The Instigator
jabberjibba
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
webster
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Evolution and Science

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/6/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,280 times Debate No: 156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

jabberjibba

Con

I do not believe in macro evolution on scientific grounds.

I am looking for someone to give me their best agrument as to why I should believe that life can come from non-life and that, once it did, that evolution would kick in and life would develop and grow more complex.
webster

Pro

I'd be happy to share some of the evidence suggesting that abiogenesis(the natural progression from non-life to life) could have and most likely did take place at some point in the distant past.

I'd like to point out though that the validity of the abiogenesis hypothesis bears little relation to the truth or falsehood of macroevolutionary theory. The latter only concerns genotypic and phenotypic modifications that existing organisms accrue over an extended time period. The instant when non-life became life falls outside the scope of macroevolutionary theory. For that reason, even if it were somehow revealed to humanity that by some supernatural process life had been willed into being, the theory of macroevolution would be remain sound and unaffected. Macroevolution only deals with the way in which life changes over time, not how non-life changes into life. Before proceeding through the Miller-Urey experiments, RNA world hypothesis, and various other evidence for abiogenesis, I'd like to first make sure we can reach agreement on this point.
Debate Round No. 1
jabberjibba

Con

jabberjibba forfeited this round.
webster

Pro

webster forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jabberjibba

Con

jabberjibba forfeited this round.
webster

Pro

webster forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jabberjibba 9 years ago
jabberjibba
Greetings...

Kenyan (with an "a", not an "o") is located in the SF Bay Area where I am located also. The last I heard, he was Professor of Biology (Emeritus) as SF State University. He coauthored the book BioChemical Predestination in the late 1960's which was a best selling text for over 20 years. Whether he later became a creationist I do not know, but at some point he was an evolutionist and his writings were of interest to the general scientific community. However, whether we can agree regarding this is irrelevant.

The subject of the debate is to provide me a reason(s) to believe that life can come from non-life. I am well aware of both the DNA and RNA theories of life. I simply choose the DNA as a discussion point. If you believe in the RNA theory of life, that is fine. Make your case and give me your reasons.

Also, during you indicated that you thought I was "out of date be several decades" during I started the DNA, I will assume that you believe that the DNA side is to great a hill to climb and are dismissing it. If not, make your case.

I emphasize I want to hear your reasons. You sound like a reasonably intelligent and well read person. Of everything you have read, give me what you believe are the best reasons. Please do not simply point me to a document and tell me to go read it.

Again, a very Merry Christmas to your family and yourself!!!
Posted by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
Note that abiogenesis and evolution do not form one continuous theory, anymore than the Big Bang and gravity do. If they are one theory, then the Big Bang, gravity, and most of the rest of physics is just one big theory too.

I would also be interested to see evidence that creationist Dean Kenyon "popularized chemical evolution" significantly. As far as I know, the only real contribution he ever made to that area was to coauthor a single obscure book in the 1960s.

Regarding your claim that DNA is needed to form proteins, your abiogenesis information is out of date by several decades: modern scientists believe that RNA, not DNA, was the hereditary basis of the earliest life. Look up "RNA world hypothesis".
Posted by jabberjibba 9 years ago
jabberjibba
Greetings to you and a very Merry Christmas to yourself and your family!!!

My apologies for missing a round. This is the first debate I have tried and did not realize there was a time limit.

It is true that abiogensis and evolution can be considered separate for our discussion sake during the latter does not start until the former happens. However, the reality is that they form one continuous theory of how life came into existence, so they are intertwined.

The experiment you mention is regarding Chemical Evolution first theorized by Alexander Oparin and later popularized by Dean Kenyan. Kenyan eventually turned his back on the theory and I believe his arguments are worth your response. They go something like this.

1) Amino acids form proteins.
2) Proteins are not self assembling.
3) The genetic instructions for assembling proteins are
found in DNA.

Therefore, what needs to be explained is either
1) where the genetic instructions came from to assemble the
proteins?
2) how the proteins arose and assembled themselves without
the genetic instructions from the DNA?

I would submit that Natural Selection is not the mechanism to explain the existence of DNA. This is due to the facts that Natural Selection
1) does not function before the existence of life.
2) acts only on organisms capable of self replication.

To the point, there is no self-replication without DNA and, without self-replication, there is no Natural Selection. One cannot argue that Natural Selection can be used to explain the origin of DNA unless it is assumed that DNA already existed which is what one is attempting to account for.

I have other problems with the experiment in question, but I think these questions are a good basis for discussion of the Chemical Evolution in general.

Again, a very Merry Christmas to yourself and your family!!!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Fred 9 years ago
Fred
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 quadking8 9 years ago
quadking8
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 Rob 9 years ago
Rob
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 kalim787 9 years ago
kalim787
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 Sgtdap 9 years ago
Sgtdap
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
jabberjibbawebsterTied
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