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

Darwin's theory of evolution.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 93702
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Both scientific and religious arguments are welcome. I am arguing that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct. [1] Thanks in advance for accepting this debate.



I accept.
Alders Razor says that anything which cannot be established by experement or observation is not worthy of debate. So this really isn't worthy of debate, but considering how absurd it is, and how widely accepted it is, I believe that it deserves to be exposed for all it's idiocy. We havenever observed or tested evolution in multi-cellular organisms, whjich as I have demonstrated here, is impossible:
Debate Round No. 1


Claim 1: Alders razor applies more to philosophy than science.

Warrant 1: " Mike Adler suggests that the flaming sword is a useful tool against Platonic philosophers, who may ask one to engage in an older type of game, than the one usually played by modern science and mathematics." [2]

Impact 1: I think my opponent has brought the wrong tool to the duel. I just don't see how my opponent mentioning Alders razor impacts the resolution, possible red herring.

Claim 2: Archaeologists have found copious amounts of fossils including transitional fossils that support the hypothesis of evolution.

Warrant 2: [3]

Impact 2: I have supported the resolution with evidence.

"We have never observed or tested evolution in multi-cellular organisms" harrytruman

Irrelevant, a lack of evidence is not proof against the hypothesis of the theory of evolution.

"which as I have demonstrated here, is impossible:" harrytruman

You make the claim its impossible, you provide a long link as a warrant, but then you fail to show how this impacts back to the resolution. How am I supposed to know what's inside my opponent's head? I can only guess how this statement impacts the resolution. I'm not going to impact your claim back to the resolution for you. Here's a link on how to debate.[4]



First of all, Alders Razor specifically mentions "experiment and observation," out "thinking and contemplating," this means that it is referring to science, not philosophy. Newton was a scientist not [philosopher, and this logic would have no applicable use in philosophy since philosophy does not deal with physical and tangible evidence but rather with philosophical evidence.

Second of all, even if there was no proof for or against evolution, this wouldn't verify your point. It is true that a lack of proof for an argument or theory does not disprove that argument or theory, but this falls under Hitchen's Razor which says that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So I don't need evidence provided you cannot verify evolution of prove it, I can just dismiss it.

Third of all, I have demonstrated, in that link, that multicellular organisms evolving is impossible. If they mutated, the mutation would have to affect all cells in the same way simultaneously, or the organisms body will reject the foreign tissue, and this form of mutation is extremely unlikely if not impossible.
Debate Round No. 2


There is fossil observe fossil evidence to satisfy Alders razor.

Claim 3: Not only that but we can observe DNA mutations.

Warrant 3:"Other drivers of mutation: Environmental agents

Radiation, chemicals, byproducts of cellular metabolism, free radicals, ultraviolet rays from the sun—these agents damage thousands of nucleotides in each of our cells every day." [5]

Impact 3: DNA mutations provide supporting evidence for the hypothesis.

"Hitchen's Razor which says that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." harrytruman

There is ample evidence for evolution via my claim two, fossil evidence, which you did not dispute.

"or the organisms body will reject the foreign tissue" harrytruman

Claim 4: Mutations happen more incrementally than you imply. One mutation takes place and isn't destroyed. No major changes so the body doesn't attack. The mutation is passed onto the offspring and the immune system sees this as normal. After enough generations another mutation takes place, and so forth, until you have significant genetic variation.

Warrant 4: "Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations."[6]

Impact 4: As you can see you almost always need multiple mutations. Meaning the change is too subtle for the immune system to destroy. This leads supporting evidence for the hypothesis.

Claim 5: Sometimes there is just too much damage for the immune system to repair.

Warrant 5: Cancer, this is common knowledge.

Impact 5: Mutations, particularly in the case of cancer can slip by the immune system.

Thanks for the debate.



No, we have never observed evolution, and picking up fossils anbd saying that they evolved from eachother, therefor evoluytion is true, is only a circular argument and founded on circumstancial evidence.

Either way, the mutation would need to affect your entire body even if your body does not reject the foreign material because this is only one cell, your sperm/egg cells pass on genes, and mutations would be vitrtualy impossible to happen to them. Besides, considering how often these rare mutains occur, and how subtle they are, it would take more time for a bacterium to evolve into a human than the lifetime of the universe. See here {1} 13:00-15:00
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a much more thorough job of proving her point of view

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Merely stating that one side did a more thorough job presenting their point of view doesn't explain why that argument was better, nor does it explain any of the other points awarded.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: DeuceKaboose// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Stupidape gave a compelling argument which was well composed, easy to read and focused on proving that the theory of evolution is real and how it makes scientific sense. Whereas harrytruman's argument was incredibly vague and unclear, and never really got anywhere

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain why one side's argument was difficult to understand because of how it was written, not just to state why one side's was clear. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides as part of the RFD. In this case, the voter provided a half evaluation of Pro's arguments and failed to evaluate anything specific from Con's.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
No, there is more than one razor, asnd it only said that it is not worthy of debaterdebater.
Posted by Vict0rian 10 months ago
@harrytruman You mean Occam's Razor right? And no it doesnt say to not debate things if there is no scientific evidence (which there is) but its to say that not to overthink things or to have conspiracy theories, that the simplest answer is usually the right one. You may say that that means that evolution is wrong because its complex, but the fact of the matter is evolution is not at all complex. It's a very simple concept that is easily understandable if you don't let your biases get in the way.
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
For more info about mutations here's a link.
Posted by ThinkBig 10 months ago
Not counting your sources, your argument is over 12K characters long.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
Really? Number One it isn't voting period yet. Number 2 Google docs are NOT a violation of conduct. And number 3 that was only a citation, not my argument! My argument is in plain text you moron, I was only citing my previous work on the issue.
Posted by ThinkBig 10 months ago
Conduct point is automatically going to pro. Con used google docs to bypass DDO's 10,000 character limit. His argument in round 1 had over 13K characters (without spaces).
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
Evolution is NOT a theory, but a nonsensical philosophical construct that is actually anti-science.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 10 months ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an awful debate and neither side fulfilled their burden of proof. Pro has the burden of proof to prove that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct. He spent the majority of his time refuting con's arguments and did not present arguments of his own. Therefore, the arguments are tied. The conduct point, however, goes to pro. Con uses google docs to present his opening arguments. The document (without counting the sources) is over 12K characters in length. The maximum characters on DDO is 10K. By using google docs, he is effectively bypassing DDO's character limit. This makes it very difficult for pro to be able to argue against. It also forces pro (and the readers) to leave DDO. My advice to con is to stop using google docs for arguments. Google docs for RFDs and sources are one thing, to use them to bypass the character count is another.