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

Did Humans Really Evolve?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 80081
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Read the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I make 4 arguments: 1) God created man and animals separately. 2) Beast was created for man, not man for beast. 3) Man was created in the image of God, and did God evolve? Was God a monkey? No. 4) Since God is the SAME yesterday, today, and forever, so are we (see point 3), and so we did not evolve. Even if you don't believe in the Bible or Book of Mormon, you can obviously see that humans clearly did NOT evolve.


Thanks Benjiboy960 for bringing up this topic and giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate.

As there are no rules mentioned for this debate, I declare that I will refrain from trolling, kritiks and will not present new arguments in the final round and hope that Con agrees on this.

As there also is no structure set for this debate, I will only present an outline for my arguments and detail them in the next round like Con did.

I will show 1) that the process of evolution is an established and provable fact, 2) that there is overwhelming evidence linking the human species with its ape ancestors, 3) that the holy books of Christianity and Mormonism are not reliable scientific sources
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for clarifying everything, this is my second debate, so I am still a beginner. As for my argument, science has indirectly and unknowingly proven: 1) You say that religion is no source of science. I found this web page (, I also got some things from Wikipedia, if you think my sources are inacurate) and I quote from it:

"'I know there is a God, and He has a Son who created the world and saved us all. Whether or not we have all the answers now doesn"t discredit the fact that there is a God. God works line upon line and precept upon precept. Until we prove our faith, God will not reveal more to us.'"
"After I finished, they all sat in silence, staring at me. I could feel my face getting hot. Just then, the bell rang. I grabbed my bag, thankful for this escape route, and headed for the door. As I opened the door, my biology teacher swung his chair around and called my name.

I turned, anticipating a rebuttal and, to my shock, found a sincere face staring back at me. 'Thank you,' he said.

My simple testimony had conveyed more convincing truth than any logical debate could have."
-- Anonymous (true story)
2) From this quote you can surely see that even though scientific evidence defies these words, my point is definitely accurate because to me, God's words are more powerful than any scientific evidence. Scientists have lots of evidence, but God's divine power is actual proof.
3) Let's talk about if we really did evolve. What are the chances that we would be here if the Big Bang theory wasn't true? Well, it isn't likely, but it could be possible (I know it's off-topic, but I have to make a point). How could the Bid Bang happen? Scientists say (and so do I) that you can't make something out of nothing, so there had to be something before the big bang, which made it happen. The only logical explanation to this is that there was a supreme creator who created the big bang. If the supreme creator made the big bang, and the Big Bang made everything that made us, then we were indirectly made by a supreme creator and didn't evolve. At least this much you can believe. I personally believe that God is the supreme creator and the Bible and Book of Mormon are true, but at least I want to say that my reasons make logical sense. I know that you believe in evolution, and I respect you for standing up for what you believe in, but there is enough scientific evidence that a supreme creator is real.

I would like to bear you my testimony that God lives. I know that he created all things. There is so much evidence that he created all things. Look around you. Everything that is here on this earth is a witness that a supreme creator created this universe and everything in it, no matter what the scientific evidence says.


I want to thank Benjiboy960 for presenting the Con case. I will now present the Pro case following the outline I have given previously. Afterwards, I will refute the arguments presented by the Con side.

The process of evolution is an established and proven fact
The process of evolution is well described in [1]. All lifeforms on earth have a genetic code that defines the properties of the individual and which is passed on to the offspring during reproduction. The process of duplicating the genetic code however is faulty, resulting in so-called mutations [2] causing variations in individuals that make them slightly different from one another. Those differences can have an effect on the ability to survive and reproduce. Individuals with beneficial changes in genetic code will therefore have more offspring and pass on their genetic code to their offspring. As a result, beneficial mutations will spread throughout the population over long periods of time and many thousands of generations.
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time" [3]. In 1996, even Pope John Paul II. accepted the process of Evolution [4].
The Evolution from apes to humans took too long to repeat it in a lab, but scientists have shown this process to happen for other species [5].
A very interesting case is discovery of Tiktaalik [6]. Scientists know from DNA and fossils that amphibians evolved from fish but a fossil link right in the middle between them was missing. They were able to predict the age at which that evolutionary step must have taken place and they also could predict some bodily attributes of this fossil like having a flat mouth and scales. Using the age estimate, scientists were able to identify a rock layer in Canada with just the right age and went there to search for the missing link. After two years of searching they finally found Tiktaalik: A flat-mouthed half-fish half-amphibian species with scales. Right there where they predicted and with exactly the properties they predicted.
In summary, this proves that Evolution is a fact.

There is overwhelming evidence linking the human species with its ape ancestors
If one takes a look at the series of skulls in [7] that stem from different types of humans and apes it is nearly impossible to draw a clear line and distinguish humans from apes. The series clearly depicts a gradual change from one species to another.
Looking at the DNA of humans and modern apes makes the common ancestry obvious: The genetic difference between humans and Chimpanzees and Bonobos is about 1.2% and the difference to Gorillas is 1.6% [8].
A very interesting case is the discovery of the fusion of chromosome 2 [9]: One of the problems with comparing ape DNA and human DNA was that the other great apes have 2 sets of 24 chromosomes while humans only have 2 sets of 23. Since the genetic data cannot simply be lost it must exist somewhere if evolution and common descent is true. Based on this, scientists were able to make the prediction that two ape chromosomes must have somehow fused to one human chromosome. Since all chromosomes have specific gene sequences at their ends (telomeres) and in their middle (centromeres) they knew what to search for: a human chromosome with four telomere ends (two of them in the middle of the chromosome) and two centromeres (at about 1/4 and 3/4 of the chromosome). And this is exactly what they have found on human chromosome 2.
In summary, this proves that the human species evolved from an ape ancestor.

The holy books of Christianity and Mormonism are not reliable scientific sources
The holy books contain details that are clearly scientifically wrong and therefore are not good scientific sources. There are countless examples of scientific errors in the Bible [10].

Re: Con 1)
The story presented by Con here is at best anecdotal of nature and therefore cannot ever be considered evidence. Since it is referenced as "Anonymous" it is to be considered an unreliable source.

Re: Con 2)
Here, Con claims that personal opinion trumps all scientific evidence, which is obviously wrong.

Re: Con 3)
I think that Con confuses the Big-Bang-Theory (origins of the universe), Abiogenesis (origins of life on earth), and
Evolution (origins of diversity of life on earth). For the sake of this debate I will not argue in favor of the Big-Bang-Theory and Abiogenesis since it is not related to the debate topic.

Debate Round No. 2


(Just so you know, I added this first section after I made points 1) and part of 2).) I want to apologize for many things not being clear. I had selected science as the subject, but I have been acting as if it were religion. I will say this right now, the opponents can now use religion as another subject of argument, WAIT, is that cheating? Anyway, I will use my religious arguments against your scientific ones, if that is OK. So here's what I said before I made this section:
dswd, you have made a great opposing argument, and I respect your debating abilities and beliefs. However, I will continue to argue my side of the case with enthusiasm and a no-quitter attitude, as dswd has done. I shall make some connections that I have failed to state, thus causing the Pro not to explain Re: Con 3) in the previous argument. Here it is: 1) I am not saying that scientists are wrong, or that I am using Holy Books as scientific sources. I am saying, however, that the opposing side only has science and evidence to back up the dswd's argument. In my previous argument, I stated and made known inevitable that if the Big Bang theory was true (science says it is) then humans could not have evolved. See, I have just used science to prove that humans did not evolve, despite all the "evidence." See point 2. I have also used something other than science, even though this debate is primarily about science (this shows my lack of experience, so I apologize for anything wrong), I have also used logical reasoning and divine words. Again, I'm not saying I'm right and scientists are wrong, but logically a god would seem to know more than a scientist (even if it is 97% of them), and certainly a divine creator (God?) could possibly be more correct than scientists, probably because he created them. I shall prove that the Bible is correct so that I can use it as a temporary scientific source, since this is a science debate. 2) If scientists prove that the BB theory is correct, then they also unknowingly prove that there is a divine creator (see my previous argument where I prove that the BB theory proves that there is a supreme creator) and the Bible is correct. I know the Bible has a lot of errors, but that is because people changed it long ago. If the Bible is correct (see my other arguments), then science proves that evolution is not possible. I used the Bible as a science source. 3) Take a look at point 2 in the opponent's last argument. "If one takes a look at the series of skulls in that stem from different types of humans and apes it is nearly impossible to draw a clear line and distinguish humans from apes." Scientists say they found skulls, and I know there are pictures, but has anyone ever seen one besides the important people? (sorry, I'm in a hurry right now)


I dismissed Cons whole point about Big-Bang-Theory (BBT) as BBT really is not related with Evolution and because I ran into the character limitation. If BBT is correct and we are the results of a sequence of events following it, then this does not mean that Evolution is wrong. In fact, Evolution nicely fits in as a part of that sequence of events.
Also neither Evolution, nor BBT contradict the existence of a God, they just contradict specific parts of the Bible which according to Con's statement "has lots of errors" anyway. I guess this is how the Pope accepted Evolution: God created all life on earth by creating the process of Evolution in his great foresight.

Con argues that God trumps science, and I agree with that. I did not argue that science in any way is smarter or more correct than God. However I do argue that science is a better and more reliable way of understanding our universe (and if you will God's creation) than any of the holy books which Con concedes "has lots of errors". It is absurd to search in an ancient book with lots of errors for explanations that are right there to see for everyone skilled enough to understand them.

Con argues that if the BBT is correct, this proves Gods existence and that the Bible is correct. Although I am willing to accept the existence of God for this debate, I have to mention that BBT does not confirm the existence of God. This argument is called "cosmological argument" and has been debunked several times [1]. Even if BBT did prove the existence of God this is not at all related to the correctness of the Bible. It would merely prove one detail in the Bible: the existence of God. All other parts of the Bible would still remain unproven.

Then Con openly contradicts himself: "I am not saying that scientists are wrong, or that I am using Holy Books as scientific sources." vs. "I used the Bible as a science source."

Finally Con raises doubt to whether the Skulls in my previous argument actually exist. Yes they do! [2] contains a lengthy list of skulls and bones found for only one of the many intermediary humans (australopithecus afarensis). A google search for each of those specific skulls reveals that they are exhibited publicly in natural history museums all over the world. There are also so many skulls of intermediary humans that it feels like every major natural history museum has at least one of them.

But even without those skulls, the evidence contained in our DNA is more than enough proof on its own. Everyone can get his own DNA sequentialized [3] and check that right there on chromosome 2 is the proof that we descended from apes. [4] contains all information on the exact position of the fusion so everyone could check. If that was wrong, hundreds of people would have discovered and published it by now. Lots of Creationists are desperate to prove evolution wrong but even they have not found a single piece of evidence to do so.

Therefore I conclude that I have shown without a doubt that Evolution is a proven fact and that Humans evolved from apes. I have also shown that the Bible is not in general a reliable source of scientific information and that Evolution is compatible with a religious world view so that even the Pope can accept it.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Benjiboy960 1 year ago
In response to MizzEnigma, you said, " 'He(/She) hasn't revealed all things to man's knowledge,' is legit an excuse to fill in the 'how does God exist' gap that no one knows." As a matter of fact, the "gap that no one knows" is non-existent. Prophets and apostles of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have received personal revelation from God, and they are able to do this because Joseph Smith, through God, has restored revelation to earth, thus making it possible for us to know whether God exists or not. Another way to know if God exists is through the Holy Ghost. If you pray with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you. Since by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things, you can definitely know whether God exists or not.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
That really does not change, Benji. God cannot always exist. That goes against our common sense. "He(/She) hasn't revealed all things to man's knowledge," is legit an excuse to fill in the "how does God exist" gap that no one knows. It's an argument to try and prove it's possible when it's not. God's existence is on par with the Big Bang theory.
Posted by Benjiboy960 1 year ago
In answer to MizzEnigma's comment: Time is not the same with God as it is with us. He hasn't revealed all things to man's knowledge. Man's perception of order and who comes first is inferior to God's.
Posted by dswd 1 year ago
Oh man, I just recognized that I forgot this bible verse: "I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return." (Ecclesiastes 3:18-20)
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
If something cannot come from nothing, then how does God exist? A creator needs a creator and a beginning. Something had to create Him/Her. It's a circle. One cannot always exist. That simple start cannot be nonexistent, even for a God. Actually think about that. That start cannot be transcended by a supernatural being, no matter how much we believe it to be true. Your own testimony is then invalid, being that God would have to be originated in and from nothing.
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 1 year ago
You can see the process of human evolution every single day...Every single day the human brain creates between thousands and millions of new neural connections. These specific connections are directly connected to conscious and subconscious learning of new data by the human brain. The fact that the human brain alters itself so many times every single day means it will never look exactly the same at any two separate points in time. This is continual alteration of the chemical and electrical composition/build of the human brain; or, evolution of the human brain.

Next, do you carry the same exact appearance as you did as a baby, a child, a preteen, a teen, heck are you the same appearance wise at 70 as you were at 35? No, your body grows, expands, contracts, adds and removes hair, teeth, skin cells, nails, etc. This is clear and visible proof of the physical evolution each and every individual including you goes through in our short lifespans.

These are just a few examples of evolution for the human lifespan that EVERYONE overlooks at all turns.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JuliusCaesar 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: The Russian explained it perfectly. I give Pro the "Who used the most reliable sources" because the Bible inst considered a universal, true source. And to the Con, the Big Bang has no reason to be in this argument as stated by the Pro.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Throughout the entire argument, Con tried to use religious texts as an equivalent of scientific evidence, which they're not. Also, Wikipedia is not usually considered to be a credible source.