The Instigator
polka-dots323
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

Evolution Did Not Occur.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,270 times Debate No: 2693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (21)

 

polka-dots323

Pro

Species evolve through natural selection, which involves mutations, am I correct? A bacterial genome is what all species came from if you believe in evolution right? Well, a bacterial genome, contains a lot less information than a human genome. Through mutations, information is at a loss. No new information is gained through a mutation. How do you explain the fact that human genomes contain more information? The NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) explains how information in life is built up by evolution. (Or at least supposed to) And evolutionary scientists cannot find a way to explain this or support it in terms of their theory. Can you or anyone?
Kleptin

Con

"Species evolve through natural selection, which involves mutations, am I correct?"

You are correct.

"A bacterial genome is what all species came from if you believe in evolution right?"

Incorrect. There are other simpler life forms but I will let this one slide

"Well, a bacterial genome, contains a lot less information than a human genome."

That is correct.

"Through mutations, information is at a loss. No new information is gained through a mutation."

That is incorrect. Mutations can involve a loss or gain of information. A mutation can involve the addition, elimination, of shift of nucleic acids in a genome, resulting in the production of different proteins.

"How do you explain the fact that human genomes contain more information? The NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) explains how information in life is built up by evolution. (Or at least supposed to) And evolutionary scientists cannot find a way to explain this or support it in terms of their theory. Can you or anyone?"

Therefore, the rest of this argument is invalid.

****

I have debunked my opponent's opening point and will begin to argue for evolution.

In laboratories, we have successfully witnessed species of single-celled organisms evolving. Theists term this "microevolution". However, there is little to no difference between micro and macroevolution as the genetic changes are not like steps on a ladder, rather, like a sliding scale. If small changes are possible, big changes are possible too. It's just that evolution takes millions of years, which is slightly longer than most laboratories are open.

Speciation is also clearly visible and explained. The fossil record dates back the necessary hundreds upon thousands of years and places organisms in their respective time periods. We can see visible changes in structure of organisms, how they grow, and how they changed.
Debate Round No. 1
polka-dots323

Pro

polka-dots323 forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

Not quite sure what to do. My opponent made one argument and I debunked it completely. Showed it was a complete untruth.

I declare that evolution occurred due to the staples: Radiometric dating, the fossil record showing clear speciation, so on and so forth. I doubt my opponent will return and we have a round remaining...

Vote for me?
Debate Round No. 2
polka-dots323

Pro

"Incorrect. There are other simpler life forms but I will let this one slide"

Bacteria dates back to be the oldest life forms on Earth in science.

"That is incorrect. Mutations can involve a loss or gain of information. A mutation can involve the addition, elimination, of shift of nucleic acids in a genome, resulting in the production of different proteins. "

I apologize for my misconception. But, even if information is gained also, why is bacteria one of the most simplist types of organisms we have today? I know that there are simpler organisms such as nanobacteris and others, but bacterial goneomes contain much less information than any other genomes today. In that case, pretty much all of the information would have had to been gained. According to my understanding of the topic, through mutations, more information is changed/aletred or at a loss than gained. How is it that pretty much most of the orgnaimss today have more information in their genomes?

"The fossil record dates back the necessary hundreds upon thousands of years and places organisms in their respective time periods."

How do we know our method of dating is correct? We don't. We have no idea that such and such animals evolved from so and so species.

Here are some more facts that prove against evolution from http://emporium.turnpike.net.... I do know that this is just a website, but after doing some research, this is some more information that I came up with.

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.
Kleptin

Con

"Bacteria dates back to be the oldest life forms on Earth in science."

The oldest life forms we've managed to recover are Archaebacteria, which are different from the bacteria we know commonly today (Eubacteria). The oldest life form resembles viruses more than bacteria, as the bacterium itself is highly sophisticated. However, I said I would let this slide because it has little to no bearing on the debate, so we'll leave it at that.

"I apologize for my misconception. But, even if information is gained also, why is bacteria one of the most simplist types of organisms we have today? I know that there are simpler organisms such as nanobacteris and others, but bacterial goneomes contain much less information than any other genomes today. In that case, pretty much all of the information would have had to been gained. According to my understanding of the topic, through mutations, more information is changed/aletred or at a loss than gained. How is it that pretty much most of the orgnaimss today have more information in their genomes?"

Wrong again. Most information is changed/altered PERIOD. Not at a loss. It is difficult to explain to you since you don't have knowledge of protein synthesis, but let me put it to you this way. Take the word "RAKE". If we change the K to a T, it becomes "RATE". Is there any more or less sophistication? No. What if we delete the letter E? It becomes "RAT". Still a word. No more or less information even though a letter is missing. Suppose we add a letter, B. It becomes "BRAT". A letter is added, but information isn't really being added. Just a new word, new meaning.

Same thing with mutations. But simply speaking, your premise is wrong, therefore, your conclusion is unsound.

"How do we know our method of dating is correct? We don't. We have no idea that such and such animals evolved from so and so species."

Yes we do. Radiometric dating is a very particular physical (not just chemical) reaction that is constant. Many people argue that the rate has changed over time, but that is only because they don't understand first order and second order reactions.

"Here are some more facts that prove against evolution from http://emporium.turnpike.net....... I do know that this is just a website, but after doing some research, this is some more information that I came up with."

Please don't throw around the word "prove" if you don't mean it. I got a little lazy, so instead of debunking each point in great detail, I provided short arguments. To make up for it, here are not one, but two sites that debunk the specific site you linked, point by point, and in great depth.

http://www.geocities.com...
http://members.aol.com...

Below are my own responses.

"Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present."

Burden of proof fallacy. I have a photo of George Bush wearing a golf shirt on January 10 and a photo of George Bush wearing a suit on February 12. Would it be reasonable to assume that two George Bushes were simultaneously created at birth, or that he changed clothes sometime between? Fossils are merely rare photographs, not videos. The fact that we have enough og them despite their rarity shows how valid evolution is.

"Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"."

Begging the question. This is a conclusion, not a premise. It is also one that has absolutely no proof. Also a burden of proof fallacy.

"Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world."

False. Scientists have enough evidence to show abiotic synthesis of organic compounds (Miller Urey experiment) dictating that there is no magic switch between living and non-living, they believe that matter always was, similar to how you believe God always was, and evolution explains that humans and animals are not as separate as you think. The last one was also begging the question.

"Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were."

Incorrect. Some were unrevealing and inconsistent, but not thoroughly. Even being able to find a couple would validate evolution based on sheer probability.

"Evidence #5/6
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between."

That's completely misleading. Man did not evolve from monkeys OR apes, they evolved from a common ancestor. This whole thing is debunked.

"Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies."

Not really. What we deem social and practical is often against nature anyway. This point is invalid.

"Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies."

See above.

"Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution."

Not so. Many of the arguments for rock strata are based on faulty explanations of geology. I know because after I used rock strata evidence for my debate DEFENDING early earth, I also came upon some flaws in my own arguments.

You're now at a complete lack of arguments. Even your backup has been debunked. Since that is the case, I now recall your attention to the points I made above for the validity of fossil evidence is still there.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
*We saw this when Kleptin showed the logical fallacies of the claims of the creationist website...
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I apologize. I should not have used a biased system (logic/science) in order to debunk your arguments.
Posted by friar_zero 9 years ago
friar_zero
Sadly, at the end of the day debating with a creationist is like screaming at a brick wall. You can only leave tired and frustrated. On the light side though, at least the undecided peanut gallery has been present the facts.
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
You never "debunked" them. You created your own system of how they were wrong, but never proved it to me. You merely stated, "Not so. "
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I like how you summed up your beliefs here with the exact same points I debunked in our last 2 or 3 debates.
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
I believe that God made all creatures at the same time. We have no idea that our method of dating is correct nor were we back millions of years ago when the species supposedly "evolved."
Posted by khaylitsa 9 years ago
khaylitsa
i am truly shocked to hear that you think that evolution did not happen. can you possibly say that natural selection was all that happened to make things how they are? i would like to pose some contradicting evidence. first of all how can you explain that 3,400 million years ago the first life forms appeared: small sea dwelling sponges and such. if natural selection was the only thing there then how could the only life forms on earth suddenly be joined by animals (i would also like to say that they are amphibians implying they came from the only source of multi-celled animals, the sea)?
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
The Origin of Species remains one of my favourite books. I've read it in its entirety twice. Natural selection has no inconsistencies that I've noticed.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
We really should find other topics. Dead horses are getting beaten.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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: There should be little reason why polka-dots323 should be getting points. At the end of the debate, none of his points were left substantiated, and his entire argument was based on misconceptions (that mutations do no involve the loss or gain of info, bacteria are the oldest life forms existing) and since his premises (some of which begged the question) were discredited, so were his erroneous conclusions....Pro loses conduct for his forfeit, and his own sources--....are not too reliable*
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by clemsongirl5353 9 years ago
clemsongirl5353
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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