Evolution is False
Debate Rounds (4)
And just to be clear, I am against evolution.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.