The Instigator
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SirCrona
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution and Irreducible Complexity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 68037
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

My fellow debaters, I come here today to make an argument for intelligent design. I guess you would like to know where I am coming from, and my position. When I began my studies in the early 90s, I fully believed that the theory of evolution was capable of explaining the biological systems that we observe in nature.

With that position, I started teaching biology at the University of Oslo. During this time, I read a lot of scientific literature, especially biology. I came across the book that prof. Michael Behe had written, "Darwin's Black Box" - and it made me think for the first time. Finally, after a lot of thinking, I realized: the theory of evolution can not account for the biological systems that M. Behe had written about.

I began to doubt my beliefs about the theory of evolution, I asked myself many times: 'why do I believe what I believe?' and couldn't come up with a satisfying answer. At this point the thought hit me: the naturalistic theory of evolution is most likely not the correct theory of the diversity of biological life on this planet.

I would like to share this with you, and see what you have to say on the topic. Is there irreducible complexity?
SirCrona

Con

YOU DARE DOUBT DARWIN?! HERETIC! I SHALL BURN THOU AT THE DEBATE DOT ORG STAKE! Jokes aside, though, I must warn pro: My oration style is a particular brand of humorist that might come off as intense and/or mocking. Please don't take this personally; It's just the way I talk.

I accept this debate. I'll be taking the stance that evolution CAN account for the current level of complexity we see. Pro's opening statements are a bit hard to discern, but I will assume that he is arguing FOR ID (Hence being pro) and not just against Evolution. Because of this, I suppose we must share the burden of proof.

Definitions:
Evolution (Theory): The theory that all life on Earth evolved from one or more common ancestors via natural selection and mutation, compounding over millions of years
Abiogenesis: The hypothesis that the first life on Earth came from naturally occurring DNA or RNA in Earth's environment.
Intelligent Design: The theory that all life on Earth was intelligently designed for its environment.

Good luck pro.
Debate Round No. 1
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

There are several biological systems that are have irreducible complexity. One of them would be the flagellar motor. It contains many parts that work together to perform a function. I argue that this structure can not arrive through random mutations and natural selection. This indicator points to intelligent design.
SirCrona

Con

Intuitively, the existence of such a complex structure would lead someone to believe that its complexity couldn't come about naturally. I think you'll find, my friend, the truth of the matter is not quite so simple. Paleontology can't be sure how or when these structures appeared in bacteria as they leave no fossils, but to assert that their complexity either disproves the theory of evolution or strongly supports intelligent design to the point where evolution is ruled out is proposterous. We have observed several speciation changes within evolution about as monumental as flagellum in lab settings. For examle, a famous exeperement (detailed in [1]) showed a strain of flavobacteria developing the ability to digest nylon. If we have events such as this supporting, against intuition, that evolutionary theory is correct in that department, then it takes more than just "That looks pretty weird. So much for evolution!" To disprove the theory.

[1] Kinoshita S, Kageyama S, Iba K, Yamada Y, Okada H (1981). "Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of ^9;-aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172". Agric. Biol. Chem. 116: 547"551. FEBS 1981
Debate Round No. 2
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
SirCrona

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
SirCrona

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SirCrona 2 years ago
SirCrona
That's not really a good comparison. In order to survive, an animal has to live long enough to successfully make babies. "Functional" takes on a whole new meaning at this point.
Posted by gruntel 2 years ago
gruntel
go ahead and try to build a functional design in such a way that every tiny step is useful. a an engineer i can tell you that you will not be able to build anything useful whatsoever like this.
Posted by SirCrona 2 years ago
SirCrona
Uhoh... If they're that obvious, then I should be concerned... because I can't see his points at all! ;P
Posted by gruntel 2 years ago
gruntel
behe's points are so obvious that it's a wonder so many don't believe it. I don't think you can even build a simple chair by minute small steps
No votes have been placed for this debate.