The Instigator
giuocob
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
forensics
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Evolution actually occurred.

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: 12/17/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,530 times Debate No: 601
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (9)

 

giuocob

Pro

My stance is pretty clear. Any contender: bring up a criticism of evolution for me to address, and I will answer it as best I can.
forensics

Con

First off, what form of evolution? Mutation? Monkeys? If monkeys, how was there enough time for them to evolve into humans? And if they had evolved into humans, why aren't they now?
Debate Round No. 1
giuocob

Pro

"First off, what form of evolution? Mutation? Monkeys?"

I'm assuming you're talking about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Since micro-evolution is pretty undeniable (see Galapagos finches, peppered moths, etcetera,) I'll go with the latter.

"If monkeys, how was there enough time for them to evolve into humans?"

Alright, first of all, let me point out a common misconception about evolution you're using. Evolution does NOT state that man evolved from monkeys. It states that at one point, around 10 million years ago, monkeys and men shared a common prehistoric ancestor that diverged, evolved into both species, was outcompeted by those new species, and went extinct. And in the case of man and apes, that species had at least 6 million years to evolve into what man is today. A LOT of random mutations can happen in 6 million years.

"And if they had evolved into humans, why aren't they now?"

Two groups of this common ancestor became isolated, either geographically or by some other mechanism. Then they evolved, respectively, into modern-day apes and modern-day humans. Apes didn't go extinct because they didn't often need to compete with men for resources, and even if they did, pre-lingual mankind wasn't that much more intelligent than a family of apes.
forensics

Con

forensics forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
giuocob

Pro

giuocob forfeited this round.
forensics

Con

forensics forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
giuocob

Pro

If anyone wants to bring up any other points in the comments, I'll address them round 4. I don't think the opponent is going to show up.
forensics

Con

forensics forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by forensics 9 years ago
forensics
Just wanted to say sorry for
not being here..
Family things,
funeral no computer..
I think you shold start
this debate again it would
be a very interesting one!
Sorry again

Kira
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Harlan, my objection was not solely based on simplicity grounds. I think your example overlooked pretty much the entirety of gradualism and made evolution look like X-Men.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Attraction to women clearly evolved as a method of attracting men to women. Simply having the expression of the trait in a woman doesn't negate the reasonings underlying the evolution of the trait in question. Nothing is perfect and it certainly doesn't hurt. Considering how 99% of our history went, women wouldn't have had much choice in the matter.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
It was supposed to be simplistic, tatarize...thats what I intended.
Posted by lowandwet 9 years ago
lowandwet
Explain why female homosexuality would have evolved (females are the limiting sex).
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Miserlou, I didn't say it wasn't legit. I said it was a little off. Evolution doesn't work like that. It's more a slight color change due to a protein than it is development of laser eyes. Yes, certainly having laser eyes would put you very much ahead of those organisms without laser eyes (depending on the control and energy requirements). Each slight variation being being useful to its possessor, gradually developing into a well formed organ.

Darth, my objection was more due to the lack of continuum around the steps than how they have advantages and disadvantages. For example, light skin has an advantage in increasing the production of Vitamin D and the disadvantage of burning over darker skin. So in areas with less sun light, a lighter skin tone is preferred. This slight change is primarily (other genes are involved and in different ways) triggered by the breakdown of a gene which allows for the transport of melanin to the skin. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, however, it's all a slow and gradual change.

I suppose my objection is a little harsh. My apologies for that Harlan. However, this kind of understanding is what leads to creationists (really they have deeper deficits more directly related) suggesting that therefore an eye can't possibly have evolved. You can't possibly just pop an eye into existence, and half an eye would be worthless, it's impossible to evolve an eye. The truth is the slow gradual changes from light sensing spots to pin hole eyes to lensed eyes to our eyes to better eyes... are all pretty well understood. But, "Poof! Laser eyes! Now I win!" -- is a little bit simplistic. I know that certainly somebody who didn't know how evolution worked might be rather impressed by Harlan's point, however, it doesn't provide any of the real crux, how does evolution build something. Rather it just makes a quick point of how does evolution select a grossly overpowered ability to wipe out the others.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Harlan's point was legit; it's a metaphor in a way. Just because people can't actually develope laser eyes randomly doesn't mean the principal isn't the same.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
What harlan is saying is that evolution does not mean survival for one, death to another. Evolution heavily hinges upon survival of the fittest. Let think of it like communication. It al starts out primitively with talking. Talking can do so much, then there comes postage. Postage proves to be a better form of communication in some ways, but not in others. Both co exist and prosper. Then comes the telephone. That has some advantages over both previous forms, but shares some disadvantages as well. But it still lives, and so do postage and talking. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and in many ways one dominates the other. Now comes the internet. Seemingly the superior communication. It does everything that the previous three can, and starts to dominate the world. But all four still exist. How so? People like seeing each others faces, and still have to. The internet does not do that, though it has video chat. SImilar, but not the same. You can send things like postage, but not large packages. Thus postage lives on. The internet has so many thing similar with phones, but lacks the directness and the personal relation through the electronically transmitted voice. The internet does money things better, but still is not perfect. It is the same way through organisms. Chimpanzee's survive better than gorillas, gorillas more so than orangutans, and those more so than chimps. Humans appear to be the best, yet our predecessors live on, because they can and do survive. Something will emerge that beats humans, but it hasn't come out yet. It will though, within the next million years, and something will come that's better than that. One's way of life will eventually overshadow and take over anothers, thus causing extinction. That's just how life is. But until then, we must live life as it was meant to be lived.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Nah, it was pretty well wrong and gives misconceptions about evolution. Simple is fine, my version is simple, I didn't bother to explain the genetic code, protein synth, phenotype/genotype etc.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Yeah, but it was a simplified version.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by lowandwet 9 years ago
lowandwet
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ethereal 9 years ago
Ethereal
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by forensics 9 years ago
forensics
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by zibeltor 9 years ago
zibeltor
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by sleepiB 9 years ago
sleepiB
giuocobforensicsTied
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 
Vote Placed by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
giuocobforensicsTied
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 A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
giuocobforensicsTied
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