The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Evolution is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/28/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 786 times Debate No: 74408
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




Evolution's just a theory, and once I'm sure I'm done it'll be even less than that. First round for introductions and questions, please and thank you.

And just to be clear, I am against evolution.


Evolution may be 'just' a theory it is however backed up by empirical data. As for today I think that there is no scientific refutation of this theory, and the only reason for the criticism of said theory has religious reasons
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for picking up my challenge.

As for the 'religious reasons' part, I will not be using the bible in any of these rounds, simply pointing that some loose ends probably end with god/evolution being unstable.

Charles Darwin

What was Darwin's role on the HMS Beagle? He was not something special, like the captain, nor was he an integral part of the crew. No, he was the 'Captain's Gentleman', second only to the Captain's wife, the 'Captain's Lady'. Basically, he was almost nearly useless in terms of help on the ship. If someone with no particular high status had done the same thing as Darwin did, it would be considered as ludicrous, But there is one thing that actually made this theory popular.

Darwin's father, Robert Darwin, was a doctor with high praises. Because of this, he had the ability to buy his son (Charles) an 'honorary diploma' which gave him rights to things he never could have had before, even though he had no idea how to use it. This made it so his ideas had people behind him that he had no right to have, and so he could write a book with a good amount of people believing it.

Now, here's about evolution in general.

Evolution Vs. Science

Evolution is the strangest theory I have ever seen, first of all the fact that evolution states that humans could come from monkeys. Here's an example of my confusion:

Monkeys cannot defeat tigers or lions, so they jump up high on trees to run from them until the lion/tiger goes away. So, why would a monkey jump up off a tree and stand straight up to begin evolution? (If it exists) The monkey would be immediately eaten by what ever predator was down there and stop all evolution towards humans!

Also, humans for thousands of years have wished to fly, but how come we still can't? Not even a slight bit of change in our shoulder blades? Does consciousness stop evolution in its tracks? Why not tails or fangs?

Then there is Mitochondrial Eve. Science states that something called Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) shows that every single human has an MRCA with their mother. If traced all the way back, it shows only one woman existed at her time. Now, this Eve wouldn't try to reproduce with other monkeys, because very terrible tests show that monkeys and humans cannot mate. So, since Eve cannot reproduce with a monkey, and a monkey wouldn't try to evolve without being eaten by a tiger or a lion, how does evolution even work?

Also, let's take the second law of thermodynamics- Entropy. In a basic sense, everything must break down at some point. Entropy is a proven point, but is the total opposite of Evolution. So my question is, how can both Entropy, something that has been proven to be true, and Evolution, a simple theory, exist at the same time?

Sorry for only one citation, I got a lot of these from family and friends.


1. I am going to dismiss first part of your argument as being purely ad hominem. I simply cannot see how Darwin not being a sailor on the HMS Beagle or the position of his father rendered a theory he pioneered, but which has been verified by the majority of biologists, less valid.

If you look at most of the famous scientists and doctors from before the twentieth century they where almost exclusively members of rich families. The idea of "education for everyone" is quite a new idea. This does not nullify their theories.

2. First of all, let me clarify that evolution is a process which involves a huge number of factors. Every step of the process takes thousands of years. As for your example, the process can roughly be described like this: as both the mass and the intelligence of the monkeys increased through natural selection some monkeys where able to survive without climbing trees by being large and strong enough to withstand attacks from most of the predators which occupied their new habitat. Because they now occupied a different niche than their ancestors that live in the trees they are now subjected to different environmental pressures and thus a different kind of natural selection.

3. It is estimated that the last common relative of both modern humans and gorillas, appeared roughly 4 to 8 million years ago. Thus a change significant change in bone structure would take longer than a couple of thousands of years. Besides, I do not think that wishes are actual environmental pressures that contribute to natural selection.

4. The existence of a MRCA does not imply that at one point in time only one woman existed since evolution is a process that occurs in groups rather than individuals. This graphic shows how the MRCA does not confirm the existence of one human individual at one point in time:

5. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems only. Evolution occurs on earth which is not a closed system as it is bombarded everyday by UV radiation, energy from the core etc.

I would like to apologize for any grammatical errors, english is not my first language
Debate Round No. 2


No need to apologize, your grammar and spelling are quite good.

Ignoring my first argument, as per con did not say much about it, and I don't have much to say either.

Evolution obviously takes many, many factors for evolution to actually occur. However, with how long it takes for evolutionary processes, it is almost impossible for anyone to test its proof, like how afterlife is basically impossible for you to go to and come back to tell the tale. (While it seems some claim to have done it) But with the 'being large and strong enough' do you say that humans can fight a tiger or a lion with just their hands? Even if they had rocks or sticks to throw, tigers and lions have fangs and speed. And, I am fairly sure humans had not evolved from something as powerful as gorillas (or something close to it), because there is no real proof that strong human-monkeys that could fight off a tiger ever existed. don't you think if monkey-to-human evolving organisms would continue to keep the trait of powerful fighting skills, even after they've evolved into a human?

And, to speak on the third statement, there are some people who believe in evolution that think wishes affect evolution, I was simply disproving those who thought of evolution that way. Anyway, I was simply wondering why not a very small change in humans had not occurred. There has been no sign of change within humans, or at least one I have not heard of.

If con tries to argue that adapting to a human's surroundings is evolution, it is not. Adapting and evolution are two different things because evolution takes millions of years, but adaption is one or two decades, such as immunities.

MRCA continues to lead to something of a mitochondrial Eve. It shows that, while Eve seemed to have other women around her time, they failed to show a line for MRCA to follow. So, this suggests that there could be other women during her time, but there isn't a way to prove it as of now.

what exactly do you mean by 'closed systems?'


janczi95 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Vote Pro!


Unfortunately I was not able to post my second argument in time since I was deprived of an Internet connection for a time,

In theory, the evolutionary process is quite simple. What is needed for it, is a large enough population of individuals of the
same species (i.e that are able to produce offspring) and environmental pressures that cause individuals with specific mutations to produce more offspring than those without. They are thus able to give on their mutation onto the next generation which now becomes the majority. As for there being no proof for evolution, natural history museums are full with it. If we go by your logic, then most of human history is also impossible for anyone to confirm, since no one who is alive today to go back in time, we are only able to study the sources and complete our understanding. In this case there evidence for evolution is mainly found in the fossil record.

While apes may not have as strong or fast as tigers or lions they still filled a niche in the ecosystem as modern apes do today. While our ancestors may not have had the pure strength to fight off larger predators, they did however have the intelligence to use teamwork to chase them off with stones and sticks. This prevented them from becoming prime targets since the energy input needed to hunt them was simply too large. Today there are many successful species which are quite successful despite not being particularly good at fending off predators.

Of course adapting and evolution are two different things. As I have stated before, in order for evolution to occur, a stable population of a species is needed since it involves a general change in genetic material. Adapting does not involve changes like that (vaccines, clothing etc.)

As you have said MRCA does not disprove the existence of other women at this time, and as such does not refute the theory of evolution.

The atmosphere of the earth is only a microscopic part of the universe (arguably a closed system) as such it is not a closed system itself.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by USPharaoh 1 year ago
The growing problem for evolution as a theory is the continued debunking of some of the pillars that were once thought of as evidence in support of evolution. For example the failure of "Ring Species" This was once thought of and taught (in fact some of the older style text books still refer to Ring Species as a modern example supporting evolution". Thanks to better science we now know (should know) that it is just not the case:

Also, we have some science that points to modern life forms bursting on the scene instead of over an evolutionary time line.

This does not even scratch the surface of the DNA hurdles that are required for life to even exist.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago

You said, "...first of all the fact that evolution states that humans could come from monkeys."

This statement indicates a bit of lack of understanding. I suggest Googling "Did we evolve from monkeys?" and see what comes up.
Posted by Najs 1 year ago
Great job "ImaRealMeanie". You made some very valid points and exposed some scientific facts that seem to be rarely questioned.
Posted by USPharaoh 1 year ago
Evolution is in fact just / only a theory. Granted this theory has some solid and long standing evidence to support it but it has many many holes in it as well. I certainly see the micro-evolutionary evidence but I don't see much of the macro aspect...and that is pretty damning for the neo-Darwinists.
Some context here....Newtonian gravity is also just a theory.. and still awat the gravitronaiting newer and better science to show how the force is produced.... we have a lot to learn still.
Posted by Tyler_Lemke 1 year ago
pressplay said it best when he said that Christianity and evolution don't have to be exclusive to one or the other. Without de-railing from the conversation too much I will disclose that I am a Christian and yet I also believe in the concept behind both evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

The reason evolution remains a theory and not a law or principle is because it still doesn't have enough evidence to fully describe all the variables that has been presented and unanswered. Evolution is being taught in a number of schools because as stated before; there is empirical data that has both quantitative and qualitative findings.
At the same time you can say that evolution remains a incomplete theory. One argument posed is in the field of BioPhysics. For a singe celled organism to evolve from its initial stage to where it is now how does that organism survive without having developed all of it's necessary components to survive. In the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe he presents an argument. Say you had a mousetrap and you were to list out all of the essential components; Base, Lever, Spring, Catch. Same could be said for any living organism with the main components; Central Control System, Organ Conservation System, Energy/Waste Transportation System, and a way to process the energy and obtain more. The argument presented is when observed on the micro scale or the most basic it's difficult to explain how any organism can function or survive while missing any one of the main components just like a mousetrap wouldn't be able to serve its purpose without having all the basic and necessary components for it to function properly. The issue is similar to that of gravity. We consider gravity a law since we can quantitate it objectively. But as the concept is observed with better technology we discover unseen elements that transpire and mold our understanding of how the concept actually works (i.e. Law of Gravity and Theory of General Relativity).
Posted by pressplay010 1 year ago
Evolution is apparent in everyday life, on a microbial scale, we would not have MRSA if evolution did not work.

Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive ideas, You can still believe in an invisible sky fairly that judges you based on what you do to your genitals and a method of biological progression by using what works, which is basically all that evolution is.

The reason we are not seeing fish change into mice in front of our eyes is because it takes millions of mutations to get from one to the other and it take at least one generation for each mutation to occur.
Think of it as a huge amount of tiny changes over an unimaginable stretch of time.

For microbes it is easier to see evolution taking place as they reproduce so quickly and produce more generations in 10 minutes that any macro creature like a fly could do in a few weeks.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
@ kdog519

"I don't believe in evolution because I am a Christian ."

Out of curiosity, is that the sole reason?
Posted by kdog519 1 year ago
I don't believe in evolution because I am a Christian . I disagree with both of you.
Posted by Fear_The_Unknown 1 year ago
"Evolution is just a theory.

Definition of a theory (merriam webster): "[...]scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

To "paraphrase" (not really) this definition and water it down a bit, let me give you an example.

My science professor brought up an excellent topic about what a theory is. A theory is an idea that is proven through years of testing and scrutiny, and usually has a multitude of different sources of evidence to back it up.

Quote from Cinnamon:
"If evolution is real. (not pushing a point here) Then it would have to be a physical law. Like gravity."

Gravity, in fact, is a theory. The whole idea of a physical law is a misconception, and completely irrelevant when it comes to terms of a theory like evolution.

There is a multitude of explanations and lots of evidence to back up evolution. It has survived years of scrutiny, and even risen to the challenge about whether or not it should be taught in schools. I believe this to be a clear indication that evolution is a completely plausible theory. Besides, while creation is also a plausible theory*, do we have anything to prove how it happened? It completely possible that creation occurred through evolution.

*Just a disclaimer, please refrain from religion hater comments. I'm tired of people whining about me being a religion hater when I bring up this topic.
Posted by Cinnamon 1 year ago
If evolution is real. (not pushing a point here) Then it would have to be a physical law. Like gravity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a late round, depriving Pro of a final response. Pro demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of evolution. Furthermore, Pro presents an argument that they do not fully understand (Entropy). Con refutes the arguments pretty well, including bringing light to the slight misunderstanding of Mitochondrial Eve. Most arguments here are bare assertions, and could use more support.