentially or actually reproduce viable offspring with each other.
Apple Maggot Fly is a new species that never existed before, and resulted from an evolution of the Hawthorn Fly.

Con continues:
"There is no "middle" animal, for lack of a better word."

My response:
It always seems like anti-evolutioners only ever think about animals, and they neglect all other life forms.
Do you know how many "middle" bacteria there are?
Do you know how many "middle" plants there are?
And yes, of course, there are a TON of transitional, or "middle," examples of animals; we're one of them.

Don't believe me?

Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Chromosomes, made of two identical chromatids, carry our genes, and give us all of our genetic, molecular, cellular, and skeletal structures.
A typical chromatid, one identical part of the chromosome, has two ends and a center.

The two ends are Telomeres (T).
The center is a Centromere (C).


However, the chromatids on human's 2nd chromosome each have four ends and two centers.


This shows fusion.
Since the telomeres are fused in the middle, we call this a telomere-telomere, or end to end fusion.

How do we know what fused?

Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome; if you find these unique base pairs, you then know which chromosome you have, similar to how a fingerprint identifies a human.

We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.

So, when you look at our 2nd chromosome, you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes, so we're the "middle" between older apes and future hominids.
Ape-->Human-->Future Hominids.

I affirm.
Debate Round No. 4


We should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild. Furthermore, we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. And I swear, if you say Archaeopteryx, if will go insane. The hawthorn to apple maggot however, is only MICRO evolution, and it is a change in what they eat, it does not fully change their DNA.


*Wrappin' It Up*

1. Con agreed that Hawthorn-->Apple Maggot is evolution that we see, then Con argued that this was merely MICRO evolution, so I showed Con that speciation, as seen in Hawthorn-->Apple Maggot, is MACRO evolution, because it is evolution at the species level, but Con dropped that also, so I mentioned that he micro/macro distinction is irrelevant to the definitions of "Darwinian" and "Evolution," and wouldn't you know it...Con dropped that too.

2. Con COMPLETELY dropped the Chromosome 2 argument, and this was properly sourced, which affirms that Ape-->Human not only happened, but that our fused 2nd chromosome serves as:
a. that "middle" that Con requested
b. the "complete jump to the next stage" Con claimed would have to be there
c. proof that "one species can change to a completely different species (macro evolution)" as Con put it
d. a negation of Con's assertion that "early hominids did not evolve into modern humans"
e. a case "with one line of descent dividing into two or more" that Con says we should be able to find
f. an example of being "able to find new species forming in the wild" Con claims needs to be there
g. an "example of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry" that Con claims should be there.

3. Con COMPLETELY dropped the claim + source of early hominid fossils that explain our bipedal ancestry...our feet are simian.

By the way, the Hawthorn Flies and Apple Maggot Flies didn't just change their diet; they changed how they reproduced, by changing the venue for their maggots from Hawthorn fruit to Apples.
This lead to changes in gestation, reproductive age, and compatibility, which lead to the observed speciation of the Hawthorn Fly.

I therefore affirm that Darwinian Evolution is a fact, because Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, Con agrees we do see evolution in Hawthorn-->Apple maggot, foot fossils show evolution of humans from apes, and all of Con's contentions with evolution have been negated.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
Thanks for the vote @tejretics
Posted by UNOWN301 6 months ago
I used to be a creationist before I looked into the evidence. I must agree with PRO that the genetic evidence is incredibly strong in favor of common descent and for humans specifically, common ancestry with apes. The fossil evidence was always enough for me to accept the theory of common descent, but for some reason my inability to imagine new species coming about from earlier ones stopped me from believing evolutionary theory as a whole, and allowed me to feel intellectually entitled to doubting that natural selection was capable of producing the diversity we see today. Once I looked into the subject more and found that we do in fact see speciation happening even today and it is observable, it just became undoubtedly true that the natural processes that exist still today ARE enough to make a population diverge into two distinct species - thereby affirming the central claim in which darwinian evolution requires to be true. I came to the conclusion that while I cannot imagine what a million or even a billion years is like or what can happen in that time, the fact that biological life does observe speciation (and we can observe that directly) and the fact that we do see the fossils in the ground with MANY transitional fossils, evolution has happened. Can it be traced all the way back to a single ancestor (LUCA) or many as Darwin asked himself at the end of The Origin of Species, that I don't know.

Long story short, I am now a theistic evolutionist or evolutionary creationist. CON, as someone who has been where you are, I encourage you to do as I did, and simply look at the evidence - its extensive and its captivating and it helped me to form a view of God that I believe is far more beautiful and Christian than what my previous theology of young earth creationism allowed for. Thanks!
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
Actually red_x we are modern bipedal apes, and older ape chromosomes are literally a part of our DNA.
All of the hominids are apes.
Posted by red_x 6 months ago
King_Giza9, you do realize that we did not, actually evolve from apes. But rather somewhere along the line of apes it branched and created another kind of ape-like thing which we evolved from.
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
Wow, your understanding of evolution must be vast King_Giza!
Posted by King_Giza9 6 months ago
Im gonna have to take the Con position on this topic. I can't comprehend the principles of darwinian evolution as they simply do not add up in the end. If we Homo Sapien Sapiens derived from the so called Ape, it cannot be so, that two species of the same evolutionary transformation can Co-Exist. It's either the Ape's or Man !
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 6 months ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There are many bases for my decision: (1) the evolution of the hawthorn fly to the apple maggot is an example of Darwinian evolution as Pro proves, and distinctions between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" don't exist in Darwinism, which Con drops; (2) the evolution of the hawthorn fly to the apple maggot is macro-evolution in itself, which Con drops; (3) chromosome 2 solves all problems Con raises and refutes Con's case; and finally, (4) Con drops the argument from early hominid fossils. Pro sufficiently fulfills their burden of proof and refutes Con's arguments, while Con essentially drops most of Pro's case. Thus, I vote Pro.