The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
B0HICA
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution by way of natural selection is a fact.

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: 6/10/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,028 times Debate No: 76425
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

Because of demonstrable genetic, radiometric, and geologic evidence, evolution is a fact.
Genetics show common ancestry among all life by demonstrating the same DNA between different species and even kingdoms.
Radiometric dating shows time periods of fossils based on fixed atomic half lives that allow enough time for evolution to occur; this time frame matches the time it would take for the types of changes you would expect to see between fossils if evolution were true.
Geology explains the various inorganic materials found around fossils and the age of these materials based on their placement in layers of rock that you would expect to find if evolution were true.
The debate is open to any way you want to argue about it, but here is a general guideline: Pro has the burden of proof. The claim is that evolution is a fact.

Pro R1- Evolution is a fact + guidelines
Con R1- Rebuttal/Counterclaims/questions

Pro R2- Rebuttal/counterclaims/questions
Con R2- Rebuttal/counterclaims/questions

Pro R3- Sum it up.
Con R3- Sum it up.
B0HICA

Con

Let's start with a definition of the word "fact".

To keep it simple, a fact is something that is KNOWN to be true. Do scientists know where life came from, and how it supposedly evolved? No. They do not. No one was there to witness these events. Evolution is a theory, and not even a well supported one.

You claim that similarities in DNA are proof of evolution. But are they? The answer is no. I could make the claim that every computer program ever written is descended from a common ancestor, because they all have similar coding.

Scientists claim that the similarity between humans and chimps DNA prove that we have a common ancestor. Once again, this is false. While there are many similarities, there are also many differences. There are around 35 million base pairs that are different. There are also 45 million base pairs that chimps have that we don't, and 45 million base pairs that we have and chimps are missing. That's a huge difference, when you consider that sickle cell anemia is caused by the trans-location of a single base pair. There is also the fact that this similarity of DNA could have another explanation. Like a common Creator.

Now. On to radiometric dating. I guess you've missed all the articles written about how these dating methods really work. Many people don't know this, but the values they use for these are guesses. That's right guesses. You see, they have no way to know what the original values for the parent a daughter isotopes were. So they made a guess.

And, finally, we'll discuss your claim about geology. Another thing that many people are unaware of, is the fact that the Grand Canyon has several examples of multiple geologic strata that are bent. What I mean by this is that there are several layers from different geological era's stacked on top of each other, and ALL OF THEM are bent 90 degrees. Why is this a problem? Because fossilized rock cannot be bent without breaking. This is just one of many things geologists cannot explain. There is also the example of a fossilized tree that is standing upright in multiple geologic layers. This is another impossibility, since the part of the tree in the first layer might have been fossilized. But the rest of the tree that was above that layer should have disintegrated long before it could also be fossilized. Both of these examples can, however, be explained by a global disaster; such as the Flood mentioned in Genesis.

To sum up this stage of my argument, I'll simply say that I do not dispute the evidence. I dispute the interpretation of it. And rightly so.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

You started off by saying "To keep it simple, a fact is something that is KNOWN to be true. Do scientists know where life came from, and how it supposedly evolved? No."
Yes, yes they do, you just have refused to look at the evidence for such a thing. Do you know what inorganic compounds are? These are compounds that do not contain a covalent bond with carbon thus are non-life. Organic compounds are covalently bonded to carbon and ALL life on this earth is made of covalent carbon bonds. The reason for the chemistry lesson is that scientist have discovered, thanks to the Miller-Urey experiments and other similar experiments, inorganic compounds can become organic compounds. So take CO2. It has carbon, but it's not covalently bonded, so it is not life. We know that there is CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, and we know that earth has atmospheric pressure, temperature, and charged particles.Before life on earth, there were inorganic compounds, rocks, gases, etc...When different inorganic compounds are subject to the correct amount of pressure, temperature, and charged particles from the atmosphere, they can become organic compounds like amino acids, which I'm sure you know are the basic building blocks of life.
Yes, we know that inorganic-->organic. Non-life can produce life with all natural phenomena. So we have a well backed idea of where life plausibly originated here on earth.

You then said something that irritates me to no end "Evolution is a theory, and not even a well supported one."
Wow! Scientific theories are facts and you already agree with me on that, so I shall demonstrate. Do you believe that there are microorganisms that invade our body and make us sick? Well this is a theory called "Pathogenic Theory" and guess what. This theory is a fact. There is no "Pathogenic Law". The theory is a fact. Do you believe that planets revolve around a central star in patterns called orbits? Well this is a theory called planetary theory and guess what. It's a fact. There is no "Planetary Law" the theory itself is a fact. Do you believe in plate tectonics as the explanation for earthquakes? Plate tectonics is a theory and a FACT. Evolution is just another one of these theories that are also facts. In fact, I've argued in the past, thanks to the many disciplines that confirm evolution, that the theory of evolution has more evidence than planetary theory.

Then you said "You claim that similarities in DNA are proof of evolution. But are they? The answer is no."
Error. I claimed that similarities in DNA are proof of common ancestry which is predicted by evolution.
But yeah, the similarities are proof that we are modern apes. Seriously research "Human Chromosome 2" objectively. To save you the google search, I'll give you my paraphrase of the facts.
Normal chromosomes of species have a top telomere, a centromere, and a bottom telomere. So they look like T-C-T. Every telomere and every centromere have a unique base pair sequence specific to it, kind of like fingerprints for humans. So if you found a certain base pair sequence you would know which chromosome you've found. Humans's 2nd chromosome looks like T-C-T-T-C-T. What is this? Well if you look at it, it's two chromosomes fused together. How could we determine if that's the case? The first T-C-T has the same exact base pairs as one of the ape chromosomes. The second T-C-T also has the exact base pairs of one of the ape chromosomes. Fusion of chromosomes is the definition of common ancestry.

You said then "Scientists claim that the similarity between humans and chimps DNA prove that we have a common ancestor. Once again, this is false. While there are many similarities, there are also many differences."
Yeah the genetic similarities between chimps and humans is about 98%. I don't care about how many millions of base pairs are different, I care about the percentage of similar genetics, and thanks to genetic sequencing we know that chimps share 98% of our genetics.

Then you say "Now. On to radiometric dating. I guess you've missed all the articles written about how these dating methods really work. Many people don't know this, but the values they use for these are guesses. That's right guesses. You see, they have no way to know what the original values for the parent a daughter isotopes were. So they made a guess."
Well you picked a chemistry teacher to tell that they missed articles about how radiometric dating works...anyway you're way off. Like miles off. The rate at which say potassium decays into argon is a fixed rate like the speed of light or the rate of gravity on earth. It's not a guess, it's a measurable, demonstrable fact. We know the values of the parent isotopes because we know the amount of protons each atom has and the electrons required to stabilize the nucleus, so when we find unstable forms of said protons, isotopes, we can tell by the fixed rates of decay, not guesses, how old something is. I would love to see the articles that you say prove radiometric dating is a guess. Is the number pi a guess? Do scales just guess your weight when you step on them? Or maybe, because we have already demonstrated radiometric dating, we can take something that is of known age, like a relic or some ancient item, and subject it to radiometric dating. If the dating matches with the known age, we have a system that can be used to make accurate predictions and guess what. That is the case.

You finish by saying, "And, finally, we'll discuss your claim about geology. Another thing that many people are unaware of, is the fact that the Grand Canyon has several examples of multiple geologic strata that are bent. What I mean by this is that there are several layers from different geological era's stacked on top of each other, and ALL OF THEM are bent 90 degrees."
I have never heard about this 90 degrees stuff, but whatever, the grand canyon has pre-cambrian rock that's over 400 million years old and all fossils that have been found on this earth have been found in the order of the layers of rock that you would expect from the predictions of evolution. You don't find old world monkey fossils in a layer on top of modern ape fossils because old world monkeys died out way before the modern apes existed. If you could demonstrate monkey on top of ape, you could win a Nobel prize, as you would change the face of evolutionary biology.

Then you say, "To sum up this stage of my argument, I'll simply say that I do not dispute the evidence. I dispute the interpretation of it. And rightly so."
You have no right to dispute evidence that you misrepresent. You're simply constructing straw-man arguments against evolution. The interpretation of information does not change the truth of it.
B0HICA

Con

You said: "Yes, we know that inorganic-->organic. Non-life can produce life with all natural phenomena. So we have a well backed idea of where life plausibly originated here on earth."

We know no such thing. We do know that organic compounds can be produced in the lab. That is not life. We also know that the compounds produced in the miller experiment had to be removed as they formed, since the same process that created them would have destroyed them. The "theory" that life can arise spontaneously is just that. A theory. There is no proof- no facts that it ever happened. You also used the word plausibly. That doesn't sound like a fact to me.

You said: "You then said something that irritates me to no end "Evolution is a theory, and not even a well supported one."
Wow! Scientific theories are facts and you already agree with me on that, so I shall demonstrate. Do you believe that there are microorganisms that invade our body and make us sick? Well this is a theory called "Pathogenic Theory" and guess what. This theory is a fact. There is no "Pathogenic Law". The theory is a fact. Do you believe that planets revolve around a central star in patterns called orbits? Well this is a theory called planetary theory and guess what. It's a fact. There is no "Planetary Law" the theory itself is a fact. Do you believe in plate tectonics as the explanation for earthquakes? Plate tectonics is a theory and a FACT. Evolution is just another one of these theories that are also facts. In fact, I've argued in the past, thanks to the many disciplines that confirm evolution, that the theory of evolution has more evidence than planetary theory."

Can you say straw man argument? There is not a single proof for evolution. It's nothing but guess work and speculation. They talk a good game, but the Emperor has no clothes. You cannot show us one single "fact" that proves evolution. What you have is a bunch of data that seems to confirm it, but the data needs to be interpreted. The scientific method is not used in evolutionary study. There are no experiments that can be performed, since the events happened in the past. Evolution also has different meanings. It is an established fact that organisms can change over time. This is what's commonly known as adaptation. But there is not one example of a species evolving into another distinct species, or kind of life. Evolutionists claim that these minor changes can result in new species. There is no proof that this has ever happened. There is also the fact that there are different definitions of species. Some claim that minor changes that result in the inability to interbreed are new species, when in reality it should properly be defined as one KIND of life evolving into another distinct kind of life. Such as a lizard evolving into a bird. Scientists point to a feathered dinosaur as proof, but there is considerable controversy about this.

Now, about that radiometric dating. Here's how it really works. It's too long to post here, so I'll simply provide the link. I strongly urge you to read it before voting. http://creation.com...

You said: "I have never heard about this 90 degrees stuff, but whatever, the grand canyon has pre-cambrian rock that's over 400 million years old and all fossils that have been found on this earth have been found in the order of the layers of rock that you would expect from the predictions of evolution. You don't find old world monkey fossils in a layer on top of modern ape fossils because old world monkeys died out way before the modern apes existed. If you could demonstrate monkey on top of ape, you could win a Nobel prize, as you would change the face of evolutionary biology."

You have failed to address my comment. I gave an example of layered sedimentary rock, each from a different geologic era, that are bent 90 degrees. If these layers are really millions of years old, they could not be bent without fracturing. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, nor are the fossils they contain millions of years old. Here's the article. http://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

I didn't need to address your 90 degrees claim, because you explained a disaster could have yielded the "impossible bending without breaking unidentified fossilized rock" (you didn't specify which type of rock, like shale, igneous, etc.)
You said "there are several layers from different geological era's stacked on top of each other, and ALL OF THEM are bent 90 degrees....fossilized rock cannot be bent without breaking...these examples can, however, be explained by a global disaster."
Disasters exist, and if this 90 degrees stuff is actually true, then disaster is a natural explanation for why the rock bent 90 degrees. You just smuggle in the idea that the disaster is from the bible, but I'll let things be and say disasters are a plausible explanation for your 90 degree claim if it's true.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you don't have any idea what a straw man argument is. Straw man arguments are when you misrepresent your opponents position so that you may poke holes in the misrepresented position you've constructed, like a straw man. I'm the one making the claim so how have I misrepresented your position?
You had said "Can you say straw man argument? There is not a single proof for evolution. It's nothing but guess work and speculation."
Huh?

You then said, "There are no experiments that can be performed, since the events happened in the past."
Even when murders happen in the past, we perform experiments on clues we find from the murder scene. So just because events happened in the past doesn't mean we can't perform tests on clues from the past.

You say "But there is not one example of a species evolving into another distinct species, or kind of life."
Seriously, I would love this. Could you give me a distinct definition of "kind" as you have used it in this context without invoking known scientific classifications of life? Otherwise the word kind has no biological application.

You also said "Evolutionists claim that these minor changes can result in new species. There is no proof that this has ever happened."
Ok, you're referring to something called speciation. This is also a demonstrated fact, has happened, has been observed, and confirms the predictions of evolution. But first...
You say "There is also the fact that there are different definitions of species."
Not really. The wording of the definitions may differ, but a species is a reproductive community that can reproduce viable offspring that are compatible to reproduce viable offspring with the reproductive community (species). You may find thousands of ways to say it, but the definition includes these ideas of reproductive viability.
So a change in species would occur if enough members of one reproductive community were generating offspring or becoming themselves no longer compatible with the rest of the reproductive community. These reproductive outcasts can start their own reproductive community or species.

So to demonstrate speciation we can take an insect species that eats sugar cane only. Well the females of this species have eggs that can only be penetrated by sperm with certain chemicals on the head of the sperm, and the chemicals on the head of the sperm are dictated by the sugar they eat.
So let's imagine that half of this species migrates way far away from sugar cane, to a place where there is only oak tree leaves, and the other half stays with the sugar cane. Now let's imagine 10 generations pass for each half of the species. Due to the oak tree leaves affect on the chemicals on the sperm, the eggs of the sugar cane insects won't accept the sperm of the oak tree leaf insect. They are no longer members of the same reproductive community, thus are a new species. But the best part is that we don't need to imagine this. This has actually happened with fruit flies, has been observed, and speciation is exactly what you'd expect if evolution were true.

So speciation is another fact of evolution, and so is natural selection.
Natural selection simply means that organisms that lived long enough to reproduce had characteristics that let them live long enough to reproduce. Typically the organism without these characteristics won't live long enough to reproduce, so their traits do not pass on. Traits that allow the organism to live long enough to reproduce have been selected, naturally, by the demands/dangers/resources of the environment of the organism.

Evolution is a substantiated fact.
B0HICA

Con

I'll be brief. Pro claims that evolution is a fact. I have provided sources that discredit radiometric dating. I have also shown how fossil layers, each millions of years old, have been bent 90 degrees without fracturing. Something that's totally impossible. I have shown that evolutionists like to twist words to fit their theory by claiming the inability of certain species of the same kind, such as finches, to interbreed makes them a new species. Excuse me, but aren't they still finches? There is not one uncontested intermediary fossil evolutionists can point to. If evolution were true, we would see millions of these fossils. Instead, we see none. We see series of snapshots. think about that. It is also clear that pro did not read the article I posted about these fossil layers, since he asked what kind of rock it was. Everyone knows that fossil layers are sedimentary rock.
I'll finish up by reminding everyone that pro has the burden of proof, and that he did not even provide any sources for his arguments. That means guaranteed points for me, since I DID provide sources. No matter how convincingly he argued, Pro did not meat his burden of proof. He offered his unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing more.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TyroneShelton 1 year ago
TyroneShelton
Wow, citing Answers in genesis. Bold move. Can I cite a biased, nonscientific, dishonest corporation abusing fundamentalists confirmation bias too?
Posted by B0HICA 1 year ago
B0HICA
LOL! You funny guy. The old "you just don't understand evolution" argument. That is one of the lamest arguments you could use, for the simple fact that there are REAL scientists who don't buy into the theory of evolution. I guess they don't understand it either.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
" Evolution is a theory, and not even a well supported one."

I do not think you know what both a theory in science is nor anything on the basis of evolution. It is a ewell supported one, else it would not be a theory, and one of the best held up, theory with some of the most evidence in science.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
What's not polyploidy? You can have different mutations on different gene sets because of mutations that also occur in the duplication of the first 2 gene sets...didn't research that? So these sets don't duplicate exactly, they are duplication mutations, and this can result in different mutations in the same polyploid.

Furthermore, when there are multiple gene sets the results are greater divergence, that is to say offspring are incompatible with the parent reproductive community, so in one generation you can have a new species. Thus, if we can find examples of polyploidy in nature, literally thousands of plants and some insects, then we can conclude that genetic additions are possible with mutations.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Self-replication = using RNA...RNA is made up of amino acids. Amino acids REACT WITH EACH OTHER, to create RNA. RNA has the ability to replicate genetic material. Amino acids make up replication.
Let me take your sentence as it is meant deep structure.
"How do you get from lifeless chemicals, to a self replicating organism?"
How do you get from amino acids to an amino acid based replicating organism?
How do you get from pollen (lifeless matter) to a pollen based replicating flower (life)?
Posted by carloandreaguilar 1 year ago
carloandreaguilar
No that is not polypoidy. Humans are diploid. Plants are polyploid, there could be a technically a triple mutation but really it would be a single mutation because it would be the same mitation on 3 copies of the same genome... Not 3 independent different mutations that affect 3 different genes.
I will happily debate you on the matter of abiogenesis as long as you agree to tale things statistically or else the debate goed absolutely nowhere
Posted by B0HICA 1 year ago
B0HICA
You really need to study what the word lifeless means. Life is defined as a self replicating organism that takes in nutrients, interacts with it's environment and can replicate itself. How do you get from lifeless chemicals, to a self replicating organism? Scientists haven't got a clue. And neither do you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Nice loaded question fallacy. Lifeless matter, like inorganic carbon compounds? These are carbon compounds not covalently (sharing electrons) bonded. Once you have carbon covalently bonded, you have living material that is a precondition for replication.

Let's take CO2, it's inorganic (lifeless matter) and perfect for my example because it's a gas that is common on many planets without life like Venus.
CO2, though inorganic would only need Hydrogen (H) and Nitrogen (N) to be organic and I'm pretty sure those gasses are in the air.
So what you claim to be magic is really just CO2-->C3H7NO2 with the help of the atmosphere. That's carbon dioxide-->an organic amino acid
Posted by B0HICA 1 year ago
B0HICA
Just curious. But if magic isn't real, then how did lifeless matter MAGICALLY rearrange itself into a self replicator?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Do you just want to set up a debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.