The Instigator
IQok
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rasputin45
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Evolution - Fact or Fiction?

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...
Rasputin45
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,095 times Debate No: 49584
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

IQok

Con

I am against (con) evolutionism so the contender would be pro or for evolution theory. Be factual and produce evidence not mere heresay please!!

This examination will attempt to create arguments for or against evolutionism. Every attempt will be made to allow any scientific results to stand upon their own merit. We begin round 1 with opening arguments.

Opening Argument****

First, let us examine current factual evidence, postulations, articles and data which the scientific community, human studies and engineering has gathered to date. Note: Original species as defined in this examination: Original or beginning - the parent species i.e. Human, Bird, Canine, Lizard, Whale, Rodent, Ape, etc. For example: Canine would be the original species and coyote is considered a branch or sub-species of Canine.

Amazing revelations about DNA - DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution - article by Mario Seiglie " As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected"an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information"the detailed instructions for assembling proteins"in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).
It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica" an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!
Yet in their actual size"which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick"a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).
Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).
The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.
The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."
Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution"no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.
As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task"the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).
For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters"far from it.
So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!
Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident "by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.

Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information. Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining"the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.
Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.
This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth"a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).

Fact: Evolution of a species into another original species is not possible due to the strict DNA barriers that do not allow for acceptable levels of radical genetic (DNA) change to occur by any natural/unnatural means introduced. Even under the strict confines of laboratory experiments (unlike nature), a successfully developed original species has never been achieved. A myriad of gases, elements and radiation have been introduced, mixed and formulated in the hopes to create (and/or evolve) an original species into another original species offspring. The results have always been the result of a less robust mutation or failure. Mutations (cross breeding) of a species (noticed in birds or flowers of the same original species) are generally genetically weaker than their original parents. Every attempt at developing mutated specimens (created by human genetic manipulation) always develops into a specimen that is too aggressive and/or not suited for introduction into nature. Or, the specimen becomes a grotesque, weak and/or frail sub-species which is incapable of sustaining life and/or reproduction of its own accord. In other words, there is no amount of time, and considering the unbreakable barriers found in nature, that would successfully crossbreed (or evolve) two independent original species into a new original species.
Gregor Mendel / Biologist (1856) - referred to as the Father of Genetics; "a genetic barrier exists which cannot be bridged".

There is no physical DNA evidence to support that Homo erectus evolved (or crossbred) into Homo sapiens. Also, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were two different species (species dead end for DNA reproduction) and therefore could not successfully crossbreed under any circumstances.

These facts are clear and cannot be refuted. There is no case for evolution as it is scientifically impossible and absent of any objective evidence of any kind or form.
Rasputin45

Pro

Evolution - Fact or Fiction? I say Fact, and so do a lot of other people. Others say Fiction, like my opponent. My opponent seems to have used a Rhetoric, like he would writing a story. At one point he asks, "Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution, no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?" Which to me sounds like personal incredulity, "I can't imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution, therefore It isn't true."
Even so, he does use the DNA argument a lot. In his argument, he talks about a genetic language so complex for evolution. I looked around for this Genetic Language on the internet, but couldn't find it like it was described in the argument, so I will hope that Con will show me some more sources and hopefully explain the science even further because he understands what he is talking about I'm sure.
Instead of dwelling on his argument anymore, let's look at the evidence for evolution.

Firstly, organisms have features that help them survive in their habitat. Polar bears have black skin, that absorbs heat through radiation, and thick white fur, which helps it camaflage into the snow backdrop. Now some people might use this as an argument for "intelligent design" but I must ask them, Why does the designer need to design the animal to survive in it's habitat if he designed the habitat, why does he even need to put organisms into a perilous world if he is all-loving? Adaptation means the organisms with the right attributes to survive in their habitat, survive while others don't meaning only they produce offspring, offspring which will inherit the attributes that allow them to survive.

Secondly, animals prove natural selection. Following the idea that only those who survive get to produce offspring, only the best at flight, fright or flight get to produce offspring. There are certain birds who build a nest for a female bird, and if she accepts it they can mate. "In many species the male bird's skill at nest building is a sign of his suitability as a mate; he invests huge effort in the task. Males of the European house wren build up to 12 nests to attract females. They will continue to build new nests until a female is happy with the construction." Even in humans there is sign of Natural selection. "In the game of love and sex, beautiful skin may draw the line between winners and losers: Women find men with a healthy skin color more appealing than those with a masculine face, new research shows." The key word here is 'healthy' because it shows that healthy looking skin means healthy mate means healthy offspring in the subconscious mind of Women. Let's look at some drawings from Darwin himself, "http://upload.wikimedia.org..." This image shows the likeness between the different finches, each has a different beak, because each ancestor chose a favorite food.

Also, if you think about it, the fact that most birds use nests show that evolution is correct. Somewhere early along the line, birds who found ways of incubating the eggs found that the eggs were less likely to die, meaning it was soon programmed into the instinct of their many descendants.

Thirdly, Humans proved artificial selection (selective breeding) before Darwin was around. Here is an Anecdote: My dog is a Springer Spaniel and everytime she sees a bunny or guinea pig, or cat, she'll go straight for it. Springer Spaniels are hunting dogs. Hunters would use them to 'Spring' the bushes to get birds to fly up so the hunters could shoot them down. Now, the dog breed wasn't designed for the Hunters, the hunters bred them to be hunter dogs. Most Dogs are descended from wolfs, even some creationist accept this, but if you are going to accept something like micro-evolution e.g wolfs to dogs, then why are you so skeptical of macro-evolution e.g Homo erectus to Homo Sapien.

Fourthly, the fossil record. "http://upload.wikimedia.org..." Look at the similarities between the Skulls. Yes, the gorilla looks very different to the mordern Homo sapiens but the transitional skulls make everything flow, and it is hard to deny the likeness between each one. This is only the beginning. There are hundreds of fossils, in many museums, that show transition from and to many species of animal; You need only look for them.

I say that I am able to prove evolution using fact but more importantly logic but seeing as we have 4 more rounds, I say that I shouldn't claim that my evidence makes evolution a fact until after they have been held up to scrutiny, I look forward to it.

Sources
http://www.livescience.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.pbs.org...
https://www.akc.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
IQok

Con

IQok forfeited this round.
Rasputin45

Pro

"In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source." Ooh, I wonder; The evidence given must be so good, " "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task"the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244),"...apparently not. This is not evidence, it is a quote from an apologist. I wouldn't mind if you hadn't quoted but rephrased it and showed the evidence for this. If your entire argument wasn't just taken from another sight, "Amazing revelations about DNA - DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution - article by Mario Seiglie," then this mistake might not have happened.
"For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia." Well, diseases do happen, and anyway, just because genetic the information is so complex does mean it couldn't have come about through gradual changes. It is like saying that Video game creator's couldn't have made the highly graphically detail games today because the coding is too complex. It forgets to mention that video gaming started from 8-bit graphic and get getting more complex over time. I would have looked at the genetic coding for an amoeba or other single-celled organism but no scientist has done that. If the single-celled organism had a really complex dna system, then I would have to rethink the my argument but it still doesn't negate evolution. We don't know the strarting point of evolution. We don't know the origin of life, so we don't know how genetics started, or much about the laws of genetics to begin with. I suppose then theres also the idea of a Deity who made it so that we could have complex gentetic coding because as you should know, evolution doesn't negate theism/deism. But I would prefer the idea that genetics become more complex over time in evolution for it seems to fit the picture better.
"In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program." Science is always working on it but anyway, just because the evidence is lacking in one area doesn't disprove the other area which have mounds of evidence to back it up.
"Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information." You know, it would be nice if you explained what genetics are and the laws of genetics. We don't know fully how genetics work in evolution, but if your argument was a bit more coherent and well explained, you would get somewhere.
"Mutations (cross breeding)" This is wrong for Mutation means "a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element." It happens because of unrepaired damage to dna, not cross-breeding.
"Fact: Evolution of a species into another original species is not possible due to the strict DNA barriers that do not allow for acceptable levels of radical genetic (DNA) change to occur by any natural/unnatural means introduced." I love how you claim that due to your (not so) well explained and detailed argument back up by (no real or convincing) evidence that evolution's impossibility is a Fact.
"There is no physical DNA evidence to support that Homo erectus evolved (or crossbred) into Homo sapiens." Well, there is the visual evidence but how do you expect us to collect DNA from an extinct species. What do you expect us to do, hop on to the TARDIS.
" Also, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were two different species (species dead end for DNA reproduction) and therefore could not successfully crossbreed under any circumstances." Evidence and Explanation please!
"These facts are clear and cannot be refuted." I kinda just did.
" There is no case for evolution as it is scientifically impossible and absent of any objective evidence of any kind or form." Well, it's scientific impossibility (according to the evidence presented) is all interpretation and cannot be considered as fact and as for objective evidence, check round one.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
IQok

Con

IQok forfeited this round.
Rasputin45

Pro

Evolution is one of the backbone theories of modern science. Most of biology is explained better keeping evolution in mind. But I'm not an Evolutionary Scientist, so I don't understand all of evolution. So I am using this round to advertise some good places to look for infomation.
The Origin Species (Obviously)-Charles Darwin
The Greatest show on Earth- Richard Dawkins.
Anything else by Richard Dawkins.
Why Evolution is true- Jerry. A. Coyne
Genome: The Autobiography of a Species In 23 Chapters- Matt Ridley
Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History-Stephen Jay Gould.

I haven't read any yet. If I had the time and dedication I would, but I didn't so instead I search Wikipedia
Wikipedia.com
Debate Round No. 3
IQok

Con

IQok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Enjoy the long wait for the forfeits. ;)

Oh and congratulations on the win when we get to vote that is.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
What now, I don't have any one to rebuttal.
Posted by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
IQok... Poe's law.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
Apparently, IQok's Account is no longer active.
Posted by Rasputin45 3 years ago
Rasputin45
Even though you have plagiarized your work from somewhere else, I will still give my own argument as if the things you pasted were the things you said. I don't 'believe in Darwin' as you put it but I do accept his theory, which has been revised and held up to scrutiny for over 200 years old and still stood strong, as Fact. By the way, it is spelt Kool-Aid, there is no 'e' at the end.
Posted by DocG84 3 years ago
DocG84
Go to debate rounds, hit ctrl+f and type in 'siegle' and tell me where it appears. My computer can not seem to find it.

Besides, the entire paragraph was copied and pasted with no reference at the end of the paragraph as some of yours do, it appears as if you tried to pass off several of the paragraphs as your own thoughts which none of them were.
Posted by IQok 3 years ago
IQok
No, you are wrong,, siegle is mentioned dufus..... LOL
Posted by DocG84 3 years ago
DocG84
You are wrong, you tried to pass this off as your own: http://www.ucg.org... with no source.

http://www.debate.org...

Please accept my challenge where you can defend yourself in a formal way.
Posted by IQok 3 years ago
IQok
This whole debate is properly referenced on my part Doc..... what else you got? You truly cannot handle truth so when you are faced with it you cry wolf. This is typical of society today...
Posted by IQok 3 years ago
IQok
Doc,,, you crack me up...... LOL
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
IQokRasputin45Tied
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: Clear win with Con forfeiting and not actually providing an argument more than a incoherent ramble or rant. Pro gets argument and source points for a coherent argument and response to Con. The conduct points got to Pro as Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
IQokRasputin45Tied
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: concession