The Instigator
AlaynaSchippert
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
sapere_aude
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Darwin's Theory of Changing Species

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
AlaynaSchippert
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,201 times Debate No: 87137
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (2)

 

AlaynaSchippert

Con

The more I think about it the more illogical I think it is. All of Darwin's theories focus on the changing of species. So I say "Where is the evidence?" I would like to take on a very educated person on this subject, but who can be very down to earth so other people can understand this debate. I am taking the side of creationism.
sapere_aude

Pro

I accept your challenge to debate the validity of Darwin"s theory of evolution and if that said theory has sufficient evidence to support it. First of all, I noticed in your round 1 statement you said that you take the side of a creationist. Here I presume we are debating the validity of Darwin"s theory not whether or not evolution is wrong and creationism is right. Even if in the course of the debate you were to prove Darwin"s theory wrong that does not automatically prove creationism correct. That is a different debate entirely. So I ask that we refrain our arguments to the evidence or lack thereof, of the theory of evolution to prove if it is an actual occurring event in nature. I want to thank my opponent for his time and the opportunity to debate a very interesting topic.
Debate Round No. 1
AlaynaSchippert

Con

I do agree that if Darwin's theory is incorrect then creationism is automatically correct is a different issue altogether. Also Thank you for taking your time to accept my challenge.
It seems obvious to everyone today that species change. In fact, the variety within each created kind is sometimes mind-boggling. But changing species wasn"t so obvious 150 years ago. In fact, the prevailing view was called "fixity of species""the belief that each species was created in the same form we find today. Where did this belief come from?

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church"the belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view. Saying species changed. At first people denied this idea, but soon excepted it because religion had nothing to do with it...or does it? Since their has never been evidence on the changing of spices it would take a matter of faith to believe Darwin's evolution. The definition of "science" from the Merriam Webster dictionary states "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" Thus with no evidence or observations to prove the changing of species Darwin's evolution is not science.

This video is by an interviewer who seeks truth and has no opinion of his own. This video shows that even the intelligent philosophers and professors at colleges have no examples of any evidence of Darwin's theory of the changing of species. Unfortunately They all were surprised by their own words and released the massive hole in their own thinking.
<https://youtu.be...;
sapere_aude

Pro

In the past people believed that species did not change but remain the same throughout time. However, ideas change based on new evidence and ideas. Small changes with in species is absolutely undeniable. We know this by observation of animals in nature and through breeding of animals such as dogs or horse for example. Through the breeding of animals, we can create a certain trait in an animal. If we want them large or small, a certain color or even a certain temperament. This is a very proven method. Now in nature we find this to accrue in the fact of which traits help the animal to survive. For example, say an animal is in a cold environment. The animals that have a heavier fur coat will be able to thrive better than an animal with a very thin coat. That animal will also be able to reproduce more and have a better chance of keeping its off spring alive. Before you know it in that area there will be a lot of heavy fur coated animals. Not only that but a given area can only support a certain number of any given species which mean that that species must compete not only to eat but to reproduce in order to live causing only the best of the best to continue to live on. This is what we call microevolution. We can see these changes in our own life time and cannot be denied that it does occur. The other part of evolution is macroevolution which comes from the main part of Darwin"s theory which is "common descent". Common descent basically says that all biological life on earth comes from a comman ancestor. There is so much evidence for this is is difficult to name it all here. I will list below a few places where you can read about some of this evidence. Also just a note I tried to watch the video but the link was not written correctly. Please post it again.

http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.dummies.com...
https://www.khanacademy.org...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
the origin of species by Charles Darwin
https://www.youtube.com...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
AlaynaSchippert

Con

Although I appreciate those sites, after deeply reading each one, I found that none of them changed species. The articles you presented were filled with information but not one showed the change that we are here to discuss. By proving no reasonable evidence for this case we can assume there is no evidence. If I believed in Darwin's changing of species this argument would astonish me. In fact at once I did believe in Darwin's changing species but when I did research myself I was stunned that there is actually no evidence. I talked to my professors and they explained that species did change. Then I asked, But did they change species? They both were dumbfounded and asked me to leave. At that point of time I released that the internet, and my professors both had no evidence on this subject. I was baffled and upset that the changing of species is taught as truth in elementary through your collage years. Darwin was an intelligent man but he had unreasonable ideas about the way things evolved. I do agree that species can vary but yet again they do not change. Throughout countless hours I have found no evidence for Darwin's changing their.
Thank you once again for your time and effort on this subject.

Here is the video once again:

Here is the video again. https://youtu.be...
sapere_aude

Pro

Thank you for reposting the video. I did watch it and thank you for checking out those sites. I want to clarify something which you may not know. We do see a change in species. We have fossil records and DNA evidence of the common ancestor of a species. The definition of a species is "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." A bobcat and a cheetah are two different species. They are both of the same family Felidae. Cheetahs are the Acinonyx jubatus species and bobcats are of the lynx rufus species. These animals are unable to mate but do have a common ancestor. Sometime in the distance past these animal"s common ancestors changed enough that it created two different species. Now you may say that"s great but what about the difference between say a horse and a bird. I am not sure if you have ever seen Darwin"s tree of life. The roots are the common ancestor and eventually through time and changes animals branch off from each other more and more. Animals that were once very similar become more and more branch off from each other. This process takes millions of years it does not happen quickly. The was something in the video that said we were not there so how can we know. That"s true we were not there but it"s more like a crime scene. Yes, we weren"t there for the crime but it doesn"t mean we can"t figure out what happened or, at least, what most likely happened. "Organisms have changed significantly over time. In rocks more than 1 billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found. At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface; and at 400 million years ago, fish with jaws are found. Gradually, new animals appear: amphibians at 350 million years ago, reptiles at 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million years ago, and birds at 150 million years ago.1 As the rocks become more and more recent, the fossils look increasingly like the animals we observe today." Found at http://biologos.org... We see a development of species and like the tree more and more diversity and species develop as more and changes occur creating more and more branches. Again these changes are small and take a great deal of time. We never see one day a frog turning in to a wolf but like a flip book is a gradual change one step at a time that gives us the broader picture. Now frogs and wolves are very different but going back far enough in the family tree they do have common ancestors. We never see alien DNA our DNA is very similar depending on how close they are to use on the ancestral tree. Just like with our families we have DNA closer to our parents than say someone in china. Is there one thing I can point to that gives you a definitive answer no there is no smoking gun. It is evidence gathered from many fields of study biology, genetics, paleontologists and others.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Quadrunner 1 year ago
Quadrunner
Here's the thing about crime scenes. The things we use to prove them are things that have been observed and tested before to be conclusive. You are providing evidence that points to the killer, but it doesn't prove him guilty. Like saying the guy named Natural Selection with anger issues has a knife that fits the wound, but you have no witnesses to verify his location at the time of the crime. It all points towards him, and its probably him, but you don't have conclusive evidence, because there's also this other suspect named Devine Influence that you really don't have anything on, but have nothing to prove innocent. That's all called being a suspect, not a murderer. Because there is a chance Natural Selection was framed, or just had bad luck by coincidence, the Alleged killer still roams free. Whether the actual killer was Natural Selection, or Devine Influence, we still don't know as neither was proven guilty in this Debate. Case still open.

Bacteria weren't mentioned in the debate were they? That would be strong evidence. Complicated from Asexual reproduction but strong none the less. https://www.newscientist.com...
Posted by sapere_aude 1 year ago
sapere_aude
Investigation on something like this is like investigating a crime scene. No I did not witness it but I can tell by the evidence what most likely happened. We can also observe the change in species in organizams like bacteria that have shorter lives and reproduce much quicker than larger organizams.
Posted by Quadrunner 1 year ago
Quadrunner
Okay here is my issue. Just as its extremely difficult to prove God exists, it is extremely difficult to prove Darwin's Theory of Changing species to be true, because in the entire history of science, we weren't able to directly observe it so there is a leap of faith that the Pro has an obligation to convince me is true. Pro pointed out the fossil record, which clearly shows evidence of intermediate species, so there is a change in species. Now the problem is its Darwin's theory, which means the change in species is theoretically fuelled by natural selection. Pro was unable to prove that natural selection was a strong enough influence to cause anything greater then adaptation, or microevolution as the Pro stated. I assume it happens that way, but all that amounts to is an assumption. I was not convinced based on Pro's evidence because of the points Con made. Pro has strong evidence, but not strong enough. I would have liked to have seen random genetic mutations addressed. Con wins.

Does that seem fair?
Posted by AlaynaSchippert 1 year ago
AlaynaSchippert
My opponent must have no understood the topic we were debating because it stated "Darwin's Theory of Changing Species" thus I did not say the changing within species I said changing species which is completely different.
Posted by Quadrunner 1 year ago
Quadrunner
You provided evidence of different species over time, but does that mean that one species changed into the other over time, or just that there were changes? Con's argument was that we have witnessed change within a species but we have never observed branching into a separate species. I'll have to think about this one for awhile, and reread a couple times to see if your proof is strong enough for naturally occurring evolution to be considered factual.
Posted by sapere_aude 1 year ago
sapere_aude
I did provided evidence of animals change in to different species as well as change as individuals.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Ok so, the way I see it is, Con made a statement that there is no proof of animals changing species through evolution. Pro then responded with information showing animals changing within their own species. This did not answer nor refute Con's original claim. What Pro claimed may have been true, however from this we can see two people stating two separate things without truly addressing each other. Hence the first argument made about the topic still stands.
Posted by sapere_aude 1 year ago
sapere_aude
How is dna evidence and fossil evidence and an explaining how animals have common descent not relavint to the topic of evolution.
Posted by AlaynaSchippert 1 year ago
AlaynaSchippert
I did not need to because it was not relating to the topic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Quadrunner 1 year ago
Quadrunner
AlaynaSchippertsapere_audeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for voting are posted in comment section in further detail. Con pointed out a lack of proof in the pro's story, and pro was unable to provide said proof. Pro provided evidence that species did change over time, but did not provide evidence of how the species changed over time. Since the debate was about Darwin's Theory of Changing species and not simply the Change in Species, the Pro loses, since they could not prove that change in species came as a result of natural selection. Pro's sources were very good, just not what they needed to win the debate.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
AlaynaSchippertsapere_audeTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a fine job of showing information about Evolution in General, However she did not show proof of species that had changed from one species to another. Henceforth she did not successfully refute Con, meaning Con's Arguement was left to stand. Pro did have MORE sources, however Con had many Primary Sources as well, hence I gave them a tie due to how many sources both sides had. Both of them were equal in Spelling and Grammar as far as I could see, nothing stuck out and was unreadable. Both were kind and calm. Overall Con was just more convincing and her Arguement was not truly refuted, leaving it to stand.