The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
omelet
Con (against)
Winning
79 Points

Evolution: Philosophically stupid.

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: 6/10/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,744 times Debate No: 12308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (81)
Votes (14)

 

GodSands

Pro

http://www.thefreedictionary.com... - Definition of stupid.

The first round of mine won't be that long, just an introduction.

I want to place emphasis on how do species evolution into new species.

I have just thought up, what I think is a valid piece of philosophy.

Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features. So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb.

So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species.

Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude.

Species = features. Macro limb perhaps.

Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps.

For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail).

And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs, but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features.

My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.
omelet

Con

DEFINITIONS {
Limb: An appendage of a particular creature. My right leg is an example. This seems to be the definition my opponent is using.

Feature: A specific quality which all members of a given species share. Types of limbs shared by all members of a species are examples. [ex: all fish have jaws, all humans have two hands with five fingers each, etc]

Species: A set of interrelated creatures who share a specific set of qualities.

*Note that this definition is very different than the definitions used to name species. Note also that under this species definition, in some cases creatures of different species could mate, where that is not possible by some other definitions.
}

.

STATEMENT OF POSITIONS {
My opponent's argument seems to be that it is impossible for evolution to cross the species barrier when we use this definition - that it is impossible for evolution to lead to new species with new features.

It is my position that evolution is indeed capable of this.
}

.

CONTENTION I: A Spheroid Example {
Consider the case of an asexually reproducing spheroid creature. This creature does not have any limbs - it is very close in shape to a sphere. Consider that a mutation occurs during reproduction which creates a bump in the offspring. This bump would be a new limb, and thus the child would have a new feature that the parent did not have. Further mutations could occur which make the bump more noticeable, and evolution will likely lead to a larger bump eventually if the bump is useful to the creature - for instance, if it allows the creature to push off the ground more effectively.

I'd like to ask my opponent if he thinks the process I have defined here cannot occur.
}

.

CONTENTION II: Rarity, Nuance {
My opponent contends that we should expect, if evolution is capable of producing new limbs, to have seen it at least every now and then. However, it is likely that the occurrence and success of new limbs is a very rare circumstance. We have not been observing and recording everything we've seen in the natural world for very long. New features likely don't come about very often, and they are often likely to be harmful, so they probably rarely survive very long for us to see. Further, given the very small portion of animals which we observe, it may be that it would actually be unlikely for us to have seen a new feature. Last of all, new features are likely very nuanced in appearance.

In all cases where wings developed, they did not just suddenly exist as wings in the child. They usually started off just as slightly stretched skin between two bones, and they got more and more winglike as evolution progressed. We have noticed plenty of instances of skin being abnormally stretched between bones - webbed feet in human beings is a good example [II.1]. Unfortunately, "feature" is such an elusive word that it's unclear exactly where on the scale from webbing to wings we would say there's a new feature. For instance, do flying squirrels [See II.2 for clarification] have a feature that other members of the squirrel family lack? Do human with webbed toes? Do bats have a feature that all other mammals lack?

If the evolution of a feature is done in small stages [like a wing], what specific criteria should be used to determine if a step entails a new feature?
}

[II.1] http://birthdayshoes.com...
[II.2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

.

CONTENTION III: Very visible examples {
We have seen instances of creatures with six fingers on a hand [III.1], two heads [III.2], etc. These are direct examples of a child having a different set of features than either parent.
}

[III.1] http://www.worldofstock.com...
[III.2] http://www.oddee.com...

.

CONTENTION IV: The Burden of Proof {
Evolution [even macroevolution] has a wealth of evidence behind it - not only fossil evidence, but also extremely solid genetic evidence [including IV.1]. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, particularly those who work in biology [IV.2]. This stuff is direct evidence in my favor. Evidence and experts both indicate that my opponent's position is incorrect.

We must consider my opponent's argument with these things in mind. He hasn't provided an argument as to why it couldn't happen - he's just noted that he doesn't think it could happen, and he's never seen it happen directly or indirectly. This would be an acceptable argument if it was made against a proposition for which there was no evidence, but my opponent is claiming that his lack of understanding outweighs the mountain of evidence in favor of common ancestry. However, I will still continue arguing for my side despite this.
}

[IV.1] "By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors)" http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[IV.2] "less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism" - http://www.talkorigins.org... - [Statistics from Robinson 1995]

.

CONTENTION V: Jawless Fish {
Not all fish have jaws. Some fish do not have jaws. While this would put them in a different species by the definition we're using, there is evidence that jaws began merely as mutations in jawless fish [V.1], supporting the notion that evolution can indeed create features.
}
[V.1] "It is thought that a gill arch in an agnathan [Jawless fish] became fused to its skull. The upper part of the gill support became the top jaw and the bottom part of the gill support became the bottom jaw. Embryology points to this and the arrangement of nerves in shark heads and most simple fishes shows that jaws are in line with gill arches." - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...

.

CONCLUSION {
That is all for now. I will allow my opponent to reply to my case, and perhaps even to provide a positive case for his assertion that evolution couldn't possibly have caused the development of features.
}
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

To begin I agree with the definitions which Con has given for both limb and feature and species.

MY ARGUMENT IN RELATION TO MY OPPOENTS.

Con describes a creature without limbs, however I would consider that no creature is without limbs since the limb is needed to produce new features, in this case the only limb this creature has it's torso. Which a more complex creature would have limbs attached to that limb, the torso. In this case Con uses a sphere shaped limb which has no other limbs attached.

He describes a new limb evolving as a bump on the offspring which it's species may later use to push it's self off of the ground. This is a mutation, since it is not normal for this bump to develop on this single limb creature in the womb, it therefore will not become successful, since the bump is not being developed enough. And only for this particular single limb creature. Because it is not successful, it will cause the creature to die rather than to breed Which will not affect the species rate of reproduction. Even if the single limb creature did breed, it does not mean it's offspring will inherit the bump. An example of this is when two adult dwarfs have children, and all the children are fully developed. Proving that their dwarf gene or the singled limb creature did not have a successful limb, rather it was a feature which it's current limb developed in the womb. Unlike humans with morals, this lesser complex species will kill off it's single limb creature with the bump by simply being better at surviving.

Relating back to my first argument, that an individual creature cannot evolve a new feature because it cannot evolve a new limb, to begin with Con did not say how a bump would appear or develop, rather he speculated that a bump would evolve. Rather improving on it's current features it has already for example: Increasing it's skin density or developing a larger jaw, if at all it has one?

So features can mutate, but since the species as a whole does not have limbs because, rather only features, there are no limbs which the species as a whole can evolve BRAND NEW features.

Con explains that wings do not suddenly appear, that is true, but what is also true is that they don't even begin to develop except in the womb. Again the wing would be a totally new limb with new features, like the ability to fly or in some rare cases, hover. Con mentions that some humans have webbed feet, however they aren't actual webbed feet like a frog or toad would possess. Since the webbed feet found on a few human can be removed, and once removed will not grow back. Unlike the frog or toad, which when either frog or toad reproduce, the offspring which survive to adulthood will have webbed feet because they are best suited for its environment. If for example a mutated one with no webbed feet survived, then it would so happen that there would be an even worse defect which has mutated the other, now dead offspring. And the one with webbed feet, if to breed, would give birth to eggs with frogs or toads that do have webbed feet.

The argument clearly fails due to this. And that for this unlikely occurrence to continue for millions of years, is almost an impossibility. There would have to be a sudden change in environment which would benefit frogs or toads without webbed feet. And a sudden change in environment does not mean webbed feet would be insufficient, however if a web environment suddenly changed into a hot environment with no water at all, every frog and toad would die with ten's of minutes.

Next, Con mentions that there are very visible examples, however having two heads or six fingers is nothing new, rather it is the same limb/feature. (a particular creature has both limb and feature, for if you had your arm cut off, you would say, "You chopped off my limb." Or, "You chopped off my feature." But with a species, they only have features. since a species is never seen, rather a individual within a species.) There is nothing new, this has clearly shown me that Con has not quite grasped the concept I am arguing for.

Let me explain again. A feature is related to a species, for example: the ability to bark. All dogs can bark in general. A limb is only related to an individual creature because the word limb is precise and, it belongs only to that creature, whereas every creature in the species has the same feature as a particular creature. All dogs have tails in general, but a particular dog has a tail which is the limb belonging to that precise dog. Therefore, because of these definitions, evolution has a problem, how? Because to evolve BRAND NEW features as a whole species, a particular creature belonging to that species must developed a BRAND NEW limb in the womb or egg. And at the same time as the new limb evolves, the new feature will be there as soon as the new limb is developed. For an example, if a pig was to evolve wings, it would also inherit the ability to fly. However the wings would have to be very powerful to lift the weight of the pig. So in conclusion of this paragraph, for a species to evolve, a particular creature within that species would need to evolve a BRAND NEW limb to feature BRAND NEW features.

My opponent goes on to suggest there is a wealth of evidence, but he has failed to show any, rather just say there is. He says there is a mountain of evidence in DNA and in the fossil record, however do not be fooled, he is merely relating the fact, for if macro evolution were to exist, it would probably be found in these things, such as DNA or the fossil record. Yet I haven't got any evidence of that from my opponent.

Jawless fish: There is a clear distinction between a fish with jaws and one without jaws. A feature can vary, for example: A jaw become stronger, so it can tear through flesh, but a fishes jaw will never crush metal. Just like in the same way some insects have become resistant to some bugs sprays, but a bug will never become resistant to a sledge hammer.

The notion that evolution can create features has not been proved because it has not been observed that a precise creature within a species can evolve a limb and therefore a new feature. By saying a bump or something as useless as that is a new limb or a new feature isn't true, since a new limb or feature MUST be useful right away for it to be successful, in the same way, it would be foolish if a business were to buy 12 thousand rubbish products, the business would suffer because it have given away money for rubbish products which will not sell well at all, therefore the product will be taken off the shelves and given away. In that they will never be produced again. Unless the needs of the buyers change, and that would be like getting rid of the bicycle for a something that does not work in the same way, and thus humans would not, for some reason or another, to travel.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent has not explained how a limb could evolve from a precise creature and thus affect the entire species to evolve into a BRAND NEW species. Therefore my argument remains the same.
omelet

Con

RE: CONTENTION I: The Spheroid Example {
Alright, well my opponent says that a creature with a spheroid body has one limb, a torso. I'll go with it.

The fact is, a mutation that produces a bump in the offspring would leave the offspring with two limbs - a torso, and a bump on that torso. That bump could be immediately successful as a mutation, and further mutations could make this new feature more and more useful as well as more and more distinct.

My opponent claims that it is "not normal for this bump to develop on this single limb creature in the womb, it therefore will not become successful, since the bump is not being developed enough." Non sequitur. In fact, due to the mutation in the DNA, it is inherent to the child's DNA that he have that bump. The fact that the parent creature did not have the DNA that made this trait inherent is irrelevant.

My opponent tries supporting his logic with an unsourced example. "An example of this is when two adult dwarfs have children, and all the children are fully developed. Proving that their dwarf gene or the singled limb creature did not have a successful limb, rather it was a feature which it's current limb developed in the womb." This is not at all a similar case. Dwarves are much more likely to have dwarf children, just as brown-eyed people are much more likely to have brown-eyed children, etc. This does not mean that brown eyes or dwarfism are unsuccessful. The fact is that since our traits are determined from two parents, and different combinations of different genes produce different outcomes, it is sometimes possible for two similar parents to have a dissimilar child [I.1]. Further, I specifically said that the creature reproduced asexually, so a child would necessarily, without any mutations, be exactly like the parent. The first child with this mutation would have a bump, and all its children would necessarily have the same bump, because they would have the same DNA. Further mutations could remove the bump or make it bigger, and these mutations would always be passed down in a asexually reproducing organism.

My opponent also suggests that "unlike humans with morals, this lesser complex species will kill off it's single limb creature with the bump by simply being better at surviving." This is false. A spheroid creature would not be particularly good at surviving. The child with the bump would actually probably be better-equipped to handle surviving.

He says that "Con did not say how a bump would appear or develop, rather he speculated that a bump would evolve," but I did. A mutation in the DNA could potentially cause an irregularity in shape. My opponent seems to think that DNA is a list of features and then a description of the characteristics of those features. No. DNA is simply nature's instruction manual for creating a creature. There's no part of it that says "and this is a jaw, it's used for X." There's simply a certain part of DNA that creates certain bones and surrounding tissues which happen to make up our jaw. The difference in the instructions for creating a spheroid creature and creating a spheroid creature with a bump is very negligible, so it is something a minor mutation could produce. My opponent has not given any justification for his position that mutations can never produce new features.
}

[I.1] These purple flowers have a 1/4 chance of producing a plant with white flowers. Note that this approach only works for traditional Dominant/recessive genes. http://en.wikipedia.org...

.

RE: CONTENTION II:
{
My opponent states that "Con explains that wings do not suddenly appear, that is true, but what is also true is that they don't even begin to develop except in the womb."

The fact that wings, or any skin stretched between two bones, begins to develop in the womb is meaningless. It still can develop.

Further, wings can also develop later in life, in rare cases. Take, for instance, the caterpillar. Until it develops into a butterfly, it does not have wings.

My opponent says that human webbed feet are different from frogs' because frogs' cannot be removed. Actually, they can. However, the children will still have webbed feet because the genes necessary for webbed feet have completely dominated the frog genome. Like eye or hair color, both webbed and unwebbed feet exist in humans. Webbed feet have not provided a significant benefit, so they have not begun to dominate the genome. They also offer little disadvantage, so while their occurrence is low, they have not been eliminated altogether.

My opponent illustrates his fundamental lack of knowledge about genetics when he claims that something like webbed feet NECESSARILY has a low chance of occurring. Of everyone had the webbed foot genes, then it would have a high chance of occurring all the time - it just has not spread yet. The frequency of the trait depends on whether the genetic trait appears in one or more of the parent. This is why he is unable to provide any reputable sources for his claims.

My opponent states: "And a sudden change in environment does not mean webbed feet would be insufficient, however if a web environment suddenly changed into a hot environment with no water at all, every frog and toad would die with ten's of minutes." He fails to recognize that the environment changes GRADUALLY, but these changes eventually add up to be large changes. Further, within an ecosystem, there are a wide variety of evolutionary niches for creatures to fill.
}

.

RE: CONTENTION III: Visible examples
{
My opponent contends that the children with limbs [second heads, more fingers, etc.] that the parents do not have is not an example of new features coming about. It is. If those children were more successful because of their additional limbs, then the DNA which created them would propagate throughout the gene pool and six fingers, for example, could become the new norm.

Further, by our definitions, which both I and my opponent agree on, a person with limbs its parents do not have is necessarily part of a completely new species. This indeed constitutes a direct example of additional features.
}

.

RE: Winged Pigs {
The reason we do not see wings, or anything resembling wings, on pigs is that wings and proto-wings are not useful at all to pigs. They would indeed, as my opponent suggests, have to develop very strong wings to get any benefit whatsoever from these wings.

However, for creatures that actually have wings, it's a completely different story. Wings evolve GRADUALLY, not all at once. Take, for instance, squirrels. They often find themselves up in high trees. Those squirrels with a higher ratio of surface area to mass will be able to survive falls much better. Squirrels with even some webbing can fill a particular evolutionary niche well. As they get more and more webbing, they are able to reduce falling damage even better, and eventually can glide, as is the case with flying squirrels [I brought up flying squirrels last round - my opponent didn't address that point]
}

.

RE: Wealth of Evidence {
I will provide more evidence.
There are known transitional fossils, for example between fish and amphibians[1].
Endogenous retroviruses indicate common ancestry[2].
Vestigial organs indicate common ancestry[3].
}

[1] http://chem.tufts.edu...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...

.

RE: CONTENTION V: Jawless Fish {
I explained how a fish could evolve a jaw. My opponent has not responded to that. He has merely said that we didn't see it happen firsthand, an irrelevant point. He has not attacked my actual argument here.
}

.

Limbs are described in DNA. DNA can mutate, sometimes creating new limbs. DNA can spread among a population. It's not a difficult concept.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

For starters, Con, in round two, did not argue how my first argument was wrong. He spoke a lot about DNA, and that it is proof for macro evolution.

The bump on this creature is a mutation, yes. But like a child born with a chip on his shoulder, it is not a normal condition, although the creature might make use of the bump because it has it and the creature has no other choice but to live with it. It will not evolve into anything, the creature will die, even if it did breed the chromosomes from the mother and from the mutated father with a bump will split into half giving the offspring half of the chemosynthesis from the mother and the other half from the father. So likewise if a person with two heads had a child with a person with one head, their children would not have two heads, but one. If what my opponent is saying is true, why then isn't there loads of mutations today, but rather only a very few? The occasional snake with two heads perhaps.

I would also like to ask what the bump is? I can bang my head and get a bump on my head. Is that a new limb while it is there on my head? What is the difference from the bump on this creature and a bump on my head?

Another criticism is, if the one limb fish did make use of this mutation over all in the species, how would it become a non fish via that bump? And why would the species even fall to its knees in sight of that bump on that one creature? How could it? You can only speculation about how one creature could affect the species since a species does not have limbs, only features. And in that distinction you have to speculate how that one creature would change the entire species, even though the species is stretched across the globe. If my pet fish was born with a lump on it's side, you would be crazy to say it was evolving a new limb. And that it will affect it's entire species. It's insane, the whole thing!

The limb which my opponent describes has no immediate use, it don't make the creature swim faster, because of aerodynamics, it creates more to eat for predators, and the chances that a normal one will life to adulthood is slim, and the chances that this particular creature with a bump will make it to adulthood is even slimmer. And the chances that this particular creature would change the entire species is far beyond any possibility. This is due to that fact that the species produces normal creatures with normal bodies at a steady rate. And that it is speculating to say that one creature can affect it's entire species with a mutation that has no good over all use for it's entire species.

Brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes are not defects to the human species. Affirmed. Talking about asexual creatures, give one example on how a mutation could improve the worm and what it does? A bump perhaps?

Try avoiding words like possible or maybe, or probably. Such words like these are words of speculation and are not words of generalities. For example: If I rub my hand together, it will probably create heat, but in general if I rub my hands together, it will create head. Because they are not general words for things that we know are normal (we know that on general men have lungs, it is possible that we can send a man to Mars) they are words of speculation and thus are not scientific. But rather faith oriented.

It is very possible that a mutation could cause an odd shape in a creature, but it is speculation to go further and say it will become a success throughout the entire species. That takes a lot of faith to believe in.

The purple flower have 1/4 chances of being while is nothing new, colour doesn't affect how some acts or how it really looks. (If I am colour blind, the dog will look the same if I wasn't colour blind.) Your flower example is no different from people's different eye colours.

Wings are developed in the egg or in a cocoon, never when the creature is active, moving from one place to another by it's own instinct. Give me one example of this, and you would have proved that evolution is philosophically right.

Before I go further I am going to remind once again of what my philosophical theory entails. A species does not have any limbs, because a species is a abstract concept and limbs are not abstract. You cannot sense a species and say, "I sense a species, the dog species." Only by reason you can do that, but by our empirical sense you can only say, "I sense a creature, a dog." So a precise creature has limbs because a limb isn't an abstract concept like species is. And because of THIS reason, evolution is in trouble, why?

Because, for evolution to work, or to occur a single creature needs to evolve a BRAND new limb to feature BRAND new features. If this were to be true, life would look awfully silly compared to what it is now. As an example, a dog evolving something that no other dog has or could possible have in any circumstance, like wings or being able to make a noise that is not a type of bark or growl. According to evolution, there are similar breeds to begin with, but over millions of year (abstract concept) breeds become less similar and in that new species evolve. However this is false because there are many breeds of dogs which all inherit the same feature of other breeds. All, on general have tails, all in general can bark and hear high pitched sounds.

The example that Con presented does not consist of a new limb which has new features. But he speculates that it could and probably will have a use some time in the future which it's species will inherit some how, over millions of years of evolution. This is faith oriented.

A 'mountain' of macro evolution evidence in relation to interpretation: Just like people say either, "That glass in half full." Or, "That glass is half empty." The same principle is being applied here. Interpretation is reasoned, not observed via our senses. And thus there isn't really a mountain of evidence, but rather in relation to interpretation there seems to be. Doesn't mean there is. Who can say, "The music IS too loud." And who can say, "The music IS too quiet."? No one, but one must be right, so Con submits to there be a 'mountain' of evidence, when really there isn't any. You can only reason, and believe that it is more sensual, but there is no video camera evidence. Where is the video camera evidence of evolution? For if there was, that would be a mountain of evidence.

Flying squirrel: It doesn't actually fly to begin with, it spreads out it's arms which has fur covered skin which are attached to its feet. And when the squirrel falls it spreads it's limbs out to create wind resistance. And therefore it doesn't fall to it's death but rather it can jump further. It is a feature which it's breed has. Not species. But of course like even breed within the species, they share what even breed has within the species. In this case for example: The ability to climb trees or it's tail. Although features can vary, they are kept in a box also. There is a limitation to each feature, as I have said before, some insects can become resistant to some sprays, but never could they become resistant to a sledge hammer.

Jawless to jaw: "It is thought that a gill arch in an agnathan [Jawless fish] became fused to its skull. The upper part of the gill support became the top jaw and the bottom part of the gill support became the bottom jaw. Embryology points to this and the arrangement of nerves in shark heads and most simple fishes shows that jaws are in line with gill arches."

This is the explanation. There is one thing saying how it could be possible, and another seeing it happen. Can it happen, can I jump 10ft if I explain how, as if it were to happen? No. This is a theory, it have never been observed and thus although based on science isn't science it's self. But speculation. If Con say, it is happening, then the sentence above still haven't been observed.

Con still haven't explain how my theory is wrong.
omelet

Con

omelet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Lol, yeah, I know what you mean. It's not a great analogy though. It seemed that way when he used the Facebook analogy because the underlying coding and the external "skin" are the same thing (like phenomena and nouemena). But then he used a different argument when he was saying that "features" don't belong to any one animal but to its species. In that case a "feature" and a "limb" really *aren't* the same thing, a "feauture" is a property belonging to an essential form of a given animal. The problem is that there is no such thing as an "ideal" rabbit; populations vary over time, so even if you were to try to "average out" all the "features" of every rabbit in the world to try to create an essential form, it wouldn't be the same from one moment to the next.

So basically his argument was circular in addition to incoherent. That is, if I'm understanding it correctly, which may or may not be the case given the cryptic nature of Sandspeak.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
The whole time, I was honestly thinking about the "Facebook-in-itself". Do you not get that vibe?
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
That being said, I think it would be more accurate to say his argument was a gross bastardization of essentialism or Platonic idealism rather than of Kant's phenomena/nouemena distinction.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Kant did it already."

Albeit in a slightly less retarded fashion...
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"You may or may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it."

Kant did it already.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The average person has three mutations. If mutations always produced death, the human species would die out quickly. Most mutations are tiny and only make a tiny change in the statistical probability of survival. con explained it right.

Arguments and references to Con. Con loses conduct for the forfeit.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
"Besides, GodSands IS shoehorning philosophy into a question science has dominance in."

That was kind of funny, when I copied and pasted the quote above there were some words attached which I did not copy and paste saying, "Report this comment" But I deleted those words, anyhow.

The quote above IS philosophy.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'...despite the fact that the truths the two are concentrated in finding are largely different'

Yeah, and philosophers have failed to reach consensus' on the most basic philosophical questions. On the other hand, scientists have have massive progress in the last century.

Besides, GodSands IS shoehorning philosophy into a question science has dominance in.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Not only that omelet. I have other reasons, the fossil record is not evidence for evolution since you cannot say, this creature came from this one, reather you speculate that certain animals do. For an example, the whale being the ancestor of a family of monkies in a tree. Although there are similar animal between the whale and the monky in which you believe the whale evolved from to reach it's monky stage. You cannot say to a dead fossil, "Did you have these fossils as children?" By going by how then look in similarites with each other, before taking in the two possibilities of there either being a common ancestor or a common desginer, you ignore the common desginer totally, even though you still do not think that even if you do ignore the common desginer you still haven't ignored a possible divinity, which is being the lies of Satan.

To make a true and honest universe or world to live in, you must also have total honestly and trust. That includes relating theology with science and science with philosophy and theology with philosophy. Because to believe in evolution might seem to exclude all theology out the window, but you tend to forget that there is also a evil power at work. And that is Satan and his angels. How do you know, you are not a victim of his lies, for isn't he much more intelligent? For in heaven he was second in command.
Posted by omelet 6 years ago
omelet
Humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes would be theologically world-shattering for GS. He doesn't believe it because it contradicts his bible.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
GodSandsomeletTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: What's with the person who forfeited winning?
Vote Placed by Eccedustin 6 years ago
Eccedustin
GodSandsomeletTied
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 Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
GodSandsomeletTied
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 OrionsGambit 6 years ago
OrionsGambit
GodSandsomeletTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
GodSandsomeletTied
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:15 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
GodSandsomeletTied
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 Madoki 6 years ago
Madoki
GodSandsomeletTied
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 Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
GodSandsomeletTied
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:15 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
GodSandsomeletTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
GodSandsomeletTied
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:16