The Instigator
mrhappy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Evolution cant be proved its all fake

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,625 times Debate No: 80099
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (52)
Votes (4)

 

mrhappy

Pro

A lot of people say that evolution is true and we evolved from one thing or another but I think there's only one way we got here and that's God.
MagicAintReal

Con

I accept the debate.
I reject the resolution.
Evolution is not only true, but god is not an explanation for the "way we got here."
Debate Round No. 1
mrhappy

Pro

If evolution is true I would like to pose the question what example of evolution can you give me that is supported. I cant find any.
MagicAintReal

Con

Evolution
-Chromosome 2

Human chromosome two is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

Single chromosomes typically have two ends and a center.

Telomere - Centromere - Telomere


Telomeres (the red ones) - - - - - Centromeres (the green ones)
Image result for telomeres---Image result for centromeres

But humans' 2nd chromosome looks like (the single chromosome is on the right):

Which is Telomere - Centromere - Telomere - Telomere - Centromere - Telomere
This shows fusion.

How do we know what fused?

Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome.

We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution just states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genetic characteristics that helped them live long enough to reproduce.
As organisms migrate to different environments, different genetic characteristics lead to "living long enough" to reproduce.

Those that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genes more successfully than those who do not live long enough to reproduce in the different environment.

Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species.

The new species would have remnants of the parent species in their genetics.

Our 2nd chromosome is clear evidence that apes are our ancestors and our parent species is ape. We are in fact modern apes.

This fusion of chromosomes is exactly what you would expect if evolution were true, and it demonstrates how changes over time lead to different organisms completely.

Due to its mechanistic explanation and subsequent demonstrations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is an accurate prediction from evolution, evolution is true.
Debate Round No. 2
mrhappy

Pro

Well that was a mouth full. I don't know much about sience but what I do know is that evolution is a change of KINDS. And from what I can tell the two ape chromosones that supposidle mixed stayed a chromosome they didn't changew into any thing else so if that yor only example. I also said an observable example but in the link you put up there multiple times the said the word "supposed" or "theory" those arnt for sure words. But you know what never says those words the Bible.

`68; Colossians 1:16 `58;

Parallel Verses

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New Living Translation
for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him.

English Standard Version
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities""all things were created through him and for him.

Berean Study Bible
For by Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created by Him and for Him.

Berean Literal Bible
because in Him were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created by Him and for Him.

New American Standard Bible
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

King James Bible
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

International Standard Version
For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things have been created through him and for him.

NET Bible
for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him--all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers--all things were created through him and for him.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
By him was everything created which is in Heaven and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Rulers; everything has been created by his hand and in him.

GOD'S WORD" Translation
He created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Whether they are kings or lords, rulers or powers- everything has been created through him and for him.

New American Standard 1977
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities""all things have been created by Him and for Him.

Jubilee Bible 2000
for by him were all things created, that are in the heavens and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they are thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things were created by him and in him;

King James 2000 Bible
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

American King James Version
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

American Standard Version
for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Douay-Rheims Bible
For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him.

Darby Bible Translation
because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.

English Revised Version
for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Webster's Bible Translation
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are upon earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Weymouth New Testament
For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers--all were created, and exist through and for Him.

World English Bible
For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.

Young's Literal Translation
because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,

Parallel Commentaries
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:15-23 Christ in his human nature, is the visible discovery of the invisible God, and he that hath seen Him hath seen the Father. Let us adore these mysteries in humble faith, and behold the glory of the Lord in Christ Jesus. He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us. All things being created by Him, were created for him; being made by his power, they were made according to his pleasure, and for his praise and glory. He not only created them all at first, but it is by the word of his power that they are upheld. Christ as Mediator is the Head of the body, the church; all grace and strength are from him; and the church is his body. All fulness dwells in him; a fulness of merit and righteousness, of strength and grace for us. God showed his justice in requiring full satisfaction. This mode of redeeming mankind by the death of Christ was most suitable. Here is presented to our view the method of being reconciled. And that, notwithstanding the hatred of sin on God's part, it pleased God to reconcile fallen man to himself. If convinced that we were enemies in our minds by wicked works, and that we are now reconciled to God by the sacrifice and death of Christ in our nature, we shall not attempt to explain away, nor yet think fully to comprehend these mysteries; but we shall see the glory of this plan of redemption, and rejoice in the hope set before us. If this be so, that God's love is so great to us, what shall we do now for God? Be frequent in prayer, and abound in holy duties; and live no more to yourselves, but to Christ. Christ died for us. But wherefore? T
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro made this 5 rounds long?
I guess they figured that if they were to include every version of every "creation" quote from the bible, it may take 5 rounds to do it.

So, the bible...
Why should I consider the bible (any of its versions) authoritative or valid on matters of the biodiversity of life on earth?

There is something that I would like to focus on and it has to do with this ambiguous idea of "kind."
Could Pro, explain what "kind" means in terms of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, or domain?

Or if Pro likes, Pro could choose a color that best fits the idea of "kind."

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Then if Pro feels like it, could Pro explain how "kind" fits into that particular taxonomic rank?

Pardon the tautology, but species speciate. Speciation has been observed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The three spine stickleback fish has been observed speciating.

At one observed point, a member of the parent species could reproduce with other members of the parent species group and their offspring, and at a later observed point, the newer offspring were genetically incompatible with the parent species group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It's a new species (the lavender on the diagram)!
This speaks to genetic divergence, and ultimately different "kinds" as Pro might put it.

Whatevs. I'm sure there's some bible quote that pro is itchin' to throw at us anyway.

The chromosomes were ape, and now they're human! The chromosome DID change into a new, fused chromosome. So now, we are modern bipedal apes.

If Pro doesn't consider a chromosome fusion a change, then there's not much more to say on Pro's opinion of genetics and its relation to evolution.

I don't care about "for sure" words. I care about demonstrable evidence, and if the evidence that Pro requires is certainty itself, I reject Pro's idea if evidence.

But yeah, mountains of genetic, geologic, radiometric, and fossil evidence increase my certainty, and I would go as far to say that I am certain that evolution is a fact given the genetic evidence alone!
Debate Round No. 3
mrhappy

Pro

I must be making some kind of pint seeing as con seems to be getting kind of upset. But you mentioned the stickle back fish. well what did it turn into? Another kind of fish no change of kind therefore no evolution or evolving has taken place. Same with the chromosomes they are still chromosomes so they haven't evolved. I think con is getting evolved and adaptive mixed up. Just like Darwin's Finches for example, the finches didn't evolve they adapted to there environment. Con says we came from apes, well some say we came from fish or some kind of atom. theirs so many different explanations but Christians only have one, God
MagicAintReal

Con

I'm definitely not upset.
I still need to know what "kind" means. Pro keeps using the term "kind" and it's unidentified.
If by "a change in kind" Pro means a change in species, then my source for the 3 spine stickleback demonstrates such.

One could deduce that if in the last 50 years we've been able to observe the speciation of an animal, then in 5,000 years there would be greater genetic divergence.

Another excellent example of genetic divergence is older ape to human (modern ape).
One "kind" to another.

So if Pro doesn't define "kind" then we're done here.

I have not mixed up evolve and adapted.

We are made of atoms...all animals have a common ancestor...and having only one explanation is not an indication of the explanation being authoritative or valid.

Evolution is proven and isn't fake.
Debate Round No. 4
mrhappy

Pro

kind1

/kīnd/

noun

noun: kind; plural noun: kinds

a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
"all kinds of music"

synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre; More
genus, species, race, breed;

flavor

"all kinds of gifts"

"character; nature.
"the trials were different in kind from any that preceded them"

synonyms: character, nature, essence, quality, disposition, makeup; More
type, style, stamp, manner, description, mold, cast, temperament, ilk, stripe

"they were different in kind"

"each of the elements (bread and wine) of the Eucharist

I ink co is really beating around the bush when it comes to Darwin's finches, a supposed example of evolution. and enough with the stickle back fish they haven't evolved they are still fish therefore they cant have evolved they have adapted. And if Con could please explain to everyone why there is so many different THEORYS about where we came from if there is facts to support us coming from apes. I think evolutionist don't know what to think.
MagicAintReal

Con

According to the NCBI, "Darwin's finches are a classic example of species diversification by natural selection. Their impressive variation in beak morphology is associated with the exploitation of a variety of ecological niches..."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It's really simple. In a given finch's area, there were either a lot of insects, nuts, or fruit available.
In an area where the available food is nuts, the finches with beaks better suited to eat nuts tended to live long enough to reproduce at a higher rate than those finches whose beaks were not well-suited to eat nuts.

Well, just like you look like your mom or your dad, these finches gave birth to offspring carrying their beak gene, which is expressed by...
Bmp4, which is a protein responsible for transforming growth factor of beaks.

From the research done at NCBI, "When misexpressed in chicken embryos, Bmp4 caused morphological transformations paralleling the beak morphology of the large ground finch G. magnirostris."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, we now know the protein that gives rise to beak change in finches.
Over time, fruit finches, insect finches, and nut finches genetically diverge from each other, to a point where they can no longer reproduce with each other which means...they are different KINDS, which pro defined as either species or genus.

So the finches are an example of different kinds, as Pro would put it.

But what about observable today?

I mentioned the stickleback fish, which satisfies speciation.

But the apple maggot fly has also been observed and has an awesome explanation to it.
The original species, the Hawthorne Fly, used to feed on the fruit of hawthorns.

Once apples were introduced into their environment, some of the hawthorn flies fed only on the apples, while the typical hawthorn fly remained eating the fruits of hawthorns.
Now, since so much time has passed, currently, apple eating hawthorns (apple maggot flies) mature later in the season, and require chemicals from apples that help with fertilization/reproduction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The original hawthorn fruit eaters simply do not interbreed with the apple eaters.
They are now two different species, and the parasites that inhabit them have also evolved along with the diet change.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is proven. We've demonstrated it, replicated those demonstrations, and used the demonstrations and replications to make accurate predictions about the biodiversity of life on earth.

Humans are modern bipedal apes.
Apple maggot flies exhibit speciation, which is a change in "kind."
Evolution is not fake.

Pro complains:
"Con could please explain to everyone why there is so many different THEORYS about where we came from if there is facts to support us coming from apes."

My response:
Ok, let me set it straight.
There are no different theories of where we come from. We are apes...look at our 2nd chromosome.
If you look at the genetic evidence alone between us and say the bonobo, then you see there is very little difference genetically between us.
This should set off bells.
Evolution predicted such an origin, and it has been verified by genetic sequencing.

It's proven and not fake.
Debate Round No. 5
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Trexcalibur// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro is messed up in the head

[*Reason for removal*] A clear vote bomb. The voter doesn't explain any of their point allocations, merely choosing to make a personal attack against Pro.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ZBestDebater// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Even though Evolution is possible, Humans didn't evolve from apes.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter solely utilitzes their own personal opinion to determine their decision, failing to reference any arguments given by either debater that influenced his decision (if any did). (2) The voter doesn't explain source points at all.
************************************************************************
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
Read the debate we had. The ncbi has great resources.
Posted by mrhappy 2 years ago
mrhappy
still waiting for a source.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
Um the sources I provided in the debate should suffice for evidence of common ancestry
Posted by mrhappy 2 years ago
mrhappy
What are you going to do about real childish for a professor. Tell me where I can read this for myself. And don't give me some atheist website I want something neutral.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
But it is observable in our fetus development, even you cited it. Look there's mad evidence for evolution, what're you gonna do about it?
Posted by mrhappy 2 years ago
mrhappy
So somewhere down the line we are descendants of fish? because that sounds a little far out and un observable. And you keep saying might well God IS the creator and I'm sorry you cant see that but I hope the viewers no matter the religion can understand what I'm saying. Congrats on the win.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
MagicAintReal
No I think you have to be even more careful than that...our ancient ancestors might be descendants of fish, but we are descendants of apes. Why is this so difficult?
Posted by mrhappy 2 years ago
mrhappy
so the apes we used to be were decedents of fish.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
mrhappyMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The Bible cannot be regarded as a valid source for, essentially, a scientific debate. It is evident that Pro hasn't really looked into evolution as he makes mistakes that could be avoided by simply reading a very general article about the theory of evolution.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
mrhappyMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro spends this debate begging the question, repeatedly. He begs the question of why speciation is not proof of evolution, which Con points to as evidence several times. His response appears to be that evolution requires a change of "kind", which is his amorphous term for "something unlike the original form", despite the fact that he presents no clear reasoning for why Con must meet this standard. Pro argues that Con's point is entirely based on adaptation, but never effectively delineates between adaptation and evolution, something that Con does while explaining how his argument fits into the latter. Pro presents a lot of Bible quotes to support his view, but no evidence. He challenges Con's view because it's supported by theory, but appears to have a very misguided view of what theory is. Con clearly met any burden he had in this debate and Pro failed in his. That's enough to vote Con on arguments. Sources to Con for supporting an effective argument with direct evidence.
Vote Placed by TheQuestionMark 2 years ago
TheQuestionMark
mrhappyMagicAintRealTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't have time to write a full RFD. If I have time then I will add the sources points to Con however I don't have time to write a reason for that decision at the moment. Arguments goes to con since they refuted Pro's case and since Pro didn't state who had the BoP I interpreted it to be split. Since Pro admitted to not knowing a lot about the science behind it that made me find his arguments less credible and as a result their BoP was unfufilled and Con's was.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 2 years ago
Balacafa
mrhappyMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "I ink co is really beating around the bush when it comes to Darwin's finches" I think that explain why spelling and grammar goes to Con. Pro admitted to not knowing the science behind evolution and if they were to create this debate you need to have a basic understanding of what you are debating. "I think evolutionist don't know what to think." Pro's arguments are very much based on personal opinion and Con refutes all of his points whereas Pro challenges Con's arguments with personal opinion without facts Pro's argument is invalid.