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

Destroying the naturalistic creation myth 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 426 times Debate No: 73042
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Mutations cannot add new DNA and increase genetic complexity.

Predicted coming back : Gene duplication you idiot !

My response : Subfunctionalization and degeneration has been observed. But how about neofunctionalization ? There is no empirical evidence supporting it. And please don't start that story-telling about a fish with similar genes containing different functions that supposedly have the same origins...that's pure circular reasoning. "They have genes with a common origin because neofunctionalization is true because they have genes with a common origin...(the loop goes on ! ) ".

With no scientific data supporting the evolutionary theory,all you have is those circular-reasoning-based "evidences" like genetic similarity,comparative anatomy,fossil record (composed mostly of misinterpretations and a few hoaxes ). With "evidences" like that,even I could make my own "scientific theory" about the evolution of motorcycles into cars ! Wanna hear that ?

Cars evolved from motorcycles ! You don't believe that ? Well,there are plenty of evidences for it ! Comparative engineering shows us that cars and motorcycles share many similar parts like headlights,tires,velocimeters, fact,many parts found in a car seems to be more complex versions of their motorcycle counterparts ! Which shows us that cars indeed evolved from motorcycles ! Also,we have a transitional form that supports the motorcycle-car evolution. It's the quad bike ! Yes,a motorcycle with 4 wheels ! It has characteristics from both motorcycles and cars,showing us that this is a motorcycle in the middle of the evolutionary process of becoming a car ! And if all of this is not enough,I can present you an example of evolution happening ! Scientists observed a motorcycle on a highway losing it's exhaust ! This mutation shows us how the motorcycle gained the complexity that is required in order to evolve into a car !

But wait,are you telling me that motorcycles and cars are designed and a motorcycle can't just become a car by itself ? So,you are telling me that,despite all this evidence,the single fact that there are no empirical evidences that can prove that motorcycles can evolve into complex cars invalidates my entire theory ??

Non-sense ! Automobile evolution is a FACT !


I accept with the understanding that burden of proof is on pro.

Although you're analogy is quite interesting, it simply falls at a fundamental level. The issue comes from the origin of automobiles vs humans. Although it is true that scientists have the theory based solely on observational science, it is justifiable and reasonable and rational to do so. You're analogy shows the theory is based off of what we can see but it does not account for the fact that the conclusion is based off of the ability of science to predict. We know that people can reproduce sexually harnessing genetics. Cars on the other hand have no such ability. It makes logical sense that genes could mutate on a macro scale, one reason is that it is proven micro evolution exists. But mainly just because we know for a fact that creatures reproduce and cars do not.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your reply ! This doesn't have nothing to do with this argument but I have to say that I'm really impressed with your politeness !

Now,about my car analogy,I wanted to exactly show that although the similarities are consistent with the theory,the lack of a mechanism that allows those changes is fatal to the theory. I disagree with the idea that small variations like the variations that we can see from dogs to wolfs or the many size of dogs can prove that evolution is possible. That's because geneticaly those changes are esencialy different from those changes that could turn a fish into a frog over the time for example. Evolving requires "moving vertically" while variation is "horizontal". They are in different plans so they are essencialy different. And you can only distinguish that difference by carefully analyzing the changes in the DNA. I realaborated my thoughts and added some other reasons for why I don't accept evolution and I was going to try another debate with that. But I would like to post it here for you as well as both a response and a review and summarize for all my reason for my opinions about evolution ! Sorry if that contains just a little tiny mockery,I was genuinely writing down my thoughts so...sorry haha :D

I would like to present 3 basic reasons for why I don't accept the theory of evolution.

1. Biological impossibility

Mutations cannot add new and unique genetic material while maintaining the genetic complexity of the new material and giving it new functions at the same time. Therefore,the process of random mutations followed by natural selection cannot achieve the increase in the genetic complexity of the DNA that is necessary in order to make the evolutionary process possible.

Gene duplication and neofunctionalization are the explanations that are currently being used to explain the increase of genetic complexity. However,Neofunctionalization has never been observed. Articles showing examples of neofunctionalization merely speculate that such event actually happened. As a model it has issues too since duplicated genes usually are silenced over time.And silenced genes tend to get degenerated or deleted. Also,if this was the case,we should observe a relation between genetic complexity and organism complexity. Which is not the case.

Note that I accept variations within kinds. Like wolfs from dogs,dogs with different sizes and shapes...but changes like reptile to bird or gradually from fish to mammal are not plausible for me. There are too many changes involved and the gain of genetic complexity mentioned is mandatory.

Now,if a mechanism that allows the genetic changes necessary for evolution was proposed and that mechanism could be proved with observation and experimentation,we could start to think about my second reason for why I don't accept evolution.

2. The mathematical impossibility of evolution.

In order to prove this,I would like to propose a simple model (It was not made by me. I do not own this equation.) This equation uses unreal numbers. However,those unreal numbers are very kind to the evolutionary model.

Imagine a bacteria has evolved from a simpler bacteria. It has gained 200 new features compared to its ancestor. Each feature is caused by one mutation. Now,imagine that since evolution is a process without a goal and it's more like a bush with a lot of leaves and endings,we don't know what exactly is a good mutation in the context of the place where the bacteria lives. If it was a mutation that (just for example) made it weak against sunlight,it would be bad if the bacteria was living in a place with light. Also,we have degenerative mutations that could destroy the mechanism of the bacteria or "crash its system" (The danger of crashing the system increases even more when we are dealing with higher organisms. But let's keep it simple) So let's just say that the odds of getting a beneficial mutation are 50/50. With that in mind,lets think about a population of bacterias so we can set the ground for natural selection. Let's say that each of the 10^14 square feet of the Earth was filled with 10^9 bacterias. It means that the entire population in the planet is 10^23 bacteria. Now let's set a mutation rate. Let's set it in 2 mutations per second. That's unrealistic but we are setting kind numbers for evolution That means that in 100 seconds we would have 200 mutations. We'll set a model where even if a mutation goes wrong,the bacteria can keep trying. With that we can simulate natural selection leaving only the fittest,and the fittest passing its characteristics to the entire population and the specie accumulating beneficial mutations. Now that everything is in its place,let's set an amount of time to calculate. 10 billion years. (That's more than the proposed age of the Earth...)Which,converted in seconds,is 10^18. Since the mutation rate is 2/second and in 100 seconds we have 200 mutations,we can make 10^18/10^2 and say that we'll have a total of 10^16 mutations for each individual in 10 billion years. 10^16 mutations for a population of 10^23 individuals means that we'll have 10^39 mutations or 10^39 trials to achieve the proposed 200 beneficial mutations and evolve. That seems a lot. However,the odds that someone is always going to succeed are not that big. If we take 1/2 chances for beneficial mutations and make (1/2)^200 we have 10^60. Which means that the odds of a single individual to "win all of them" is 1 in 10^60. But,since we have so many individuals trying and natural selection is accumulating the mutations for us,we can do it easily right ? Actually,no. If we take those two numbers and make 10^60/10^39 you'll have 10^21. That means that the odds of a successful lineage of mutations to happen and lead our primitive bacteria to the slightly better 200 new features bacteria is only 1 in 10^21. That's only one chance in 100000000000000000000000 trials. That seems a lot. A miracle. Now imagine that in a shorter amount of time with much lower mutation rate. And more than just 200 mutations. Nothing can compensate this.

3. The circular-reasoning nature of the evidences.

Most of the evidences proposed for evolution consist of the similarities in the DNA,comparative anatomy and the fossil record. While Evolution is consistent with those evidences and makes a good job telling a story from them,the true nature of those arguments is based purely on circular reasoning. Why ? Well,let's take genetic similarity for example. They say : "genetic similarities were caused by evolution (common ancestry)". Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how do they know that it was evolution that did that and not anything else ? In fact,creation would also fit that evidence perfectly. (Common designer = similar design). But how do they know that this evolution is true ? Well,they know that because the genetic similarities prove evolution. Do you realize it ? "Evolution is true because the genetic similarities prove that evolution is true because the genetic similarities prove that...(loop goes on). (By the way,I always found this claim that we share 97% of our DNA with chimps a little exaggerated. For those who now how the genes are,that's like saying "the closest star from Earth is only 1 AU away ! So close !" Yeah,sure it is but that doesn't mean so much. It's obvious because this "closest star" is our sun. And 1 AU is still quite a lot for a human being. It's obvious they we share similarities with chimps. We can say that by looking at their anatomy. But it's not like that at any moment a chimp might dress his suit,drive his car and go to a job interview. So easy there. That's pure propaganda aiming those who are not familiar to this topic.) Also they say that independent lines of evidence prove those claims but is that real ? Comparative anatomy is basically the same thing like genetic similarity (quite obvious that we all have some things in common. We live in the same planet ! And it's obvious that if you spend your entire life in the water you'll have less things in common with me. But you'll still have somethings since we are still on Earth.) The fossil records are debatable. Many polemic interpretations,hoaxes,links missing,evolutionary trees that don't look like trees when you look at the fossil record... In the end,you'll only believe what is told about the fossil records if you already believe in evolution. For example,I can't see maiacetus as a "walking whale". And for me tiktaalik is just a fish. (By the way,those tetrapods footprints dating older than tiktaalik were...interesting...) In the end it's just circular reasoning. "Those characteristics belong to both species" > how can you say that those characteristics were inherited from this specific specie ? > "because according to the theory of evolution,this creature evolved from..." > How do you know that evolution actually happened ? > "well,because we have these fossils and..." And this is the circular reasoning in this. So for me,those evidences,though many of them consistent with their explanation,are meaningless when you are trying to convince me of a scientific "fact".
Because no matter how of these you gather,if you don't show the mechanisms specifically,I'm not going to lose my skepticism. I could gather a ton of "facts" to prove that cars evolved from motorcycles. I can even give you a transitional form called "quad bike". Those might be enough to fool some superstitious peasant in the Middle Ages. But that's not enough to convince me. Science must be based on empirical data and consistent evidences. Not on assumptions and faith. No matter how convincing your "evidences" are,if the basic mechanism for your theory doesn't work,everything turns into "just a good story". In other words,science-fiction.

Thank you for reading ! I'm looking forward for your reply !


My oppoents arguments have been purely analytical, such argumentation on a subjective of such scientific prestige as evolution gives serious concern to the validity of any of his arguments. It is illogical and irrational to think that one could disprove evoluiton using simple analytics and in place of pro I will use substantial and scientifically sound recourses to back my claims. Pro has used typical arguments against evolution so in order to firmly establish why his points are wrong I will use a lot of quoted evidence from credible soures.

Things to note: pro has conceded that he harbors the full burden of proof.


1.) Pro has not defined what a creation myth is nor has he justified that evolution is a creation myth. In order to win he must do so, as he harbors full burden of proof the resolution cannot be affirmed until this is proven to be factual, furthermore he must prove that this creation myth is naturalistic, again until proven he cannot win.

Rebuttal to Analogy and other specific evolution claims

The opposition claims that I have made irrelevant claims towards his analogy however if this was true why would he feel the need to expand on it more? Secondly, he doesn't refute the argument itself and thus being that 'silence is compliance' in debate, this argument is considered 100% true. I maintain the validity of my argument and procced to rebutt the rest of this section....

CLAIM: "I disagree with the idea that small variations like the variations that we can see from dogs to wolfs or the many size of dogs can prove that evolution is possible. That's because geneticaly those changes are esencialy different from those changes that could turn a fish into a frog over the time for example."

1.) The claim that variation in dog species is not 'adding new information is ridiculously weak. The dog has changed forms, genetics change forms, those changed forms are different from before, the genetics are now different, genetics have added new information.

2.) Secondly the position that the genetic differences are "esencialy different" is indisputibly unsupported by scientific literature or other citations. This claim is voided until such is presented.

Rebutal to impossibility of Neofunctionilization/adding new information.

  1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

    • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

    If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

  2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
    • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
    • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
    • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

  3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

  4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000)."" [1]

Rebuttal to mathmatical 'impossiblity' of evolution

I'm not even going to refute this math because it is purely analytical and unfounded. If this is a legitimate mathmatical proposition reason and burden of proof requires quoted Scientific evidence which states the exact same theory against probablity. Instead I will show quoted scientific evidence which acually holds substantial credability.

I'll start with this quote:

"Biological evolution is such a complex process that any attempt to describe it precisely in a way similar to the description of the dynamic processes in physics by mathematical methods is impossible." [2] This specifically refers to PRECISE calculations such as the given attempt at a mathmatical problem however it later says that arbitrary models demonstrating the fundementals are ok... "Any allowable model has to reflect the main features of evolution." Whic the given clearly does not do.

" Evolution as a Darwinian-Mendelian process takes place via a succession of gene replacement processes, whereby a new “superior” gene arises by mutation in the population and, by natural selection, steadily replaces the current gene. (We use here the word “gene” rather than the more technically accurate “allele”.) It has recently been estimated (1) that a newborn human carries some de novo 100–200 base mutations. Only about five of these can be expected, on average, to arise in parts of the genome coding for genes or in regulatory regions. In a population admitting a million births in any year, we may expect something on the order of five million such de novo mutations, or about 250 per gene in a genome containing 20,000 genes. There is then little problem about a supply of new mutations in any gene."

They go on to respond to another argument on mathmatical probablity which relates the alphabet, representing genetic sequences, in relation to the number of possible letters to form the correct word. They make L equal to the number of letters in the correct word (gene) and K, the number of possible letters in the alphabet (number of amino acids). They state:

"Suppose that we are trying to find a specific unknown word of L letters, each of the letters having been chosen from an alphabet of K letters. We want to find the word by means of a sequence of rounds of guessing letters. A single round consists in guessing all of the letters of the word by choosing, for each letter, a randomly chosen letter from the alphabet. If the correct word is not found, a new sequence is guessed, and the procedure is continued until the correct sequence is found. Under this paradigm the mean number of rounds of guessing until the correct sequence is found is indeed K^L.
But a more appropriate model is the following: After guessing each of the letters, we are told which (if any) of the guessed letters are correct, and then those letters are retained. The second round of guessing is applied only for the incorrect letters that remain after this first round, and so forth. This procedure mimics the “in parallel” evolutionary process. The question concerns the statistics of the number of rounds needed to guess all of the letters of the word successfully. Our main result is
For example, if we are using a K = 40 letter alphabet, and a word of length 20,000 letters, then the number of possible words is about 1034,040, but our theorem shows that a mean of only about
" [2]

Rebuttal to Circular reasoning

This will also be short, as this is argument is fairly simple, non significant and tangendental. If you disagree, please explain how this disproves evolution, this wasn't explained enough for a debate round.

1.) Fossil records are based off of carbon dating, a reliable way of measuring time

2.) You have not given specific examples of this circular reasoning, such as quotations from evoluitonary scientists. You must provide this, otherwise you have simply suggested that this is what evolution does without actually showing (proving) us.

3.) According to Occam's Razor, the option requiring the least amount of assumptions should be considered true, evolution requires less than the theory of a god, and you cannot prove gods existance (try if you wish) so evolution should be considered true.


Pro has conceded full burden of proof, he has ignored my argument on his analogy thus it should be considered as true. He has claimed that something such as wolf-dog evolution doesn't 'seem' possible but hasn't backed this claim and he has also neglected to support the claim that genetic variations can be radically different, in general actually, he has not supported his claims with evidence of any sort. Next I gave empircal evidence concerning adding 'new information' to the genetic code and litterally give studies showing this. I then use a peer reviewed study backing time scale with math ad then quickly show why his last argument is invalid.


Debate Round No. 2


Granola_0101 forfeited this round.


Aaand he forfeited...
Debate Round No. 3


Granola_0101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Granola_0101 forfeited this round.


he forfeits, vote for meh
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Granola_0101 1 year ago
Thank you :) It's funny how such "theory" that can be destroyed with a single argument is taught at schools as absolute truth. I don't think that we should teach creationism in schools. As we shouldn't teach evolution either. Matters regarding the beginning of everything can not be proved by the scientific method. So we should leave that role to religions and alternative explanations. But calling that alternative explanation a "scientific theory" and "fact" and shoving it down everyone's throat ? NO !
Posted by theisticscuffles 1 year ago
I love the motorcycles evolving into cars metaphor.

Very good. I would recommend the reading of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to dispel the whole myth (very pervasive!) that science progresses in a uniform fashion discovering greater truths about the world and universe. Kuhn shows that this is a big scam, though he is not a creationist or a Christian.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro. Pro had the stronger arguments/rebuttals. Pro used the only sources.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Pro has only sources.