Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Argument
Round 3 - Rebuttal
Round 4 - 2nd Argument/More Rebuttal
Round 5 - 3rd Argument/More Rebuttal
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.
RoyalDark forfeited this round.
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.
RoyalDark forfeited this round.
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)."
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)."
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.
"There is no "middle" animal, for lack of a better word."
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 10 months 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||3|
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.
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.