The Instigator
Dave34
Pro (for)
Tied
11 Points
The Contender
Waater
Con (against)
Tied
11 Points

Evolution has impossibilities and contradicitions.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,290 times Debate No: 16941
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Dave34

Pro

I support the only alternative theory to evolution within this debate, Intelligent Design.

Whether one is a gradualist or a neo-Darwinist is not the issue. I am affirming that evolution has impossibilities in several of these arguments. These I will address further in the debate, but for now, this is an introduction round to explain why said participants agree or disagree with evolution. I am against.
Waater

Con

I accept.

For clarity's sake, we are debating over which type of evolution? As it was not specified, I will be defending macro-evolution.

Macroevolution:
1.�"major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species..."
Debate Round No. 1
Dave34

Pro

My main position on evolution, if I am to debate it, is that it contains fallacies recognized by scientists.

Argument #1- Spontaneous generation.

How does life arise from non-living matter? If one believes such an absurdity, I am left to question science, that we are studying metaphysical processes, which are unfalsifiable by science. We have no proof for spontaneous generation and it's comparable to me throwing airplane parts in the middle of nowhere and expecting over millions of years for it to turn into a Boeing 747.

Evolutionists Green and Goldberger put it this way:
There is one step [in evolution—BT] that far outweighs the others in enormity: the step from macromolecules
to cells. All the other steps can be accounted for on theoretical grounds—if not correctly, at least
elegantly. However, the macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond
the range of testable hypothesis. In this area, all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a
basis for postulation that cells arose on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical forces were
not at work. We simply wish to point out that there is no scientific evidence (1967, pp. 406-407, emp.
added).

A lot of scientists like to point out that the conditions are no longer prevalent for life to spontaneously arise out of nothing and a common experiment proposed to do this was the "life in a testtube", where scientists created proteins under the assumed set of conditions life was supposed to arise on. I must say, that this did not prove life can come from nothing, for only proteins were generated. It's like Raw materials + Energy ⇒ Life molecules.

"But there is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral (figure 2). In the diagram you will see two versions of this. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements, you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example.
Image
Figure 2. Right and left-handed molecules

Does this matter? The answer is a very loud "Yes!". In nature, we only have left-handed (levo) amino acids. (Glycine mentioned above is an exception; it does not have two forms – make a model and you will see why!). Miller's experiment gives a mixture of both forms but nature requires the levo form only. Again, does it matter? Functional proteins cannot contain more than traces of right handed (dextro) amino acids. Right-handed forms (dextro) can have very different, even fatal, effects in some circumstances.

It is not a simple process to separate them and there is no natural system that can do so. In fact, L-amino acids have a tendency with age to undergo a chemical inversion to the D-form. This is called racemization. (This again gives a headache to the evolutionists: if amino acids could have been synthesised in a pure L-form, within a short time they would have racemized to give a 50:50 mixture of the two forms!). This racemization occurs in nature and can cause severe problems. For example, teeth and eye proteins racemize with age and so affect their health; Alzheimer's disease also may be caused by racemization of a protein.

This structural distinction is a property that occurs widely in organic chemistry. For example, from non-protein substances we can observe the effect. Limonene occurs in these two forms: one gives the smell of lemons and the other of oranges! More seriously, the drug thalidomide was produced to aid pregnant mothers in order to combat "morning sickness". It was very effective but sadly serious deformities occurred in many babies. The reason was that the commercial drug was sold in a mixture of the handed forms.

A similar problem arises with naturally occurring sugars: they are found in the dextro� form, not the levo one as in amino acids!

So, we see in this first stage experiment that we have irrelevant conditions, a wrong atmosphere, low yields of chemicals in wrong proportions and a serious structural problem. If other compounds necessary to life were present (indeed other compounds at all), we would also have the problem of competitive reactions effectively lowering the yields even further."(http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...)

And also as we can see, we need additional chemicals an products for life. I have thereby proven that the Miller experiment was a hype not to get too excited over. For we see it produced the wrong ype of atmosphere, with irrelevant conditions, etc. Read the rest of that webpage and you'll appreciate what I am talking about.

Sir Fred
Hoyle, Britain's eminent astronomer, addressed this matter when he stated:
The question of the origin of life from inanimate matter was taken up again by physicists, chemists and
biologists in the first few decades of the present century. The need for an empirical approach within the
scope of modern science is well recognized, though a large part of the myth and mystery which pervaded
religious and philosophical attitudes of earlier epochs is present even in the contemporary scientific
answers which have been proposed.... "Mystical" spontaneous generation has been implicitly
conceded for the initial formation of a biological system from inorganic matter.... It is doubtful that
anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or
occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth's surface to produce
large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the
"primeval soup theory" of the origin of life scientists have replaced religious mysteries which
shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are
just as inaccessible to the empirical approach (1978, pp. 24,26, emp. added)."

I will save my next arguments for the next debate round. Good luck!
Waater

Con

My opponent's argument is heavily based on attacking the spontaneous generation theory. Pro has solid contentions, but I'd like to point out that they are irrelevant in this topic. Evolution doesn't propose the beginning of life, it merely explains "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." Therefore, his contentions hold no weight and the burden of proof is still on him.
Debate Round No. 2
Dave34

Pro

I was only beginning. Forgive me for making so called irrelevant statements about evolution, but it is my perspective and, at least the professors and students I have talked with, that evolution does, in a way, teach spontaneous generation.
Whether or not this objection is held by less in the biological community, is strongly disregarded. I make basis for an argument against evolution because of its absurdity and because, for some at least, evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Wasn't that the goal of Darwin's book, "Origin of Species", to explain exactly what said title suggests? Darwin did, indeed, devote some, but little effort, for the origin of life. His main goal it seems, was to explain how the diversities of life arose, but not how it got here. I believed that was part of what I was debating, the origin of species.

However, the above doesn't matter, for my main arguments are here in this round.

Argument #2- The Cambrian Explosion

I believe that we find, according to Paleontologists, the deepest layer of the Earth that we find life, in the Cambrian. These are the earliest fossils we find, fully formed and fully functional. The main suggestion against evolution here is the fact that there are no transitional fossils found here. Now, for evolution to be true, these life forms must have been developed over millions of years of time with entirely random mutations accumulating to form these complex creatures. With that, we must also find transitional and intermediate fossils showing the progression of evolution, perhaps gradualistic(we are not debating Punctuated Equilibrium). Whichever process, gradualistic or not, these fully developed forms haven't the slightest evidence for stages of an evolutionary process. They are just there, turned up from out of nowhere it seems.

"Scientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today."(http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...)

"Chinese scientists at Chengjiang have made a new discovery, the Yunnanzoon, a chordate.(7)

The Phylum Chordata is the most complex animal group of all and includes fish and mammals. So the chordates were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory.

"Life did not start out simple and evolve into more complex and diverse animals; it was complex and diverse right at the beginning. This contradiction between the fossil data and the predictions of evolutionary theory falsifies the theory. The evidence from the Cambrian explosion is that evolution simply cannot be true."(http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...) ((Might I also add: If I am not mistaken, evolution teaches that life started out simplistic and then became complex.))

"This early complexity and diversity should not have occurred if life slowly developed from some kind of simple beginning, as evolutionary theory predicts."(http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...)

"Even George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard high priest of evolution had to admit, "In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."

Argument #3-Where's the Evidence?

Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington

"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitiions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. We might as well quit looking for them."(http://why-the-bible.com...)

Dr. Louis T. Moore, Professor of Paleontology, Princeton University, an evolutionist

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."

"The evidence from paleontology is for discontinuity; only by faith and imagination is there continuity of variation."

A common "proof" for evolution is the Peppered Moths experiment. To summarize it, "It has been claimed that before the Industrial Revolution, most peppered moths were light because they were well camouflaged when resting on tree trunks. The dark moths were rare. When the Industrial Revolution made the tree trunks sooty, the dark moths became more abundant. Since stricter pollution controls have cleaned up the environment, the light moths are more abundant again. At least, that's the story."(reference on bottom, #2)

"The Field Museum should tell its visitors that both dark and light varieties of peppered moths existed in Britain before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, the Industrial Revolution did not cause any new varieties to evolve. Both varieties were present to begin with. Even if a new variety had evolved, that would have had nothing to do with the evolution of a new species. If the black peppered moths had evolved into dragon flies that ate soot, then there would have been some evidence of evolution. But that isn't what happened. Light and dark peppered moths "evolved" into light and dark peppered moths. In other words, nothing happened."( reference on bottom. #2)

Common "proofs for evolution" later found to be hoaxes. Piltdown man, Nebraska man,and some other.

Argument #4- Example of missing link(Bird evolution=Where is the evidence?)

I have read many an article on bird evolution and they just don't add up. Where is the evidence for evolution of feathers? Where is the forgotten ancestor of the bird?

"A literature review on the evolution of bird feathers showed that even though feathers are found back as far as the Cretaceous, including many well-preserved samples in amber, the fossil record reveals a complete absence of evidence for feather evolution."(reference #3)

All birds (class Aves), and no other animals, have feathers.(Bock, W.J., Explanatory history of the origin of feathers, American Zoology 40:478–485, 2000.)(website is number 3)

"The common assumption that birds do not preserve well because of their hollow bones is incorrect. They actually preserve very well in certain environments, especially lacustrine (lake) environments, inland water habitats and marine areas. As a result, bird fossils are common."(# Davis, P. and Dyke, G., Birds; in: The Encyclopedia of Paleontology, Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago, p. 162, 1999.
# Davis, P. and Briggs, D., The fossilization of feathers, Geology 23(9):783–786, 1995)(website is #3)

BTW- if Pro wants to argue about Archaeopteryx as an intermediate, I have a good argument against it.

Fossil Record doesn't confirm the evolution of feathers, major problem.

"What is found consistently in the fossil record is fully developed scales, feathers that are fully feathers, and skin that is clearly skin. No transitional structures consisting of feathers that are part feather and part scale, or even feathers that are less than modern types, have ever been uncovered."(Stahl, B.J., Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, New York, p. 350, 1985)(website is #3)

"Attempts by Darwinists to hypothesize how feathers could have evolved have produced ‘a morass of contradictory theories and muddy thinking'."(Parkes, K., Speculations on the origin of feathers, Living Bird 5:77–86, 1966 pg. 77)

(Flight requires not only the evolution of feathers, but also a total redesign of almost the entire animal.)(website #3)

References:
2. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
3.http://www.answersingenesis.org...
4.
Waater

Con

"[Darwin's] main goal it seems, was to explain how the diversities of life arose, but not how it got here."
That's what he did, yes.

"I believed that was part of what I was debating, the origin of species."

No. Perspectives, of course, vary and are biased. We should be using the definition given to us by the dictionary.
That is what we are debating, not the origin of species. Evolution does not propose the beginning of life.��My opponent seems to be arguing beliefs that are purported by more, uh, radical evolutionists when, in fact, modern day believers and purveyors, like the Pope for one, �share the same views now that we have refined and polished it. I can't help but notice that you are a creationist...Would the �Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches accept evolution if it conflicted with their ideology?

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it well – "Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth"

"However, the above doesn't matter, for my main arguments are here in this round."�
My opponent concedes that his last argument is irrelevant. Right then. Moving on.

Rebuttals

Contention 1:

"The main suggestion against evolution here is the fact that there are no transitional fossils found here."

It seems that, if I show that there is at least a possibility of evolutionary process-- that it is not impossible, this argument will fall flat.�There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.'[1]

"The Phylum Chordata is the most complex animal group of all and includes fish and mammals. So the chordates were present at the beginning of multicellular life and did not appear later as is predicted by evolutionary theory."

The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.�

'In spite of the examples, it remains true (as every paleontologist knows) that most new species, genera and families appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.'

Well, sure. If it's a newly discovered species, I don't see �the problem. It'd be convenient if, for every uncovered species, they died right next to their ancestors. It doesn't exclude the possibility of there being any ancestors, just that we have yet to find them.

Contention 2:

I don't know know what my opponent's intention was in broaching the peppered-moth experiments, as it is a valid example of natural selection.�The peppered-moths experiment was simply that, an excellent example of natural selection,[2]not some groundbreaking evolutionary happening.�So I don't see the point in arguing over whether this represents macroevolution since I haven't heard people making this claim. The point was that beneficial mutation mutations can occur and this provides an example of one.

Contention 3:

"'No transitional structures consisting of feathers that are part feather and part scale, or even feathers that are less than modern types, have ever been uncovered'"

My opponent is asking for a fossil mid-transformation which, while I can't supply, can explain why I don't need them.

Evolutionary theory has never relied on "a slow progression of fossils" as its only proof. Where evolutionary changes exist in the fossil record thpey do form one piece of evidence for evolution, but the absence of a particular link in the fossil record can't disprove evolution.

Imagine you are following an animal trail and it comes to the edge of a river. You cross the river and find the same trail on the other side. Does the fact that there were no footprints in the water prove the animal doesn't exist? You can never rely on a fossil record being complete but as it's not the only evidence for evolution it doesn't matter.

Source:
1.http://www.mendeley.com...
2.http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Dave34

Pro

My opponent is particularly self-contradicting on a single point I would like to bring out. He at first says, "Perspectives, of course, vary and are biased." Ok, you see that I am a creationist, but why, if you are so against biased perspectives, do you post a quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury who is not even a scientist? His points are irrelevant in this discussion as they are from a theological standpoint. We're not arguing whether creationism is correct, but why evolution contains so many fallacies.

"There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.'[1]"

I checked this website and it mentions nothing of lobopods evolving or having any intermediate link, it just some of them are related to others in the diverse scale. "Lobopods used to be regarded as closely related to modern onychophorans and tardigrades, but the similarities are based on the few species of Cambrian lobopods and often on a fairly general level. With the discovery of new creatures and based on new observations on fossil lobopods, we consider that Cambrian lobopods show great diversity and reveal a close relationship between Cambrian lobopods and arthropods"

Tells nothing of these things being intermediate forms, but it does happen to delve into a vague form of spontaneous generation once again. Why is my opponent, who so heavily is against my perspectives about evolution being apart of spontaneous generation, post from a website that says these creatures came from radiation. That's spontaneous generation, the belief that life arose from non-living matter. "comparison between the dorsal spines of Cambrian lobopods and small shelly fossils suggest that Cambrian lobopods might have originated from the Meishucun radiation and diversified in the Qiongzhusi radiation."(http://www.mendeley.com...) But then again, whether this is talking of the chemical radiation that I know of is out of my reach. I looked up the Meishucun radiation and couldnt find anything.

"Well, sure. If it's a newly discovered species, I don't see the problem. It'd be convenient if, for every uncovered species, they died right next to their ancestors. It doesn't exclude the possibility of there being any ancestors, just that we have yet to find them."

Darwin said the same thing and the last 120 years have, in my opinion, further reduced evolution's facts. We have yet to find sufficient amount of intermediate links, which I see none. #2, you mentioned the word estimates. It makes me wonder where scientists estimate the cambrian because Carbon Dating is way off and there are numerous examples of this. If you want, i can give you some, but save me some time and look them up yourself. Even Steven Jay Gould did not believe that evolution happened over millions of years so he developed punctuated equilibrium.(Puncutated equilibrium was created to show that evolution takes place in spurts, thereby "solving" the Cambrian problem, but this theory has holes in it for modern animals.) And evolution cannot explain the diversities of life in the Cambrian, because there are no links or transitional fossils and even Darwin recognized this.(The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) Your suggestion that 5 million years is enough time for this diversity goes against science for it would take many more years for this to occur. For evolution to be true, like it says, life must start out simple, but we do not find simple life forms in the oldest layer of the Earth. And if you think bacteria developed into these creatures of a period of 5 million years, youre going beyond the realms of science.

"I don't know know what my opponent's intention was in broaching the peppered-moth experiments, as it is a valid example of natural selection. The peppered-moths experiment was simply that, an excellent example of natural selection,[2]not some groundbreaking evolutionary happening. So I don't see the point in arguing over whether this represents macroevolution since I haven't heard people making this claim. The point was that beneficial mutation mutations can occur and this provides an example of one."

Let me post my argument again to make it clear that I was showing that the Peppered moth experiment was invalid:
"A common "proof" for evolution is the Peppered Moths experiment. To summarize it, "It has been claimed that before the Industrial Revolution, most peppered moths were light because they were well camouflaged when resting on tree trunks. The dark moths were rare. When the Industrial Revolution made the tree trunks sooty, the dark moths became more abundant. Since stricter pollution controls have cleaned up the environment, the light moths are more abundant again. At least, that's the story."(reference on bottom, #2)

"The Field Museum should tell its visitors that both dark and light varieties of peppered moths existed in Britain before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, the Industrial Revolution did not cause any new varieties to evolve. Both varieties were present to begin with. Even if a new variety had evolved, that would have had nothing to do with the evolution of a new species. If the black peppered moths had evolved into dragon flies that ate soot, then there would have been some evidence of evolution. But that isn't what happened. Light and dark peppered moths "evolved" into light and dark peppered moths. In other words, nothing happened."( reference on bottom. #2)"

"Evolutionary theory has never relied on "a slow progression of fossils" as its only proof. Where evolutionary changes exist in the fossil record thpey do form one piece of evidence for evolution, but the absence of a particular link in the fossil record can't disprove evolution."

My example of bird evolution was to show that evolution, if true, should have some transitional fossils that show it is occuring. Bird evolution is a great example since they are so well preserved in the fossil record, we have many to study and if birds evolved from reptiles, like evolution says, we should see an animal with feathers and perhaps scales. But we don't find that. And feathers is another problem, where do they come from. Things don't just pop into existence. And for evolution to be true, like I said we should see a bird with reptilian characteristics and feathers and we should also see evidence for a change from scales into feathers like evolution says and this transitional should be a bird or other animal turning from scales into feathers. But we do not find that at all.

Summary: There is no example, anywhere in the fossil record, of scales turning into feathers(it is difficult to account for the initial evolution of feathers as elements in the flight apparatus, since it is hard to see how they could function until they reached the large size seen in Archaeopteryx'.Carroll, R., Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 314, 1997.) and there is no example of a reptile turning into a bird, which should have reptilian characteristics and possibly be able to fly. Let's examine the supposed proof they found, Archaeopteryx.(In other words:

‘the chief difficulty in thinking about the evolution of the first feathers is the difficulty in accounting for the genesis of the structure through a continuous sequence of selective forces and with a continuous series of hypothetical morphological steps that are functionally plausible.'(Regal, P., The evolutionary origin of feathers, The Quarterly Review of Biology 50(1):35–66, 1975; pp. 35–36.)

I can't cover any more info. Space ran out.
Waater

Con

Thank you for the debate, Dave34.

Contention 1:

"And evolution cannot explain the diversities of life in the Cambrian..."

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:�

The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.�

Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian. Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.�

The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian. A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.�

"For evolution to be true, like it says, life must start out simple, but we do not find simple life forms in the oldest layer of the Earth. And if you think bacteria developed into these creatures of a period of 5 million years, youre going beyond the realms of science."

Oldest layer of Earth?

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).�

Contention 2: Peppered Moths

My opponent is seriously contesting the scientific fact that is natural selection. I'll let the evidence speak for itself.

"Around the middle of the 19th century, however, a new form of the moth began to appear. The first report of a dark-colored peppered moth was made in 1848. By 1895, the frequency in Manchester had reached a reported level of 98% of the moths.(1)"

You cannot expect this sudden increase in dark-colored peppered moth to be incidental.
Since my opponent seems to not have bothered with the source, here's more:

"In recent years, the burning of cleaner fuels and the advent of Clean Air laws has changed the countryside even in industrial areas, and the sootiness that prevailed during the 19th century is all but gone from urban England. Coincidentally, the prevalance of the carbonaria form has declined dramatically. In fact, some biologists suggest that the dark forms will be all but extinct within a few decades."

"For evolutionary biologists, the question behind the rise and fall of the carbonaria form is "Why?" Why should the dark phenotype have appeared so suddenly, come to dominate the population in industrial areas, and then have declined just as sharply when levels of pollution declined? To many biologists, the answer seemed obvious. In areas where pollution had darkened the landscape, the darker moths were better camouflaged and less like to be eaten by birds. Under less-polluted conditions, the light-colored moths prevailed for similar reasons."

And just in case, I've supplied more examples of natural selection.(2)

Contention 3:

"My example of bird evolution was to show that evolution, if true, should have some transitional fossils that show it is occuring. Bird evolution is a great example since they are so well preserved in the fossil record, we have many to study and if birds evolved from reptiles, like evolution says, we should see an animal with feathers and perhaps scales."

Scientists studying the evolution of turtles faced a very similar problem, but that didn't mean turtles spontaneously evolved a fully complete shell any more than did the birds with wings. Two years ago, however, the first transitional fossils were discovered in China (Odontochelys semitestacea). Just goes to show that gaps in the fossil records can not be considered proof of evolutionary gaps.

I have refuted or gave reasonable explanations to my opponent's claims.�

Vote Con!�

Sources

1.http://www.millerandlevine.com...

2.http://www.cracked.com...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
I'm just saying that it would have probably been a good idea to get the info off anything other than cracked (cracked has good stuff, but it doesn't exactly qualify for "most reliable source").
Posted by Waater 5 years ago
Waater
Honestly, Seraine, this was just an elaborate way to advertise the comedy site Cracked.com. I am just a spambot.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Not a good idea to use a comedy website for your source, con.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Dave, you should do a debate on spontaneous generation.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Dave nice to see a creationist. I would not mind debating this with you if you are so inclined later.
Posted by Waater 5 years ago
Waater
I'm sorry, I'm a bit pressed for time. Should have your response within an hour! ....or three!
Posted by Dave34 5 years ago
Dave34
If you would be so kind DC, the debate is between I and another person. If you want to debate evolution, please send me or another person a request for a debate. For now it's mine, but thanks for pointing out my invalid argument.
Posted by dcarvajal1990 5 years ago
dcarvajal1990
By the way Dave 34 evolution never proposes spontaneous generation it only is a theory that explains what happened to life after it got here. Although there are many scientific theories about how life got here and some of the proponents are pro evolution, evolution as a theory is completely agnostic about how life made it on the earth. Furthermore I believe this is a red herring and a straw man that is used in an effort to make someone that is pro evolution seem absurd.
Posted by Dave34 5 years ago
Dave34
Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by most scientists, but there are some who have dissented from Darwinism.
Posted by Waater 5 years ago
Waater
Evolution is accepted as a scientific fact. Don't know where you're going with this, but I can't wait to get started.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Dave34WaaterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: "The point was that beneficial mutation mutations can occur and this provides an example of one." - no it isn't, read the argument from Pro clearly, both species existed already one did not mutate into the other. The arguments on both sides could have benefited from presentation cleanup, but Con often resorted to just linking to websites, sources were kind of silly (cracked is a humor website), and just felt like he never really seriously committed. 5:2 Pro.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
Dave34WaaterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: It appears to me that the only reason con is winning is because the voters are biased. Pro clearly has better arguments and con has not been able to refute them but rather avoids addressing them directly.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
Dave34WaaterTied
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: Pro doesn't understand evolution.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Dave34WaaterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: con did an adequate job showing that pro was attempting to attack darwin and the beginning of life not evolution.