The Instigator
AskMeAboutIslam
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MouthWash
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Evolution is False

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 1 vote the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,430 times Debate No: 23787
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

AskMeAboutIslam

Pro

T am arguing to prove that evolution does not have any sound evidence and does not explain how the complex life came about.

First round for acceptance
MouthWash

Con

Very well.

Evolution: the standard scientific definition of change in species over time of which human evolution is one type.

Con has the BOP, because must prove that evolution is false.

I await his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
AskMeAboutIslam

Pro

Imaginary Mechanism of evolution (natural selection)

As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin's theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...

However since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London and a widely known evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.

Natural Selection cannot explain complexity

here is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows;

Natural selection serves as a mechanism of eliminating weak individuals within a species. It is a conservative force which preserves the existing species from degeneration. Beyond that, it has no capability of transforming one species to another
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.18

Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage.

Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing.This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." .

Through natural selection only the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species are selected out. New species, new genetic information, or new organs cannot be produced. That is, living things cannot evolve through natural selection. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur".20This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes".

15. Colin Patterson, "Cladistics", Brian Leek ile R´┐Żportaj, Peter Franz, 4 Mart 1982, BBC
16. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2000, s. 141-151
17. Jerry Coyne, "Not Black and White", a review of Michael Majerus's Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396 (1988), pp. 35-36
18. Stephan Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, cilt 86, Temmuz-Ağustos 1977, s. 28
19. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, s. 189
MouthWash

Con

Finally, an entertaining debate... ;)

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection."

Here are some examples of evolution in action:


Live birth in Three-toed Skinks

Three-toed Skinks have gained the ability to lay eggs and to give live birth. The Skinks by the warmer coastal area tend to lie eggs, while the Skinks living in the mountains usually give birth to their young. [1.http://news.nationalgeographic.com...] Carrying fetuses requires more energy than eggs, so this change is a result of the high, cold mountains creating selective pressure on the species (eggs have a low chance of surviving in the cold). This is an excellent example of divergent evolution, since the two populations of lizards will eventually split apart and become incompatible with each other. Over time, this will create two distinct species.

Italian Wall Lizards

In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards were placed on the island of Pod Mrčaru. During the course of a decade, they were found to have adapted to their environment. The previous population mainly ate insects, the new one has shifted to a herbivorous diet, and their mouths have been altered to chew leaves. Most importantly, they have developed cecal valves, which allow for better digestion of plants. [2.http://listverse.com...]

"For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species."

Wrong. I will explain it in layman's terms. As features change, a given population gradually becomes more and more distinct from it's sister population (of the same species). Eventually the two population become so different they are classified as a different species. This has never been observed due to the amount of time involved, but geological and genetic evidence shows that it has happened in the past. I invite my opponent to demonstrate how gradual changes do not add up.


"here is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species."

Actually, it is mutation that adds information. Every mutation by their definition does so, whether it is helpful or harmful. It is natural selection that allows the beneficial mutations to pass themselves on to further generations.


"Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious."

This is an outright lie. Mutations create information, and natural selection chooses which will be passed on. Over time such mutations add up and change the species.


"As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage."

Any biological system or organ that would not function without any of it's parts is also explained by evolution. The process of evolution did not "set out" to create an eye, or a lung, but previous mutations that evolved for some other purpose were adapted into a new use.


This explains how the eye evolved: [3.http://www.talkorigins.org...]


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin is taken out of context. This is based on the mistaken idea that organs evolved with a goal in mind. Darwin is trying to say that if an organ was found that could not be explainable in light of this process, his theory would be proven incorrect.

"That is, living things cannot evolve through natural selection. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur"

Exactly. And favorable mutations have been shown to occur: [4.http://www.talkorigins.org...]


I urge Pro to read my sources carefully before presenting his argument. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
AskMeAboutIslam

Pro

"Actually, it is mutation that adds information. Every mutation by their definition does so, whether it is helpful or harmful. "
Prof. Walter L. Starkey from Ohio University makes clear the invalidity of claims regarding useful mutations:

Do you think it would be wise for you to spend hours near X-ray machine, or inside of a nuclear power plant? Would it be wise for you to go to Chernobyl, in Russia, where a nuclear power plant exploded? Should we actively try to destroy the ozone layer that shields us from radiation? If such radiations are likely to cause you to evolve, and develop new beneficial futures, then you should seek to be bombarded as much as possible by these sources of radiation. Maybe you could get a new eye in the back of your head. In reality, if you are smart, you will avoid such radiations, because they are much more likely to damage you than to improve you.230
All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. All the mental and physical defects described in medical textbooks as examples of mutation such as Down syndrome, albinism or dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer. Obviously, any process that handicaps people or causes them to become ill cannot be a mechanism that develops living things. DNA has a very complex order, and so any random effects in this molecule can only damage the organism.

Prof. Starkey says this about these damaging effects of mutations:

Being bombarded by mutation-causing radiation, would be like shooting a new car with a 30-caliber rifle. Let's assume that it would be beneficial if the ballast resister in your ignition system were located inside the interior of your car, under the dashboard, rather than out near the hot engine . . .mutations caused by DNA copying errors would have a similar result. . . mutations are harmful by a ratio of at least 10,000 to one.231

* Mutations Cannot Add New Information to DNA

As a result of mutation, the components that make up genetic information are detached from their locations, damaged, or else transported to different regions of the DNA. They can never endow an organism with a new organ or a new attribute by adding new genetic information to its DNA. All they cause are abnormalities of existing characteristics, such as an extra leg sticking out of the pelvis, or an ear out of the stomach.

Prof. Werner Gitt answers the question "Can new information emerge as the result of mutations?"

This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be source of new (creative) information.232
On the same subject, Prof. Phillip Johnson has this to say:

Spetner told them that the adaptive mutations cited by Darwinists are not information-creating. When a mutation makes a bacterium resistant to antibiotics, for example, it does so by disabling its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. There is a net loss of information and of fitness in a general sense… one can sometimes "fix" a sputtering radio by hitting its case if the rough motion happens to reseat a loose wire or open a short circuit. But no one would expect to build a better radio, much less a television set, by accumulating such changes.233
The well-known evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admits the facts regarding mutations:

You don't make new species by mutating the species . . .A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.234
There is yet another proof that mutations do not add new characteristics of the kind required by the theory of evolution. To produce new characteristics or new species, several atoms must be added to the organism's DNA.235 In human DNA, there are up to 204 billion atoms-3,000 times more atoms than in the DNA of the bacterium E. coli.236 For that reason, in order for a single-celled organism to develop into a human being, more than 200 billion atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus would have to be added to its DNA.237 As you know, carbon and nitrogen can be obtained from the air, hydrogen and oxygen from water, and phosphorus from soil. But the real problem is the extraction and relocation of these atoms in exactly the right place in the DNA molecule. Atoms would have to arrange themselves so as to contain sugar groups, phosphate groups and nitrogen bases with extraordinary complexity, and be located in just the right part of the double helix in order for a DNA molecule to function.238
Prof. Phillip Johnson explains how, just as in encyclopedias and computer programs, there is a very specific order in DNA, and that there must be a mechanism that produces genetic information. He also describes how random mutations have a negative impact on the information and regularity in DNA:

* In Order for a Mutation to Influence Subsequent

Generations, it Must Arise Inside the Reproductive Cell:

No change arising in any cell or organ of the body can be passed on to the next generation. For example, a person's arm may be exposed to radiation assume a form very different from its original appearance. But these changes cannot be passed on unless they take place in the DNA molecule in some reproductive cell. This precondition –that in order to affect future generations, the mutation must take place in only one reproductive cell, out of all the trillions of cells in the body– makes evolutionist expectations totally impossible.

* Mutations Are Rare:

Mutations occur only very rarely. As a cell's DNA is being replicated, enzymes perform a regulatory function. Therefore, as you have seen in some detail, errors that survive the replication process are very rare. Calculations show that only one living thing in a million will be exposed to mutation.241

Mathematically, evolution is an impossibility. For a worn to be formed from an amoeba, 39x1020 alternations are needed in its genetic code, which would take 10 trillion years to produce at the rate of one change per second, or about five hundred times the age of the observable universe. The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amounts to 3xl0520 changes, which is a number so inexpressibly large that even after taking the fourth power of the total number of particles in the universe, we still could not begin to approach it. For further comparison, the total volume of the universe in terms of the diameter of an electron does not exceed 10124. All this shows that evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

To show just how irrational evolutionist claims regarding mutation are, compare DNA to a book. DNA consists of letters arranged one after the other, just like on a page. Mutations resemble spelling mistakes occurring during the writing. To carry out an analogous experiment, ask a large history of the world to be written down on a computer. While this is being done, ask the person setting the text to press one key at random, with his eyes shut. Then ask someone else to do the same thing to the already corrupted text.

Have the text copied over several thousand times from beginning to end in exactly this manner, adding a few random letters in each time.

Is this going to improve our history of the world? Could you end up with a chapter about "The History of Ancient China" that had not been there before?

These letters added on cannot, of course, improve the book in any way; on the contrary, they will impair its readability. The more often we perform the copying process, the more imperfect the book that results.
The claim made by the theory of evolution, however, is to the effect that spelling mistakes improve a book.

Dawkins stumped by creationis-www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
This was my rebuttal of mutation adding information, I will give further arguments in next round
MouthWash

Con

Unfortunately my opponent's argument consists almost entirely of quoted material. Normally this should cost him the debate but I shall continue with my rebuttal because it amuses me to do so.

Rebuttal

"If such radiations are likely to cause you to evolve, and develop new beneficial futures, then you should seek to be bombarded as much as possible by these sources of radiation. Maybe you could get a new eye in the back of your head. In reality, if you are smart, you will avoid such radiations, because they are much more likely to damage you than to improve you."

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

Here are some reasons why:

1. Natural evolution utilizes normal mutations. It does not need radiation.

2. Evolution takes place over generations, not immediately. It cannot change preexisting organisms.

3. Evolution does not seek to make anything better, nor does it have any kind of goal in mind. The only "improvements" it does is to make the organisms in question more adapted to survive in the environment in which they exist. This is a result of natural selection, not mutation. Mutation simply provides material for selection to choose.

"All the mutations observed in human beings are harmful. All the mental and physical defects described in medical textbooks as examples of mutation such as Down syndrome, albinism or dwarfism, or diseases such as cancer."

I mean the natural mutations that everyone has. The mutations that you described are much bigger than normal ones, and are abnormalities. They are not examples of evolution.

"DNA has a very complex order, and so any random effects in this molecule can only damage the organism."

So why does every one of us have so many natural mutations? [1.http://www.talkorigins.org...]

"mutations caused by DNA copying errors would have a similar result. . . mutations are harmful by a ratio of at least 10,000 to one.231"

No. Here are some examples that prove you wrong.

"1. Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon.

2. Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones.

3. Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS or to heart disease.

4. A mutation in humans makes bones strong.

5. Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity.

6. In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme."

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

"To carry out an analogous experiment, ask a large history of the world to be written down on a computer. While this is being done, ask the person setting the text to press one key at random, with his eyes shut. Then ask someone else to do the same thing to the already corrupted text.

Have the text copied over several thousand times from beginning to end in exactly this manner, adding a few random letters in each time.

Is this going to improve our history of the world? Could you end up with a chapter about "The History of Ancient China" that had not been there before?

These letters added on cannot, of course, improve the book in any way; on the contrary, they will impair its readability. The more often we perform the copying process, the more imperfect the book that results.
The claim made by the theory of evolution, however, is to the effect that spelling mistakes improve a book."

Your analogy makes the mistake of assuming that the goal of evolution was always to eventually create a human being. This is a strawman. Evolution is not conscious, and cannot plan ahead for the future. It works by adapting organisms to their present environment and according to their relationship with other organisms of which it interacts. This is why your analogy fails.

However, if I would assume that being in coherent English was the evolutionary pressure on the book, then the analogy still fails, because it leaves out the process of natural selection entirely! We can even see selection at work in languages, with more easily pronounced words or popular phrases altering the dictionary as time progresses. Your analogy helps my argument.

"Dawkins stumped by creationis-www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g"

Unfortunately I am currently utilizing a public Wi-Fi which filters out YouTube, and am unable to view the video. However, I have heard of such a video, and assume it to be the same one you are currently using as evidence. If that is indeed the case, it has been throughly debunked. Look at the video I have posted.


Previous arguments

1. I gave examples of evolution in action. You ignored it.

2. I rebutted his point on creatures being unable to transform into another species. You ignored it.

3. I pointed out that mutations do add information. You ignored it.

4. I pointed out that no evolutionist claimed that evolution was conscious. You ignored it.

5. I demonstrated how "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved, and have shown how you took Darwin out of context. You ignored it.

Indeed, you seem to have ignored the previous round entirely and have copied brand new random arguments from arbitrary sources. I hope you will not repeat this in the next round.

I now turn the debate over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
AskMeAboutIslam

Pro

3. Evolution does not seek to make anything better, nor does it have any kind of goal in mind. The only "improvements" it does is to make the organisms in question more adapted to survive in the environment in which they exist."
This is exactly my point&;variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool". All of the characteristics present in the gene pool of a species may come to light in various ways due to variation. For example, as a result of variation, varieties that have relatively longer tails or shorter legs may appear in a certain species of reptile, since information for both long-legged and short-legged forms may exist in the gene pool that species. However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible through variations.

The opponent has given me example where supposedly mutation bring about a benfit. Even If agree this to be so my opponent didn't take into account that mathematically, evolution is an impossibility. For a worn to be formed from an amoeba, 39x1020 alternations are needed in its genetic code, which would take 10 trillion years to produce at the rate of one change per second, or about five hundred times the age of the observable universe. The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amounts to 3xl0520 changes, which is a number so inexpressibly large that even after taking the fourth power of the total number of particles in the universe, we still could not begin to approach it. For further comparison, the total volume of the universe in terms of the diameter of an electron does not exceed 10124. All this shows that evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

Refutation of some of my opponents arguments for benficial mutation.
Antibiotic Resistance and DDTImmunity(Certain mutations in humans confer resistance)and(In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme."are not Evidence for Evolution
One of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources show antibiotic resistance as "an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations". A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT. However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too

Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions".The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are
  • The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria
  • The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

    Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics

    The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.
    So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

    The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. A microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT[Neo Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that (Evolution) cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

    To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled". (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of normal bacterium). Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

    FinallyThe mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO
  • MouthWash

    Con

    MouthWash forfeited this round.
    Debate Round No. 4
    AskMeAboutIslam

    Pro

    AskMeAboutIslam forfeited this round.
    MouthWash

    Con

    I apologize for forfeiting as I was unable to post these last few days. My opponent has also inexplicably forfeited.

    Rebuttal

    "variation always takes place within the limits of genetic information. In the science of genetics, this limit is called the "gene pool."

    The gene pool is the current stock of genes in an interbreeding population [1.http://www.google.co.il... ] Through mutation, it changes. My opponent has given no evidence of why they might limit evolution.


    "However, variations do not transform reptiles into birds by adding wings or feathers to them, or by changing their metabolism. Such a change requires an increase in the genetic information of the living thing, which is certainly not possible through variations."

    Evolving from a reptile to a bird is not a matter of simple variation, but of the collective variations over millions of years that add up. I also point out that, in the case of the Three-Toed Skink, shifting from egg-laying to live birth is an very large step in evolution and cannot be called a simple "variation."


    "For a worn to be formed from an amoeba, 39x1020 alternations are needed in its genetic code, which would take 10 trillion years to produce at the rate of one change per second, or about five hundred times the age of the observable universe. The number of alterations in genetic code needed for an ape to evolve into a man amounts to 3xl0520 changes, which is a number so inexpressibly large that even after taking the fourth power of the total number of particles in the universe, we still could not begin to approach it. For further comparison, the total volume of the universe in terms of the diameter of an electron does not exceed 10124."

    My opponent has lifted this entire passage directly from here: [2. http://www.farghana.org...] Nevertheless, I will simply point out that the changes I showed in the Skinks and Italian Wall Lizards would have taken just as much genetic difference.


    "One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution."

    I am not in the mood to carefully explain why everything here is wrong. Instead, I give an example of E. Coli evolving to metabolize citrate (which they can normally not use): [3. http://www.newscientist.com...]

    Previous arguments

    And now I will repeat myself.

    "1. I gave examples of evolution in action. You ignored it.

    2. I rebutted his point on creatures being unable to transform into another species. You ignored it.

    3. I pointed out that mutations do add information. You ignored it.

    4. I pointed out that no evolutionist claimed that evolution was conscious. You ignored it.

    5. I demonstrated how "irreducibly complex" biological systems could have evolved, and have shown how you took Darwin out of context. You ignored it."

    My opponent has avoided my arguments and and plagiarized nearly all of his arguments from other websites. He has failed the burden of proof, and I urge a Con vote.
    Debate Round No. 5
    1 comment has been posted on this debate.
    Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
    Meatros
    RFD:
    In round one, Pro puts forth a bizarre and unsourced quote: "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted" and then inserts it into Darwin's mouth. Further, he quote mines several prominent supporters of evolutionary theory (Patterson for ex. or his 'breaking down' quote by Darwin), Con showed some of this. Due to this, I have to give conduct AND sources to Con. It also seems as though Pro has a thorough misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, which Con aptly demonstrated in rounds 2 and 3. Con also provided evolution in action, which the Pro ignored.
    1 votes has been placed for this debate.
    Vote Placed by Meatros 4 years ago
    Meatros
    AskMeAboutIslamMouthWashTied
    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: RFD in comments.