The Instigator
Lokiare
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Evolution has been proven false by scientific facts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 67562
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Lokiare

Pro

Definitions

Macro-Evolution The process by which creatures evolved through additive genetic mutations into different kinds of organisms, directed by natural selection. For example a single celled organism eventually evolving into humans.

Micro-Evolution Small changes in an organism to better adapt it to its environment. Not through additive genetic mutation, but directed by natural selection.

Argument
Current scientific research has proved that the theory of evolution is false. There are several requirements for the theory of evolution to have happened:

Long time span - Evolution requires millions and billions of years for the tiny additive mutations to add up to the changes required to go from single celled organisms to animals and other more complex organisms. Due to many dating methods, and limitations we positively know that the earth is less than 10,000 years. A short list of limitations are the moon and its tidal pull and its orbit getting further and further away in time, the electromagnetic field getting weaker over time which means every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago. Dating methods that give less than 1 million years radiocarbon-14 dating of supposed billion and million years rock (yes, you aren't supposed to be able to carbon date it, but the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old), helium-zircon, argon-zircon, sea-mineral levels, and carbon-14-diamond.[2]

Additive mutations - Evolution requires additive mutations which have never been observed in nature despite the time and effort that has been applied to find them[1]. Not only this but all of the systems in place prevent mutations that interfere with the workings of the cell. The minimum number of mutations to turn one protein into its closest match is more than 7 and can be as many as 80 to the furthest protein away, natural selection would have selected against the loss of the original protein long before it changed into a new one. Add in protein and gene networks that get disrupted when any changes are made through mutations and you end up with the inability for additive mutations to exist. Its no wonder they haven't been observed.

Cross species genes - Genes that could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree of ancestors for organisms have been found across different species. The common ancestor theory fails because less complex organisms have no need of many of these cross species genes and viruses cannot carry the long chains of DNA needed for these genes to be passed through viral infection.

Mathematical probability - The likelihood of evolution happening mathematically is 1021 power.[3] The number of molecules in the universe is estimated at 1078 power. The chance that organisms started out complex and then lost complexity is much more likely. When we use Occam's Razor we realize that the simpler solution of de-evolution is much more likely. Anything over 1050 power is generally considered impossible in science.
Conclusion: Evolution could not have happened due to the scientific evidence.

(note: I will call out logical fallacies if they are used mercilessly).

[1] http://creation.com...

[1b] http://creation.com...

[2] http://www.icr.org...

[2b] http://creationwiki.org...

[3] http://www.icr.org...

1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

My opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. In order to win the debate, he must provide justification for thinking that his assertion "Evolution has been proved false by scientific facts" is true. If my opponent is unable to provide such justification, then it can be reasonably concluded that the debate resolution is not true.

Rebuttal

"Micro-Evolution Small changes in an organism to better adapt it to its environment. Not through additive genetic mutation, but directed by natural selection."

If there is no genetic mutation, then where do these "small changes" come from?

"Due to many dating methods, and limitations we positively know that the earth is less than 10,000 years."

This is absurd. Moreover, my opponent has failed to provide any sort of support (academic or otherwise) for thinking that this claim is anything but silly. The age of the Earth is uncontroversial among those who study it. Current estimates set the age of the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old. I have yet to see a single academic paper suggest that the Earth is anything close to only 10,000 years old. Below, I will provide 10 sources which support my claim that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. I expect my opponent to provide comparable sources (academic sources, not sources from biased creationist websites) to support his claim that "we positively know that the Earth is less than 10,000 years".

http://isites.harvard.edu...
http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
http://earth.geology.yale.edu...
https://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

"the moon and its tidal pull and its orbit getting further and further away in time, the electromagnetic field getting weaker over time which means every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago."

Another unwarranted assertion. What's your reasoning for thinking that "every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago"?

"Dating methods that give less than 1 million years radiocarbon-14 dating of supposed billion and million years rock (yes, you aren't supposed to be able to carbon date it, but the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old)"

Again, unwarranted assertion. I'm not sure what to say other than that's completely false. What reasoning do you have for thinking that "the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old"?

"Evolution requires additive mutations which have never been observed in nature despite the time and effort that has been applied to find them"

This can't possibly be serious. Does my opponent really believe that mutations have never been observed? How about progeria? Hypertrichosis? Ectrodactyly? If these aren't mutations, then what are they? Below is a list of 5 sources from academic journals supporting the idea that mutations have, in fact, been observed:

http://www.nature.com...
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...

"The minimum number of mutations to turn one protein into its closest match is more than 7 and can be as many as 80 to the furthest protein away"

False (and, might I add, yet another unwarranted assertion.) A single nucleotide deletion is an example of one mutation which can "interfere with the workings of the cell".

"Genes that could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree of ancestors for organisms have been found across different species."

(1) What's your reasoning for thinking that these genes "could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree"? (2) Have you considered convergent evolution? It's entirely possible that species can evolve similar traits independently. A common example is flight: Birds and bats both have the capability of flight, but this capability has evolved independently.

"The likelihood of evolution happening mathematically is 1021 power"

This is false and the "source" you provide ought to be completely disregarded as it is a biased, creationist source. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide unbiased, academic sources. Furthermore, even if you were correct, evolution would still remain the most likely explanation until a more probable explanation (which you've failed to propose) is found.

Summary

My opponent's opening argument consisted entirely of unwarranted assertions without the slightest hint of academic support. Until my opponent is able to justify these assertions, we have no reason to think his assertion that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts" is true.

Thus far, my opponent has failed to shoulder the burden of proof that he is responsible for. As such, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that the debate resolution is not true.

Thank you.

Sources

I'd like to note the bias in my opponent's sources. Rather than use academic sources, my opponent has chosen to use all of his sources from biased creationist websites. This should be taken into account when considering the reliability of sources used throughout the debate.

Here is a compilation of the sources I have used in my opening argument:

http://isites.harvard.edu...
http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
http://earth.geology.yale.edu...
https://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
http://www.nature.com...
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Lokiare

Pro

Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is also on the Con, because they are asserting that my assertion is false. This is the first logical fallacy.[1]

Rebuttal

"If there is no genetic mutation, then where do these "small changes" come from?"


This is the second logical fallacy. Fallacy of equivocation. I didn't say there was no mutation. I said there hasn't been any additive mutations observed.[2] Despite the use of the logical fallacy, the answer is that the DNA is already in the living organism's gene pool as either recessive genes or as endogenous DNA that is triggered and becomes active by environmenal or other factors.

"This is absurd. Moreover, my opponent has failed to provide any sort of support (academic or otherwise) for thinking that this claim is anything but silly. The age of the Earth is uncontroversial among those who study it. Current estimates set the age of the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old. I have yet to see a single academic paper suggest that the Earth is anything close to only 10,000 years old. Below, I will provide 10 sources which support my claim that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. I expect my opponent to provide comparable sources (academic sources, not sources from biased creationist websites) to support his claim that "we positively know that the Earth is less than 10,000 years"."

The first sentence is a fallacy of incredulity[3]. The second part of the first sentence is flatly false. I provided references to scientific articles that include facts that back up my position. The next sentence is an appeal to authority wrapped in an ad populum argument. [4] Persons in authority on a subject can be wrong as well as the major population of such experts. Logically we must evalutate the science and the science alone without any outside influence from authoritative sources or large groups. Attacking a source is an known as an ad hominem fallacy specifically attacking the motive. [5] Where the arguer tries to discredit the source of the information rather than the information itself. Evidence and facts should counter evidence and facts. Its as simple as that.
I provided several valid sources that provided scientific evidence for an earth less than 10,000 years old.

The Con goes on to provide links to easily refuted websites that are known to discriminate against people with alternative views[6]

The first link leads to a page not found error.

The second link is the geological time scale. This one is easily refuted. 3D fossils and polystrate fossils both prove that each layer was laid down rapidly and that any layer with a polystrate fossil in it was laid down at the same time as any other layer that the polystrate fossil is in. Since almost every layer found to date has a polystrate fossil we know that most if not all of the layers were laid down at one time. If they were not the 3D fossils and the polystrate fossils would have decomposed long before they fossilized.

The third article talks about uniformitarianism, the idea that long gradual unchanging processes formed everything. Unfortunately if we use the uniformitarian idea the electromagnetic field of the earth would have fried all life 10,000 years ago. [7]

The fourth and fifth articles rest on the assumption that radiometric dating is accurate. I've already discussed the many ways that radiometric dating is innacurate. [8]

The sixth article tells the history of the idea behind the age of the earth. Notable facts are that the age of the geological column was estimated long before it could be verified and then radiometric dating used the estimated dates to help calibrate them. This is known as reification fallacy.[9] They are basing radiometric dating on the geological column which has no real evidence to support it.

In the seventh article #3 is proven false because we know that any strata that has a 3D fossil in it was laid down before that fossil could deteriorate and decompose. The rest of the article rests on radiometric dating, which we know is suspect as a time dating source.

The eigth article is based entirely on radiometric dating which again does not give accurate dates.

The ninth article bases its information on spontaneous generation which we know violates the law of abiogenesis.

The tenth article is just a chart of the geological time scale which I've already shown is suspect.

What we see is that all of these articles are either based on faulty radiometric dating, violation of abiogenesis, or various logical fallacies.

"Another unwarranted assertion. What's your reasoning for thinking that "every living thing would have been fried around 10,000 years ago"?"

This one I've already answered above, for completeness here it is again[7]. The earth's magnetic field is slowly decaying. 10,000 years ago it would have been strong enough to fry anything living on the planets surface. A billion years ago and it would have boiled the oceans and made the land masses molten.

"Again, unwarranted assertion. I'm not sure what to say other than that's completely false. What reasoning do you have for thinking that "the presence of carbon 14 means that it can't possibly be more than a million years old"?"

Are you saying its completely false that they find carbon-14 in all layers of strata? If so you are mistaken. They find carbon-14 all the time.

http://creation.com...

Carbon 14 would completely decay and not be present in anything over 1 million years old. That's just basic science.

"This can't possibly be serious. Does my opponent really believe that mutations have never been observed? How about progeria? Hypertrichosis? Ectrodactyly? If these aren't mutations, then what are they? Below is a list of 5 sources from academic journals supporting the idea that mutations have, in fact, been observed:"

Unfortunatley you continue to make arguments from incredulity[3]. Followed by false Equivocation[2]. You frame your argument against all mutations when I am talking about a subset of mutations known as additive mutations, which add new genetic data that wasn't previously there. I freely admit that neutral and harmful mutations happen, however that would actually disprove evolution because complex life forms would only degenerate into less complex life forms. As to your links:

The first link talks about a degenerative non-additive mutation which I've already admitted, but which is not a proof for evolution.
The second link talks about a mutation in a 'stop' gene that tells the cell to stop generating a particular protein or enzyme. This is also a harmful non-additive mutation which I have already admitted exist and which is not a proof for evolution.
The third link assumes evolution has happened and is simply counting colagen types in each species. This doesn't prove evolution it assumes it.
The fourth link talks about a harmful non-additive mutation that disrupts gene function. Again this is not a proof for evolution.
The fifth link is also a non-additive harmful mutation.

"False (and, might I add, yet another unwarranted assertion.) A single nucleotide deletion is an example of one mutation which can "interfere with the workings of the cell"."

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying here. I was saying that one protein cannot mutate into another without going through 7+ mutations simultaneously. Not that mutations don't happen.

"(1) What's your reasoning for thinking that these genes "could not have been passed down through the current evolutionary tree"? (2) Have you considered convergent evolution? It's entirely possible that species can evolve similar traits independently. A common example is flight: Birds and bats both have the capability of flight, but this capability has evolved independently."

(1) The genes are for complex organ functions which would not be needed and would have been selected against in less complex ancestors (which didn't exist).
(2) Convergent evolution doesn't explain exact DNA matches across different trees.

The rest is based on logical fallacies.

Summary
The opponents points rest on the assumption of radiometric dating being accurate and various laws of nature having exceptions without explanation for those exceptions as well as plenty of logical fallacies. Including the fallacy of appeal to motive (the idea that a source cannot be accurate because it has a motive). Unfortunatly if we were to eliminate all sources that have motives, we would eliminate all sources. Evolutionists have their sources which work on the assumption that evolution is true when not enough evidence has been brought forth to prove it. This turns into a circular argument.

Thank you.

Sources

I could say "I'd like to note the bias in my opponent's sources. Rather than use science based sources, my opponent has chosen to use all sources from biased evolution websites. This should be taken into account when considering the reliability of sources used throughout the debate.", however I won't because that would be the logical fallacy of an appeal motive. All of my sources use scientific facts to prove their points and several of the sources are from scientific journals or articles about scientific journal entries.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4a] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4b] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] https://answersingenesis.org...

[7] http://creation.com...

[8] http://www.earthage.org...:

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...


1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Burden of Proof


My opponent argues that I am responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. This is incorrect. As my opponent's own source states, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." As it is my opponent, not myself, who is asserting a claim in this debate (this claim can be found in the debate resolution- "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts") it is my opponent who will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. As such, if he wants to win this debate, he needs to provide some sort of justification to support his asserted claim that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". Until he is able to provide such justification, he cannot win the debate.

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

Rebuttal

"I didn't say there was no mutation. I said there hasn't been any additive mutations observed."

But there have been additive mutations observed- several of them: changes in bone density, malaria resistance, and lactose tolerance are just a few that immediately come to mind.

http://www.pnas.org...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...

"I provided references to scientific articles that include facts that back up my position."

Nonsense. Referencing creationist pseudoscience does not equate to providing "references to scientific articles that include facts" by any stretch of the imagination. If you mean for your position to be taken seriously, then you ought to provide academic support for your assertions. Using creationist websites to argue in favor of creationism is circular reasoning at its finest.

"The Con goes on to provide links to easily refuted websites that are known to discriminate against people with alternative views"

This is ironic, as each of my sources are academic references whereas each of my opponent's sources are biased creationist websites.

"The first link leads to a page not found error."

My apologies. Here is the correct link, along with the others I provided:

http://isites.harvard.edu...
http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
http://earth.geology.yale.edu...
https://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

"The second link is the geological time scale. This one is easily refuted."

If the geological time scale (which is universally accepted) is so easily refuted, then I'm sure it's quite easy to find unbiased sources which refute it? If this is the case, I kindly ask that my opponent provide these unbiased sources. If not, then I see no reason at all to think that the geological time scale is "easily refuted" as my opponent claims.

"Unfortunately if we use the uniformitarian idea the electromagnetic field of the earth would have fried all life 10,000 years ago."

I suppose this will just have to be a case of which sources (mine or my opponent's) are more credible. I'll let the readers make that decision.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
http://www.indiana.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

"The fourth and fifth articles rest on the assumption that radiometric dating is accurate. I've already discussed the many ways that radiometric dating is innacurate."

Again, I'll let the readers judge the credibility of the sources provided for themselves here.

http://www.asa3.org... 19
http://www.kgs.ku.edu...
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...

"You frame your argument against all mutations when I am talking about a subset of mutations known as additive mutations, which add new genetic data that wasn't previously there."

I don't think my opponent understands that mutations (not just additive mutations, but all mutations) are by definition changes in genes. My opponent claims that he is specifically targeting "additive mutations, which add new genetic data that wasn't previously there", but the fact of the matter is all mutations change genetic data (so that it differs from what was previously found).

"I freely admit that neutral and harmful mutations happen, however that would actually disprove evolution"

Well that's laughable. Neutral and harmful mutations don't come anywhere close to "disproving evolution". Does my opponent not know that these mutations are random? Does he expect (if evolution is true) each and every random mutation to be beneficial? What reason does he have for thinking that?

"(1) The genes are for complex organ functions which would not be needed and would have been selected against in less complex ancestors (which didn't exist).
(2) Convergent evolution doesn't explain exact DNA matches across different trees."

(1) It's very bold to claim to know which traits could and could not have been passed down via natural selection, especially given changing environments, resource availability, etc.
(2) That is, in fact, exactly what convergent evolution explains. That's the very point of convergent evolution.

Summary

My opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof. He has not succeeded in providing any sort of justification for his assertion that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". My opponent clearly uses circular reasoning; arguing for a creationist position by appealing to creationist sources which are universally rejected. Until we are provided with unbiased "scientific facts" to show that "evolution has been proved false", we can reasonably conclude that my opponent has failed to show his assertion made in the debate resolution to be true.

Sources

Again, I ask readers to consider the credibility of both my opponent's sources and my own sources. Please note that each of my opponent's sources that he uses to reference support for his positions come from biased creationist websites, whereas each of my sources are academic.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.pnas.org...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://isites.harvard.edu...
http://www.mcz.harvard.edu...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
http://earth.geology.yale.edu...
https://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
http://www.indiana.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.kgs.ku.edu...
http://www.asa3.org... 19
Debate Round No. 2
Lokiare

Pro

Lokiare forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

I have nothing further to add.
Debate Round No. 3
Lokiare

Pro

Missed Round
I missed the round due to health issues. I thank my opponent for also skipping a round.

Burden of Proof

Your assertion is that my assertion is incorrect. We are both making assertions. Therefore the burden of proof is on both of us. This is known as the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on both sides in a debate. It doesn't really matter though since I put forth factual data to support my assertion. I've provided the proof required by the burden, but my opponent has not. My opponent likes to use logical fallacies and misunderstandings to mask their lack of facts and true refutations of the facts I've provided.

Rebuttal

"But there have been additive mutations observed- several of them: changes in bone density, malaria resistance, and lactose tolerance are just a few that immediately come to mind."

Your links make common mistakes:
The first link assumes evolution happened, which is what we are debating here. It then goes on to describe a bone density decrease likely caused by a loss mutation. Not only that but the article doesn't mention mutations or DNA. It mentions measurements of bone density.

The second link describes malaria resistance which is a loss of function mutation and is openly admitted in the article:
" Many of the variants conferring resistance to malaria are ‘loss-of-function’ mutants and appear to be recent polymorphisms from the last 5000–10000 years or less."

The third link was already refuted by http://creation.com... which describes the gene that turns off the lactase production as being damaged which allows humans to continue to process lactase long after its healthy to do so. Besides the calcium in milk (Vitamin D is added artificially) there are harmful chemicals that cause arthritis and other ailments. Drinking milk past a certain age is detrimental to health.

"Nonsense. Referencing creationist pseudoscience does not equate to providing "references to scientific articles that include facts" by any stretch of the imagination. If you mean for your position to be taken seriously, then you ought to provide academic support for your assertions. Using creationist websites to argue in favor of creationism is circular reasoning at its finest."

Once again you are attacking the source of the the proofs provided using insults and accusations. We already know that this an appeal to motive https://en.wikipedia.org... and is an invalid argument in any debate. If you were to actually refute the science then you might have the upper hand, but until this point you haven't even mentioned a refutation to any of the links I've provided. The audience should note the consistent lack of logical thought by my opponent, despite my multiple attempts to point out the logical fallacies used and give my opponent every chance to change their tactics. I could just as easily claim that the opponents sources aren't valid because they link pro-evolution websites and publications, but I don't. Instead I point out where the facts presented have been refuted or don't support the opponents assertion that my initial statement is not true.

This is ironic, as each of my sources are academic references whereas each of my opponent's sources are biased creationist "websites."

Each of your sources has been implicated in various pro-evolution controversies, I will leave it to the reader to research those. They also assume evolution of millions of years, even though they've been proven wrong multiple times by other sources. Again refute the facts I've presented instead of attacking the motive of my sources. Your sources are just as biased.

"My apologies. Here is the correct link, along with the others I provided:"

The corrected first link is just a study of how 'geological time' should be discovered as well as the various things that happened. I don't disagree with the events described. I do however disagree with the conclusions reached especially since the geological time scale was invented long before radiometric dating and radiometric dating agreed with geological time exactly. This is because in their calibrations of radiometric dating they used the geological time scale as a frame of reference. If its wrong, then a lot of early radiometric dating methods could be wrong. We already know that radiometric dating is wrong because of the presence of carbon-14 in every sample of strata to date. Carbon-14 should not be present in anything that is 1 million years old or older, yet we find it readily available in supposed multi-million year old samples. What happened here is people rejected the traditional data and made up another idea, unsubstantiated by any real science, and then built on that idea with everything else and like a house of cards when you remove one of the cards the whole thing comes tumbling down.
Your other links were already refuted unless you added more.

"If the geological time scale (which is universally accepted) is so easily refuted, then I'm sure it's quite easy to find unbiased sources which refute it? If this is the case, I kindly ask that my opponent provide these unbiased sources. If not, then I see no reason at all to think that the geological time scale is "easily refuted" as my opponent claims."

The geological time scale is not universally accepted. There are hundreds of scientists that don't believe in the geological time scale. Again you make the fallacy of an appeal to motive. You should really focus on the facts if only to prove those facts wrong, rather than keep weakening your argument by trying to attack my sources with unsubstantiated name calling. As I've said before 3D fossils are found in every layer of strata meaning each of lose layers had to be put down rapidly. Then we have polystrate fossils that span multiple strata which show that the layers must have been put down at the same time. Just based on basic logic we should come to the conclusion that most if not all layers of strata were put down simultaneously which would render the 'millions and billions of years' theories nullified. Its a common tactic to ignore an assertion that weakens your argument, which you are doing here.

"I suppose this will just have to be a case of which sources (mine or my opponent's) are more credible. I'll let the readers make that decision."

We don't have to. Any attack on a debaters source (as opposed to the facts provided by that source) is a logical fallacy of an appeal to motive and therefore invalid. Now if you were to try to refute the facts my sources provide, that would be a different matter entirely. Unfortunately you don't seem willing to do that. Your next argument is also answered by this.

"Well that's laughable. Neutral and harmful mutations don't come anywhere close to "disproving evolution". Does my opponent not know that these mutations are random? Does he expect (if evolution is true) each and every random mutation to be beneficial? What reason does he have for thinking that?"

The first sentence is my opponent making an appeal to incredulity logical fallacy, by trying to invoke an emotion in the audience of incredulity over my statement. https://en.wikipedia.org... . If all we every find are neutral and harmful mutations and additive mutations are precluded by all of the systems in place to stop them, then we can safely say that evolution could not happen. There is not a single shred of evidence for evolution. No single line showing additive mutations in the fossil record. No bacteria showing any additive mutations over the hundred years of research done on them. No additive mutations found in fruit flies despite the large amount of time devoted to them. Not a single additive mutation ever found anywhere in nature despite the billions of dollars spent looking for them. They simply do not exist and without them evolution cannot have happened.

"(1) It's very bold to claim to know which traits could and could not have been passed down via natural selection, especially given changing environments, resource availability, etc.
(2) That is, in fact, exactly what convergent evolution explains. That's the very point of convergent evolution."

(1) You have misunderstood my statement. The way evolutionists have the tree of life designed some organisms further along the tree would have to inherit genes for complex organs from bacteria their last common ancestor.
(2) Convergent evolution is not about exact DNA matches. It is about similar or the same functionality of organs. For instance eyes on humans and cats are very different but they are thought to have evolved convergently because they serve the same function: sight. It appears you don't even understand the definition of convergent evolution.

Summary
My opponent has continually denied the facts I've provided to fully prove my assertion by using a combination of logical fallacies which include but is not limited to: appeals to motivation, personal incredulity, and others. They did this rather than refute the facts I've presented. Not one link, fact, or piece of science my opponent has provided has refuted anything I've asserted. In fact the opposite, many of their claims have been refuted by the links they provided themselves. My opponent then goes on to accuse me of circular reasoning, which is false because circular reasoning requires the source to explain the result and the result to explain the source. The problem is many of my sources use outside sources such as the RATE project using evolutionary radiometric dating studies to prove their points as well as using the same companies that do radiometric dating for evolutionists to prove radiometric dating is false. Science is science and everyone has a motive. There are no unbiased views as studies have shown. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Sources
Again my opponent is making the appeal to motive logical fallacy and refuses to refute the science I've presented.
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Burden of Proof

My opponent argues that I am responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. This is incorrect. As my opponent's own source states, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." As it is my opponent, not myself, who is asserting a claim in this debate (this claim can be found in the debate resolution- "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts") it is my opponent who will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. As such, if he wants to win this debate, he needs to provide some sort of justification to support his asserted claim that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". Until he is able to provide such justification, he cannot win the debate.

Rebuttal

"The first link assumes evolution happened, which is what we are debating here."

Throughout the debate, my opponent has asserted that additive mutations have never been observed. In response to my listing well-known additive mutations (changes in bone density, malaria resistance, lactose intolerance), my opponent merely states that I am assuming evolution happened. This is false. Even if my opponent is correct (which I don't for a second think that he is) and evolution did not occur, the fact remains that there have been observed additive mutations, which refutes my opponent's assertion that such mutations have never been observed. Evolution is not a necessary "assumption" for the observation of additive mutations; these observations are independent.

"The second link describes malaria resistance which is a loss of function mutation"

There is no reason to think that loss of function mutations are not additive so long as the function that is being lost in these mutations was disadvantageous, as is clearly the case in the malaria example.

"which describes the gene that turns off the lactase production as being damaged which allows humans to continue to process lactase long after its healthy to do so"

Additive mutations by definition are mutations that increase reproductive fitness. This means that the mutation increases the probability of successful reproduction. If this same mutation had later benefits (after the reproductive stage) that were harmful, it would remain an additive mutation, as there is no "fitness" after the reproductive stage. All that matters in terms of additive mutations is that fitness (which entails that the individual in question is before or at the stage of reproduction) is enhanced.

"If you were to actually refute the science then you might have the upper hand"

Unfortunately, you haven't presented me with any "science" to refute.

"I could just as easily claim that the opponents sources aren't valid"

No, you couldn't. Your sources consist entirely of biased creationist websites whereas mine consist of unbiased academic references. The difference in credibility could not possibly be more evident.

"What happened here is people rejected the traditional data and made up another idea, unsubstantiated by any real science, and then built on that idea with everything else and like a house of cards when you remove one of the cards the whole thing comes tumbling down."

Funny enough, this would make a lot more sense if you were referring to creationism.

"Just based on basic logic we should come to the conclusion that most if not all layers of strata were put down simultaneously"

In what sense can this "conclusion" possibly be considered "basic logic"?

"If all we every find are neutral and harmful mutations and additive mutations are precluded by all of the systems in place to stop them, then we can safely say that evolution could not happen."

Neutral and harmful mutations are not "all we find". As I have shown throughout the debate, there are numerous examples of additive mutations.

"Convergent evolution is not about exact DNA matches"

If you have an exact DNA match then the two organisms are clearly direct relatives, and there would be no need for convergent evolution. How is this supposed to be an argument against the existence of convergent evolution?

Summary

My opponent has thus far failed to shoulder the burden of proof. He has not succeeded in providing any sort of justification for his assertion that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". My opponent clearly uses circular reasoning; arguing for a creationist position by appealing to creationist sources which are universally rejected. Until we are provided with unbiased "scientific facts" to show that "evolution has been proved false", we can reasonably conclude that my opponent has failed to show his assertion made in the debate resolution to be true.

Sources

Again, I ask readers to consider the credibility of both my opponent's sources and my own sources. Please note that each of my opponent's sources that he uses to reference support for his positions come from biased creationist websites, whereas each of my sources are academic.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
Lokiare

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Burden of Proof
Once again my opponent is making the assertion that my assertion is incorrect. Therefore the burden of proof is on both of us. Both of us are making assertions. Not only that, but I've provided proof and my opponent has not. In addition my opponent has failed to refute my proof adequately.

Rebuttal

"Throughout the debate, my opponent has asserted that additive mutations have never been observed. In response to my listing well-known additive mutations (changes in bone density, malaria resistance, lactose intolerance), my opponent merely states that I am assuming evolution happened. This is false. Even if my opponent is correct (which I don't for a second think that he is) and evolution did not occur, the fact remains that there have been observed additive mutations, which refutes my opponent's assertion that such mutations have never been observed. Evolution is not a necessary "assumption" for the observation of additive mutations; these observations are independent."

My opponents links are to articles and studies on mutations that are not additive. In some cases they are changes in a single allele that makes a gene non-functional, other times it is a loss of a gene altogether. Most of the time they are mutations that prevent the cell from stopping what its doing so it continues to repeat the process its doing over and over causing negative harmful effects.

"There is no reason to think that loss of function mutations are not additive so long as the function that is being lost in these mutations was disadvantageous, as is clearly the case in the malaria example."

Additive meaning they add new DNA. A single loss of a gene causes sickle cell anemia which makes people immune to malaria. This is still not an additive mutation. It is a mutation that is positive in the sense that it makes them immune to malaria, but negative in the sense that they now have all the problems of sickle cell anemia.

"Additive mutations by definition are mutations that increase reproductive fitness. This means that the mutation increases the probability of successful reproduction. If this same mutation had later benefits (after the reproductive stage) that were harmful, it would remain an additive mutation, as there is no "fitness" after the reproductive stage. All that matters in terms of additive mutations is that fitness (which entails that the individual in question is before or at the stage of reproduction) is enhanced."

My opponent is confusing Additive Mutations with Positive Mutations. Positive Mutations are any mutation that gives an advantage in the natural selection process. These can be subtractive mutations that remove a trait that is detrimental to the organism. For instance lizards have two pigments: yellow and blue. Now a lizard living in a green environment like a forest would benefit from having both pigments, but a lizard living in a desert would benefit more from having yellow pigment and an aquatic lizard would benefit more from the blue pigment. In both cases the lizard would have to lose a pigment to have a 'Positive Mutation'. Additive mutations are when new DNA is added. For instance for a micro-organism to evolve into an animal it would have to gain all the DNA to form the organs and nerves and brain. Additive mutations have never been seen in nature or in the lab. They simply don't exist. They can't exist because the cell prevents it with gene and protein networks as well as having at least 7 different checks to make sure the DNA is copied and interpreted correctly.

"Unfortunately, you haven't presented me with any "science" to refute."

Unfortunately my opponent is under the impression that you can't be a scientist unless you believe in evolution, which is an instance of the Unwarranted Assumption Fallacy from https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context."

In this case my opponent is making the unwarranted assumption that it takes more than a degree to make a scientist and that to do science it takes more than following the scientific method. My opponent is making the circular argument that it requires a belief in the theory of evolution to be a scientist and to do science. The links I provide are from people that have degrees and follow the scientific method. Therefore they are scientists and they do science. My opponent has yet again failed to refute the facts I've presented and instead either misunderstood, or refused to acknowledge the science I've presented.

"No, you couldn't. Your sources consist entirely of biased creationist websites whereas mine consist of unbiased academic references. The difference in credibility could not possibly be more evident."

My opponent continues to make the same mistake over and over. They continue to make the fallacy of motive that I've linked in previous rounds and completely ignored the evidence I've provided. If my sources were no good, then their facts would be easily refuted. My opponent is unable to (or chooses not to) refute these facts so they must be conceding that they are good solid facts. The 'unbiased' academic sources my opponent provided touted 'junk DNA' for years until a creationist scientist looked into it and found that it has a purpose. To date they've found a purpose for almost all of what they used to call 'junk DNA', just as those same sources used to recommend removing the appendix because they thought it was a vestigial organ. It turns out that it is a safe house for helpful micro-organisms in times of sickness. My opponents sources are at least as biased as the sources I'm using if not more.

"Funny enough, this would make a lot more sense if you were referring to creationism."

Sadly my opponent is getting dangerously close to using insults rather than debate.

"In what sense can this "conclusion" possibly be considered "basic logic"?"

Its simple. 3D fossils prove that each layer was put down rapidly. Polystrate fossils prove that most if not all layers were put down at the same time. You can't get much more basic than that.

"Neutral and harmful mutations are not "all we find". As I have shown throughout the debate, there are numerous examples of additive mutations."

Again, you are confusing what evolutionists call positive mutations. They are not the same thing as additive mutations requires for different kinds of organisms to evolve. You have shown neutral and negative mutations that my be positive in certain situations, such as not growing feet being a 'positive' mutation to avoid athletes foot.

"If you have an exact DNA match then the two organisms are clearly direct relatives, and there would be no need for convergent evolution. How is this supposed to be an argument against the existence of convergent evolution?"

Actually no. Following different genes you find that other organisms have exact matches that are in different branches. Then in the same original organism you find genes that are in an organism from a different branch of the tree. Which is why it forms a network. It would be like finding vascular DNA in a tree and finding the exact same DNA in a giraffe.

Summary

My opponent continues to assert that I haven't provided proof by disqualifying my sources, unfortunately everyone now knows that this is a form of the fallacy of motive. Not only that but my opponent has shown their inability to understand much of what I've posted including additive mutations. My opponent claims I am using circular arguments, but is in fact using a circular argument to try to render my sources invalid. Unfortunately no scientist is unbiased and no article or paper written by a scientist is unbiased as we saw from the appendix and junk DNA. My opponent has failed to refute even a single fact I've presented.

Sources

Credibility has nothing to do with this debate. Refutation of facts does. My opponent has failed to refute any of the facts I've presented. If, as my opponent says, my sources are invalid then the facts I've presented should be easily refuted. My opponent has failed to even address the facts I've presented and still seems to be hung up on sources. When you set aside the fallacious arguments my opponent has made you find very little of substance in their assertion that evolution hasn't been proven false by science.
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Burden of Proof

My opponent argues that I am responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. This is incorrect. As my opponent's own source states, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." As it is my opponent, not myself, who is asserting a claim in this debate (this claim can be found in the debate resolution- "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts") it is my opponent who will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof. As such, if he wants to win this debate, he needs to provide some sort of justification to support his asserted claim that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". Until he is able to provide such justification, he cannot win the debate.

Forfeited Round

I ask readers to consider the round which was forfeited by my opponent when judging conduct.

Sources

Perhaps the biggest issue argued in this debate was that of the reliability of sources (both my opponent's and my own). My opponent argued that my sources were unreliable because they conclude that evolution is a sound theory given current scientific knowledge. I, on the other hand, argued that my opponent's sources were unreliable because they came from biased creationist websites without any sort of academic basis.

It seems that this is an issue which readers will have to decide for themselves. When comparing widely accepted academic scholarship against creationist pseudoscience, however, I really don't think it's difficult to see which sources were credible and which sources were not.

Conclusions

I won't respond to my opponent's most recent rebuttal because I think it would be unfair for me to make further arguments when my opponent wouldn't get the chance to respond (in addition to the fact that we seem to just be repeating ourselves at this point).

Recall my opponent's assertion (found in the debate resolution) that "evolution has been proved false by scientific facts". In order to win this debate, my opponent was responsible for providing justification for thinking that his assertion is true. It seems to me that no adequate justification has been provided. Whereas my opponent's arguments have consisted of referencing unreliable and biased creationist websites, I have provided sound reasoning backed by numerous academic sources for thinking that the debate resolution is not true. As such, I think we can reasonably conclude that the debate resolution asserted by my opponent is false; evolution has not been proved false by scientific facts.

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating and participating in this debate. I'd also like to thank readers for taking the time to read through the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lokiare 2 years ago
Lokiare
Con is using logical fallacies and has yet to refute anything that Pro has posted. At this point its not so much a debate as Pro stating facts and Con stating logical fallacies.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
Pro is failing miserably and cannot legitimately refute any of Con's arguments or sources. Just as an aside, Answers in Genesis is a Creationist web site that is well known for twisting statements and data and simply ignoring facts to support its point of view.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Lokiare1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con. Considering the debate was about science, I found Con's use of academic sources to be more credible versus Pro's wide use of Wikipedia and non-academic creationist websites. Finally, since Pro never presented any academically accepted science, I have to conclude that Pro never offered any sound, scientific arguments, so arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Brian123456 2 years ago
Brian123456
Lokiare1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Legit.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
Lokiare1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I found it hard to buy into Pro's arguments due to the fact that every source came from places like "creation.com" when that website can make up any study they wish to support their position. Wikipedia is not an awful source, but isn't great either. Con, meanwhile, used academic papers from institutions such as Harvard to support his position. For this reason both arguments and sources go Con. Pro also called out logical fallacies where there weren't any. I'm all for calling out logical fallacies, but you just went overboard. And for conduct, I'm sorry that it was for health reasons, but a forfeit is still prone to penalization.