The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

Does evolution makes sense

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 7 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,752 times Debate No: 31557
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

Solomon_Grim

Con

I found your debates interesting, so I will allow you to go first.
Magic8000

Pro

I'm assuming the resolution is, "Evolution makes sense in explaining our origins." Since Con wants me to go first, I will.

The Fossil Record


We can find out how creatures evolved by the order of the fossils. We shouldn't find a rabbit fossil in with the Cambrian era,not a humans fossil with a trilobite.

This is exactly what we see. The lowest strata has the oldest rock and with the earliest fossils. Furthermore the highest strata has the youngest rock and more recent fossils. [1]

How are the fossils sorted in a way to fulfill a prediction of evolution?

"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.” - Richard Dawkins

ERVs

Short for Endogenous retroviruses. An ERV are sequences in the genome that come from ancient viral infections. Their proviruses get passed on to the next generation and remain inside the genome[2]

Finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species would indicates common ancestry.

"In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA . There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.

<a href=http://www.debate.org...; />

The human ERVs (called HERV) are in identical locations in other primates

The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene."[3]


The resolution is affirmed

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012
[3] Ibid
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Con

Thank you for taking me up on the debate. Let me start right off.

Fossils
You claim that different levels are different ages, however, there is a problem with this. There have been many trees that are fossilized through multiple layers of rock. This shows that the layers could not be different ages. Plus, there is a lack of transitional fossils. If evolution happens so slowly, there should be a massive amount of transitional fossils, which there is not. Finally, two things that look alike does not imply relationship. Evolutionists claim that since fossils look alike, they must be similar, but that is not true. We can find many things that look alike, and it is usually because they have the same creator.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org...
http://yecheadquarters.org...
http://www.reasons.org...

ERVs
The problem with ERVs is that people assume that it proves common ancestry. However, there are many problems with this. Evolutionists claim that all animals have a common ancestry, but the retroviral genes in invertebrates are completely different than vertebrates. This shows that, by your theory, we have no ancestors in invertebrates.
This is a very important point because if evolutionists claim that retroviral DNA proves
that all mammals have a common ancestor then, if we use the same logic, retroviral
DNA disproves the idea of mammals having a common ancestor with other classes. For
example evolutionary theory claims that fish and humans have a common ancestor
however they do not share any ERVs as we would expect if evolution is true.
To overcome this claim, evolutionists claim that since fish and humans share a very old
ancestor, they share very old ERVs therefore these ERVs had enough time to evolve
independently in humans and their ancestors and modern fish and their ancestor, and
since the common ancestor between humans and other mammals, and specifically with
other primates is relatively young, ERVs did not evolve (change) too much. However
evolutionists fail to provide a rate in which and ERV can change, and they fail to
provide a mechanism in which and ERV can change so drastically and pass it to the
next generation, but there is not evidence supporting this claim. This argument also
assumes evolution to be true, so which one is it?
a) ERVs prove evolution
b) Evolution proves ERV

Additional arguments:
The lack of good mutations.
Scientists claim that mutations add information, however this is wrong as it is seen. There have never been a good mutation that has been discovered. The majority of the mutations found takes away information from the gene. So far, mutations an not cause evolution. Plus, the probability of multiple mutations happening is shot.

Natural Selection
Natural selection causes micro evolution, but does not explain how macro evolution could happen. Variation in the species, not new species.

http://swordandshield.biz...
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.cs.unc.edu...
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Magic8000

Pro

The Fossil Record

Con makes 3 arguments here.

  1. Polystrate fossils

  2. Lack of Transitional fossils

  3. Similarities can also be from a common creator

1. Polystrate Fossils.


Con says that there's trees that go through many layers that are different ages. Con gives no citation, nor how old these layers are. Polystrate fossils are a result of sudden deposition. Sudden deposition is no problem at all. A single flood can deposit sediment several feet thick. The buried trees in the sediment don't die, the trunks can remain living in there for decades. This problem was solved in the 19th century by John William Dawson

"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position." [1][2]

How exactly is it a problem for the sorting of fossils?



2. Lack of transitional fossils

The only way you can claim this is if you have a twisted understanding of what transitional means. Transitional doesn't mean half-dog half-cat, but biologists and paleontologists define a transitional fossil as the transitional features of a fossil. Archaeopteryx, Hyracotherium, and Ambulocetus are all examples of transitional species. In a technical sense, every living thing is a transitional fossil. Since we're all in the middle of a past and future species.

3. Common designer?


First, this is a straw man fallacy. My argument was from the sorting of the fossils, not that they look alike. Second, it's not that they're just similar, it's the particular type of similarities (the nested hierarchy [3][4]). Whales and Fish have the same designer, but the whale moves its tail up and down, while fish move if from side to side [5]. If a common designer did exists, we should see the whale moving its tail in the same way as the fish. The reason why the whale needs an up and down tail is to reach the surface in order to obtain oxygen. If there was a common designer the whale shouldn't need oxygen at all! Third, the reason why humans use similar structures is because of finite resources, finite creativity, finite time. The creator you believe exists, isn't limited, so why should we assume similar structures will exist with him?

Endogenous retroviruses

Con ignores the main point of the argument. Since genetic information changes, with enough time the ERVs wouldn't be similar to the ones of our early ancestors.

However evolutionists fail to provide a rate in which and ERV can change

This doesn't refute the argument and is irrelevant. Evolution isn't constant, so how would the change in ERVs be constant? Organisms will change when the environment changes. Not in a constant rate. If I purpose there's a car that can go up to 200 mph, would a valid response to the “What's the rate of change”? A rate of something has no bearing on the actual existence of it.

and they fail to provide a mechanism in which and ERV can change so drastically

It's undisputed that genetic information changes. Mutations (a known mechanism for change) happens 128 times per human zygote [6]. No one is claiming drastic changes.

and pass it to the next generation

It's well known that genetic information gets passed down.

Con claims this argument assumes evolution, but he doesn't explain how it does. It's not assuming evolution, if you have a basic understanding of genetics you'll understand how it's evidence of evolution.

Con's arguments

No beneficial mutations.

Con erroneously claims that no beneficial mutations have occurred. This is false, there's bacteria that through mutations, have the ability to digest nylon [7]. It's been demonstrated that bacteria that's resistant to drugs, is a result of mutation and not adaption. Since the population started with just one chromosome, all variations came from mutations [8]! The CKR5 gene produces a protein that determines what can enter a cell. An allele produced by a single nucleotide deletion in this CKR5 gene, is resistant to HIV[9]. A mutation in the LPR5 gene causes high bone density [10]. The process of mutation has been observed to increase information in simulations too [11].

The process of adding information is simple. A gene duplication happens, then a mutation changes it [12].

Con claims most mutations are harmful. This is wrong, most are neutral. It's estimated there's around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation of humans [13]. Con also claims multiple mutations happening are too rare. All there needs to be is slight mutations over time.

Natural Selection

Con is making a fallacious category mistake. He's putting natural selection in the category of changing genetic information. Natural selection only selects what's already there, it doesn't create. Macro happens with a whole bunch of Micros. If Con wishes to claim that Microevolution happens, but Macro doesn't, then he needs to show there's a barrier for large change. If there's no barrier Macroevolution will happen with time. Look at the picture below


This is how Micro becomes Macro. It also answers your transitional fossil objection. It shows why we shouldn't find a half-dog half-cat fossil.

The resolution is affirmed

Now to Con

Sources

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180)

[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[4] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

[5] http://www.dtmag.com...

[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[7] http://www.nmsr.org...

[8] http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov...

[9] Dean, M. Carrington, M, et al., 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862. See also: Cohen, J., 1996. Receptor mutations help slow disease progression. Science 273: 1797-1798.

[10] Boyden, Lynn M., Ph.D, Junhao Mao, Ph.D., Joseph Belsky, M.D., Lyle Mitzner, M.D., Anita Farhi, R.N., Mary A. Mitnick, Ph.D., Dianqing Wu, Ph.D., Karl Insogna, M.D., and Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., 2002. High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor-Related Protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002.

[11] http://www.pnas.org...

[12] http://www.sciencemag.org...

[13] Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.

http://www.genetics.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Con

Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Pro

FF, extend all arguments.

Here's a funny scary video.
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Con

Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Pro

Hey I just met you. And you're forfeiting like crazy! You've seen my arguments! So rebut them maybe?
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Con

Sorry I missed everything, I was without the Internet. If you want, we can re debate on your terms.
Magic8000

Pro

Sure. In the future. I'm going to be busy in the next few weeks

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
You can re-challenge me Solomon.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
also about fossil i will discuss. when i will have debate with you.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
how it relates to evolution.
its normal. we have upto some sort identical DNA. as we all have same sense and need, we are suppose to have some things common.
the viral infection are also that thing.
see the rabies. infant human and other animals. and any immune person will transfer it to next generation. even initial stages. the immunity was transferred by donating the blood of survived person.
there are thee cases of rabies, who survived with out the treatment. as this virus is slow to attack the target area. so it gives time after infection to get vaccinated.
well again long discussion. how it relates to mutation and natural selection. you going away from the definition.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
oh man i send you msg about evolution and you dont want debate with me. you said you wanted. but the weekend passed i will next weekend.
this fossil thing i wanna destroy.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 4 years ago
Solomon_Grim
Yea let me define. Evolution as explaining the origin and creation of new species. Macro evolution for example.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
To make sure. The term "makes sense" is referring to origins right? Evolution makes sense explaining origins.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Cool. I'll probably accept tonight or tomorrow.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Lizard 4 years ago
Lizard
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Archangel35 4 years ago
Archangel35
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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
Vote Placed by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: all 7 points to pro for cons forfeit. Pro obliderated cons arguments
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Not quite a full forfeit, but close to one. Con also had considerably more typos (even in his resolution), much worse arguments, and both fewer and weaker sources.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
Solomon_GrimMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.