The Instigator
Con (against)
8 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Evolution is Unsound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,243 times Debate No: 83079
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (3)




Evolution is unsound.

Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that evolution is unsound.

Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that evolution is sound.

*No round rules
*No acceptance round; just begin debating


evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

unsound - not based on sound evidence or reasoning and therefore unreliable or unacceptable


First I want to start out by thanking my opponent for accepting my topic. Now let's get down to work shall we?

Evolution, we all have an idea on what this word means. Charles Darwin, a very prominent man in the field of evolution. I am here to tell you how Charles Darwin and other evolutionists are wrong. There are many different areas of evolution to cover which would gobble my 40,000 characters like mamas apple pie at Easter so we will discuss one or two areas each round. Starting with the eye and other highly complex systems in the body.

Can a simple mousetrap disprove evolution? A mousetrap is irreducibly complex which means a single system that is made up of several well matched interacting pieces that contribute to a basic function where if one part is removed it fail to operate. This can be used to combat Darwins theory of natural selection and Survival of the fittest theory. A mousetrap cannot operate without all five pieces that is the platform, spring, holding bar, hammer and the catch. If just one part is not there, the mousetrap fails to operate. So how can an organism start? If all pieces much be there for it to be fit and survive. There are vital functions in living creatures that require all the parts and if derived even one part the organism will die. We will examine 4 of these irreducibly complex organisms. First the cilia.

These are microscopic hairlike structures on the surface of some cells. Some single cell organisms move using one or more cilia. Ciliated cells line our lungs pushing debris and mucous up to the throat where the mucous is then swallowed. The male sperm has one long cilium that it uses to move around. Cilia are tiny however they are not simple. They require a motor (Dynein), Gasoline (ATP), Microtubules, and Nexin fibers.
All of these parts are required for the process of ciliary motion. Just like a mousetrap it cannot have evolved because without one little part it dies. The same is so for the Flagellum. Just as complex. However it moves via a propeller motion while the cilia move like oars. Which brings the question why would evolution create two if one less complex does the job the same way?

The Eye
Complicated stuff in this department. "In order for vision to occur, light first passes through the cornea, then through the aqueous humor. The light then passes through the opening in the iris called the pupil, goes through the transparent lens (which is held in place by the ciliary muscle), passes through the vitreous humor (a gel-like material), and finally reaches the retina at the rear of the eyeball.
The retina is made up of layers of nerve cells, rod and cone cells, and pigment cells. When light hits the rod and cone cells of the retina, they send impulses to the nerve cells. These nerve cells organize some introductory information about the image and relay impulses received from the rod and cone cells to the back of the brain (the occipital lobes) where the visual cortex is located. When the image reaches the retina from the lens, it is flipped horizontally and is upside down from how it is in real life. The visual cortex somehow uses its nerve cells to contact other nerve cells in the brain that are in close proximity to correct the image"s orientation so that the mental image is displayed as it appears in real life, which completes the vision process." If just one thing is missing it won't work. If you read the site it will explain more in depth I just don't have the characters or time to write it all in my own words.

Bombardier Beetle, Giraffe and other evolution defying creatures
First the bombardier beetle. It defends itself by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals. Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide which react to create a lot of heat that deters most predators. According to evolutionists the defense mechanism has evolved through small steps adding one feature at a time. This however is impossible as the site shows because the chemical would kill the beetle and there would be no more bombardier beetle. The site uses some humor but I believe the point gets across. As for the giraffe it is another case of irreducible complexity and it disproves darwins theory of survival of the fittest. A giraffe needs quite the system in order to get blood to it's head and this article describes it in depth. these sites describe other animals that defy evolutionists.

Blood clotting

Another complex process that cannot be reduced or else we would bleed to death at the smallest cut. Many different processes that cannot be reduced. Are involved in blood clotting. How can such things evolve? They can't is the answer.

Next I am going to talk about big bang, origins of man and a blind watchmaker. Again I thank my opponent for accepting me and I hope this will be a lively debate. Because as I have noticed most debates regarding evolution have not been completed. Another thing, I don't want my opponent to come out saying "Well if not evolution then what?" that's a different topic and all I am saying is evolution is unsound. I am not going to state what I support however evolution is not it. Anyways I look forward to my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro for supplying this particular topic.

Evolution is a sound explanation for the biodiversity of life on earth, because:

1. genetic characteristics that allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce are more likely to be passed on than genetic characteristics that don't allow an organism to live long enough to reproduce.

2. speciation has been directly observed in hawthorn-->apple maggot fly

3. human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is definitive evidence that humans descended from apes.

4. early hominid fossils explain our bipedal-ism and ancestry

All of this seems sound to me however, my opponent has many contentions:

Pro's Contentions:

1. What's evolution?
Parents pass on their genes to their offspring, but organisms that don't make it long enough to reproduce or can't reproduce never become parents, and their genes do not get passed on.

The characteristics that lead to more reproductive success and survival begin to genetically dominate, because a major part of genetically dominating is being alive and reproducing.

So, as environmental constraints dictate, different genetic characteristics become more or less helpful in living long enough and having the ability and opportunity to reproduce.
As the earth goes through environmental changes, so do its inhabitants.

2. There's more than one way to trap a mouse.
The university of Delaware put together a detailed reduction of a mousetrap that shows how it can be reduced and maintain its principle function.

I provided the link in case the images don't work.

A five-part

A five-part mousetrap. This is a snap mousetrap, shown ready to catch a mouse. It has five main parts: a hammer, which kills the mouse; a spring, which snaps the hammer down on to the mouse; a hold-down bar, which holds the hammer in the cocked position; a catch, which holds the end of the hold-down bar and releases it when the mouse jiggles the catch; and a platform, to which everything else is attached. (The bait is not one of the "irreducible" parts of the mousetrap, since an unbaited trap will catch the occasional mouse that stumbles into the catch.)

A four-part mousetrap

A four-part mousetrap. The first step in reducing the complexity of a mousetrap is to remove the catch. The hold-down bar is then bent a little so that it will catch on the end of the hammer that protrudes out from the spring; this end of the hammer might need a little filing to make the action nice and delicate. I've made one of these by modifying a regular mousetrap, and just like the five-part mousetrap, it snaps with mouse-killing force when I jiggle the bait with a pencil.

A three-part mousetrap

A three-part mousetrap. The next step is to remove the hold-down bar and bend the hammer so that one end is resting right at the edge of the platform, holding the hammer up in the cocked position. This is not as good a mousetrap as the four-part mousetrap. It is difficult to put the hammer exactly on the edge of the base, so a mouse-sized jiggle will cause it to snap. When it does snap the hammer hits the floor and sends the trap flying, possibly tossing the mouse to safety. But I've made one by modifying a regular mousetrap, and it snaps just as hard as a five-part trap.

A two-part mousetrap

A two-part mousetrap. The next step is to remove the hammer and bend the straight part of the spring to resemble the hammer of the three-part mousetrap. When I made one of these, I didn't straighten any coils, so the gap is just big enough for a mouse's paw or tail. A mouse would have to be pretty unlucky to get caught by this trap. If you could straighten out a few coils of the spring (which is easier said than done--mousetrap springs are pretty tough), you could make a two-part trap that was basically the same as the three-part trap.

A one-part mousetrap

A one-part mousetrap. I can think of at least a couple ways to make a one-part mousetrap from the two-part mousetrap. One would be to remove the spring and spread glue on the platform; you'd then have one of those barbaric glue traps that holds the mouse in place until it dies of thirst. The other way would be to straighten out a few coils of each end of the spring. One straight piece of the wire would then be bent so the end points up; the other piece of wire would come across and rest delicately on the upraised point. I don't have the wire-bending skills to make one of these, but if I did, I think the unlucky mouse that was standing under the top wire when it jiggled the trap would be just as dead as if it were killed by the much more complex five-part mousetrap.

3. Cilia me, I assumed evolution.
Cilia, like all parts of any organism evolved because of the constraints put forth by natural selection, thus the emergence of the cilia proved helpful for organisms to live long enough to reproduce given the constraints.

"Proteins that contribute additional regulatory steps, upstream or downstream of [cilia] assembly...have been added in a stepwise, taxon-specific manner throughout evolution. For example, SPD2/CEP192 is a centrosomal protein involved in PCM recruitment, which is only present in Amoebozoa and Animals...SPD2/CEP192 is required for the duplication of the naked PCM-less sperm centriole in animals, suggesting a specific role at this developmental stage two centriolar
proteins that have been proposed to coordinate ciliogenesis with the cell cycle, are confined to the Metazoans"

4. Flagellum, damn near killed 'um.

Well, like all things organic, the bacterium's flagellum is determined by genes.
The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) along with the NIH deleted genes from the flagellar apparatus, the very tool used to propel the flagellum on a cellular level, and found that, though it was reduced, the motility (propelling on a cellular level) remained.

Directly from the NCBI:
"[We] tested an Escherichia coli gene deletion array for motility defects (using swarming assays) and found 159 gene deletion strains to have reduced...motility."

So even with deleted genes, the necessary components of the complex flagellum, the flagellum can still function as a motility tool.

5. Evolution, I've got my eye on you.

Here's how the NIH explains the evolution of the vertebrate eye:

A. Basal chordate possessed simple paired photoreceptive organs that were broadly similar to the unpaired organs of extant Amphioxus and C. intestinalis

B. These photoreceptive organs expanded laterally, and each had developed into a two-layered ‘retina’, with ciliary photoreceptors contacting projection neurons

C. This rudimentary eye acquired a lens, an increase in retinal processing power (through the insertion of retinal bipolar cells), projection of the ganglion cell axons to thalamic regions, and extraocular muscles.

D. The scotopic rod pathway evolves, with a new subset of amacrine cells (AII) providing input into the pre-existing cone pathway.

E. The lens develops an elliptical shape to compensate for the added refractive power that is provided by the cornea in air

Here's a cool animation from the NIH on the evolution of the eye:

6. I'll try not to bombard you with too much information about this beetle.

According to the Journal of Experimental Biology:
Studies have "shown [bombardier beetles'] glands to be two-chambered and their discharged secretion, in common with that of other paussoids, to be quinonoid and hot."

"This indicated that the discharged secretion is a two-phase system, in which the quinones are being formed in the aqueous phase, while at the same time being partitioned (in part at least) into the hydrocarbon phase."

So this two-phased system allows the beetle to store such volatile chemicals while maintaining viability. The poison was able to be safely stored in one of its reservoirs during evolution, step by step.

7. Giraffected by evolution.
Giraffe's evolution occurred step by step, and actually speaks to why there is such an inefficiency with nerves and blood circulation to the brain. Giraffe's ancestors had much shorter necks, so the path of blood to the brain and some nerve pathways start at the tops of the head,go down the neck, and return up the neck to the head again.

"Our analysis suggests that the evolution of modern giraffes from their forest-dwelling, okapi-like ancestors, has depended on and been stimulated by the emergence of a woodland scrub."

The woodland scrub had much shorter necks, and lead to giraffe's evolution.

8. Coagulation makes me feel a clot better.
The vitamin K clotting mechanism is determined by genes, thus our coagulation mechanism evolved step by step.

A PNAS published study indicates:
"Orthologous genes were identified for each of the five vitamin K-dependent serine proteases"

Orthologues are ancestral genes, directly related to vertebrate coagulation.


Thanks for responding! Now I believe a new definition is in order.
Adaptation: a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.
Micro evolution: evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

It is safe to say that micro evolution is just adaption working towards a more fit species as the end result. "When used by scientists, microevolution is the term for the gradual adaptation and evolution by a species which does not result in multiple new species."
Personally I am okay with birds in the same species with different shape beaks, dogs with different characteristics, humans with different color skin, it is all sound to me. I want to discuss how flawed it is to think that micro evolution can turn into macro evolution. Obviously if you breed two dogs you will get a dog, how can two apes breed a humanoid?

There is no indisputable evidence that that speciation has ever occurred due to evolution.
Next you had a list of reasons you believe in evolution.

1. That is adaption to me again it does prove macro-evolution however it does prove micro-evolution. But yet how does microevolution turn into the making of a new species that is proven to thrive and continue the species?

2. No it has not. in the last part of the article it explains when they think this new species had evolved. This is saying that perhaps there were two species the whole time. Today's science has yet to provide a indisputable piece of evidence that macro evolution or speciation has occurred.

3. That is a theory. There is no proof we evolved from apes. WHY IS THE APE STILL AROUND THEN? Shouldn't they all be human?

4. I will now switch to another book called Creation and Evolution by Dwight K. Nelson In chapter two "The Achilles Heel of the Java Man". So you"ve most likely heard of Java man, Peking Man and Nebraska man. These are reconstructed "prehuman humans" that people often see in museums, encyclopaedias and textbooks, they try to show that the evolutionist"s ideas of our origin are correct. In reality the pictures you see of Java man are based on just three parts. Three teeth, one leg bone, and part of a skull discovered by a Dutch army physician Eugene Dubois. In 1891 Dr. Dubois announced that he was off to find evidence of primitive man and travelled to the Solo River near the village of Trinal, Java, in Indonesia. He first discovered the skull cap along the bank of the river. About a year later he found two molar teeth and a human femur 15 meters away from the skull cap. In 1898 he found a premolar tooth that he believed to belong to his first find. Despite the finds being widely scattered Dubois made the conclusion that they belonged together. From 5 fragments he constructed what he later called Pithecanthropus Erectus (Greek, Erect ape-man) known as Java Man. Evolutionist"s have concluded that this represents an early predecessor of humankind that lived about half a million years ago. However before he died Dubois admitted that the Java Man closely resembled a Gibbon like ape. But the scientific community had already accepted that the find was one of the missing links they had been hoping for and ignored him.
Another similar case was that of Nebraska Man. Based on only one tooth found by Harold Cook in 1922. Cook mailed the tooth to a famous paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Osborn was fascinated by this find and compared it to all descriptions casts and drawings he could find and then consulted with three other scientists two of which were well known specialists on fossil primates. After much studying they announced that there was proof of an early man on the North American continent and published their find in the American Museum Novitates as follows. "It is hard to believe that a single water worn tooth "can signalize the arrival of the anthropoid primates in North America" We have been eagerly anticipating some discovery of this kind, but were not prepared for such convincing evidence"" This discovery named Hesperoppithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cooks Western ape) was illustrated in the London Daily Illustrated news and displayed a full paged spread reconstructing his whole shape, even the prominent brow ridges and broad shoulders from a single tooth! Sadly though two years later Nebraska Mans career came to an end. It turns out he was not a man not even an ape! The tooth turned out to be that of a fossil peccary. A wild animal related to the common pig. A man named Gish later wrote, "I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist." The following are the most common examples of human evolution.

Rampithecus: teeth and parts of a jaw that were found in India in 1932 were thought to be a fossil humanoid. However further studies now link these remains to chimps and baboons that are still living in Africa.

Australopithecus: Fossils of this kind were discovered in South Africa by Dart in 1924 and Leakey in Tanzania in 1959. Further studies by British scientists Zuckerman and Oxnard, indicate that these animals did not resemble man or ape and could be categorized as a species of their own. (However if we saw one today we would not hesitate to call it an ape.)
In 1973 Donald Johansson"s "Lucy" was found in 1973 in Ethiopia. With 40% of the remains the individual who was female was calculated to be a little over a meter tall and having one third of the normal brain capacity of the modern human. She was claimed to be a bipedal humanoid three and a half million years old. Remains of more individuals have also been found similar, however further studies have dimmed the hope of these to be truly Bipedal and therefore not the missing link.

Homo Habilus: First discovered by Leakey"s son Richard called skull 1470 considered to be the intermediate between

Australopithecus and Homo erectus (Java man). Recent discoveries on part of the skeleton has proved to be more apelike than thought before and there is concern that it may be a mosaic constructed from pieces of more than one species.
Neanderthal Man: pictured to be a primitive and brute like man until it became evident that he was fully human the skeleton was deformed by disease. His cranial capacity was greater or equal to that of modern humans.

Cro-Magnon Man: same as Neanderthal man cannot be used as evidence of our evolution from apes. Many other ancient human remains have been found but are either questionable, fragmentary or no significance for human evolution.

Piltdown man had an important part on the evolutionary tree for a long time before it was discovered that someone had pieced together part fossil, part fresh bone, part ape, and part human remains to construct a skull.
No convincing fossil evidence has been found.

I don't have time to repute your rebute on my debate but I will the next round. Thanks you
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for the response Pro.

macroevolution - major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

species - the major subdivision of a genus composed of related individuals that are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

1. Macroevolution
While I maintain that the only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is more time, I'll explain how biology views macroevolution compared to microevolution.

Macroevolution is at or above the species level, so more time is necessary for greater genetic divergence than that of microevolution.
For these reasons it's not easy to observe macroevolution within particular species because of how many generations need to occur.

2. What are species?
Organisms are of the same species if they can reproduce offspring who are viable with these organsims' species.

You can be certain that you have organisms of a different species if they cannot reproduce viable offspring with each other.

3. Speciation is macroevolution.
Pardon the tautology, but species speciate. Speciation has been observed.

The three spine stickleback fish has been observed speciating.

At one observed point, a member of the parent species could reproduce with other members of the parent species group and their offspring, and at a later observed point, the newer offspring were genetically incompatible with the parent species group.

It's a new species, and this is an example of macroevolution.

This is the same case with hawthorn-->apple maggot fly
The original species, the Hawthorne Fly, used to feed on the fruit of hawthorns.

Once apples were introduced into their environment, some of the hawthorn flies fed only on the apples, while the typical hawthorn fly remained eating the fruits of hawthorns.
Now, since so much time has passed, currently, apple eating hawthorns (apple maggot flies) mature later in the season, and require chemicals from apples that help with fertilization/reproduction.

The original hawthorn fruit eaters simply do not interbreed with the apple eaters, and these species cannot reproduce viable offspring with each other.
They are now two different species, and the parasites that inhabit them have also evolved along with the diet change.

This is macroevolution, even if it sounds like microevolution to Pro; these examples yielded new species.

4. Human Chromosome 2

Human chromosome two is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.
Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.

Single chromosomes typically have two ends and a center.

Telomere - Centromere - Telomere

Telomeres (the red ones) - - - - - Centromeres (the green ones)
Image result for telomeres---Image result for centromeres

But humans' 2nd chromosome looks like the single chromosome on the right:

Which is Telomere - Centromere - Telomere - Telomere - Centromere - Telomere
This shows fusion.

How do we know what fused?

Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome.

We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.

Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species.
The new species would have remnants of the parent species in their genetics.

Our 2nd chromosome is clear evidence that apes are our ancestors and our parent species is ape. We are in fact modern apes.

This fusion of chromosomes is exactly what you would expect if evolution were true, and it demonstrates how changes over time lead to different organisms completely, which is another example of macroevolution.

Due to its mechanistic explanation and subsequent demonstrations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is an accurate prediction from evolution, evolution is sound.

I would love to address Pro's contentions with the fossils Pro has mentioned however, there aren't any sources to verify any of his claims. If Pro provides some sources for that argument, I would be happy to refute them.


Briannj17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend all of my arguments and encourage voters to not dock Pro for forfeiting as I indicated there are no round rules for this debate; Pro can technically respond to whatever, whenever in the debate.

1. Speciation is macroevolution, because it is at/above the species level.
2. Macroevolution has been documented and observed in the apple maggot fly and the three spine stickleback.
3. Human's chromosome 2 is two ape chromosomes fused together.
4. Evolution has made accurate predictions from valid evidence, so evolution is sound.

On to Pro...


To your arguments in round 2. Regarding the mousetrap that didn't catch on. You say the mousetrap has been shown to be false as proving irreducibly complexity. My sources say, "Do the McDonald mousetraps look persuasive to some people? Certainly one reason is the way they are drawn. Drawings of four of the five traps are dominated by the image of the large rectangular platform and prominent spring in the center. That makes them all look pretty much the same. The staples are barely visible and the various metal bars protruding here and there seem like insignificant details. In fact, they are critical. Another reason is that the scenario starts with the completed mousetrap. Any question about the placement of the parts, their size, stiffness, and so on doesn't easily arise because the parts were already placed where they needed to be for the ultimate goal in the original drawing (that is, the fifth mousetrap here, which is the first drawing in McDonalds series) and their properties could be inferred from the fact we started with a working trap. So basically you can not go from a simple spring to a many piece mousetrap. The diagrams are false because they didn't show the staples very well which are crucial to disproving evolution.

Cilia, and flagellum as the site shows a complex system that if one part is removed the cilia doesn't work. You claim that it must have evolved by natural selection. the theory that claims only the most fit survive to pass on genes. However that would require a high population. Because if we go back back back to a time where Darwin claims there was a common ancestor, living in a warm little pond. First of all how did it get there? Second how did it evolve reproducing structures to pass on offspring? Animals don't need to have reproducing structures in order to survive so why did they evolve them? Thirdly if there was only one common ancestor or even one hundred how is natural selection to work? All of them would die because they are all unfit. Why did evolution create boy and girl animals? Anyways I know you cant answer so I'll stop with the questions.

The eye.
"In order for evolution to be proven, there must be a pattern in how the eye in simple animals like fish developed into the eye of more complex creatures like mammals. However no trends appear when one studies eye shape, eyelids, pupils, the lens, or even rod and cone cells. For example, evolutionists consider the shark to be the primitive ancestors of bony fish. Yet a study of the pupils in sharks" eyes show that they have the ability to contract their pupils to protect their eyes when bright light is encountered. But bony fish, which are considered more advanced in the evolutionary line, do not have contracting pupils. Their pupil sizes are fixed Both sharks and bony fish live in the same environment, so why is it that bony fish do not have the more advanced contracting pupils that their "ancestors" the sharks have? And how is that bony fish were stuck with fixed pupils when their "descendants" the amphibians and land vertebrates managed to end up with contracting pupils? And why is there a variation in the types of pupils within the same families of animals? There are lizards and snakes with vertical pupils and lizards and snakes with round pupils. Chameleons have eyes that rotate in any direction independently of each other with circular pupils while vertical pupils are in the eyes of crocodile. And if macroevolution claims that animals develop specific body parts like pupils to survive in specific environments, why is there so much diversity in the types of pupils within the same environment? Shouldn"t there be fewer types if useless traits are supposed to be lost during the macroevolutionary process? In fact, the diversity shows that Darwinists" idea of natural selection isn"t valid since the pupils these animals have aren"t necessary for their survival."

The fact you didn't go on to much about the bombardier beetle is no surprise to me. Mostly because scientists are stumped on how such a creature evolved.

"QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS about the evolution of the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle
According to evolutionary "thinking/doctrine", the defense mechanism of the Bombardier Beetle has been evolved through small steps - adding one feature at a time
Furthermore, the new feature(s) provide the beetle an added ADVANTAGE for SURVIVAL !!!
Step 1: beetle learned to produce Hydrogen PeroxideQuestion: what's would the beetle use Hydrogen Peroxide for ???? Bleech its wings ????
Net result: Zilt... Beetle is no more "better off"
Step 2: beetle learned to produce Hydroquinone
Problem: if Hydroquinone gets in contact with Hydrogen Peroxide, we have dead beetles everywhere - suicidal beetles...
Solution: beetle stored chemicals separately.
Net result: Still zilt... Beetle is no more "better off"
Step 3: beetle learned to produce inhibitor for Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide
Observation: there is NO NEED to inhibit these chemicals if they are stored seperately.... (and if they are not, we will have dead beetles everywhere)...
Dilemma: How did the inhibitor evolve ???
if Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide were stored separately, there was absolutely NO NEED to "evolve" the inhibitor
if Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide were stored together, they would react immediately and it's TOO LATE to "evolve" the inhibitor (because the beetle is dead)
To proceed further, we must make an illogical assumption that somehow random processes of nature is smart enough (gosh, what am I saying.... INTELLEGENT RANDOM PROCESSES....) "has the foresight" to evolve BOTH Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide AND the inhibitor
This will enable the beetle to store BOTH Hydroquinone and Hydrogen Peroxide in one chamber.
Net result: Zilt... Oh MAN.... the stupid Beetle is STILL no more "better off" !!!
The chemicals can be stored together, but they DO NOT react.... The beetle is not a single step further...
Step 4: beetle learned to produce Peroxidase
Peroxidase will convert Peroxide to Oxigen with will react with Hydroquinone
Net result: SUICIDAL beetles !!!... because the resulting chemical will poison the beetle....
Suppose - just suppose - some beetle survive the poisoning....
Step 5: beetle learned to produce Catalase
Net result: EXPLODING beetles !!!..... because the oxygen and hydroquinone will react SO FAST that the beetle's abdomen explodes....
Why ???? - Because there is NO DELIVERY SYSTEM !!!
Ah yes. the beetle still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes and a precision communications and timing network (nervous system) to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion.
So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their new found powers." The site explains the problems with evolution.

The giraffe,
"The giraffe"s heart generates enormous pressure in order to pump blood all the way up its long neck to its brain. If it did not have its complex blood pressure regulating system, when a giraffe bent over, it would suffer serious brain damage. If it managed to bend over without dying, it wouldn"t be able raise its head again. Its brain would suffer from a sudden lack of oxygen, and it would pass out. Here"s a four minute video with more info on that:

Furthermore, after a century of intense fossil exploration, no intermediate forms are on display in any museum in the world. The billions of giraffazelles have kept their remains well hidden. There is no intermediate form linking the giraffe to any other creature."

Blood clotting you say evolved step by step. Quite impossible is what I have been trying to say. An animal that is missing even one of the sixteen steps to a functional clot will not survive. If it does not survive it cannot contribute its genes to the gene pool to be selected from, no matter how much they are needed.
Next we go on to your arguments.
1. speciation is macro evolution. I disagree that either of these happened.
2. Macro evolution has been documented and observed in the apple maggot fly and the three spine stickleback. I had some help on this question from Jerry947. . Speciation "is the creation of new species by genetic modifications of previously existing species, so the resulting organisms can no longer successfully mate and produce fertile offspring" (Moulton). A species must meet this criteria in order to say that speciation has occured.. Although the benthic and limnetic forms in the wild are reproductively isolated, the fish can still mate with each other. therefore they do not meet the criteria.
As for the speciation in the maggot fly, I think it is best to quote something from the source you gave. It states that "three recent articles by Feder and collaborators show that the history of these host races is more complicated than was previously realized." In other words, the situation is complicated and as of right now, nothing has been proven as s a fact. Evolutionists automatically assume their assumptions are correct, but there are other explanations."

3. Human chromosome 2 is two ape chromosones. A recent evaluation is on the site following basically tells us that data is wrong. Saying, "The putative fusion site is "highly degenerate" and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed."
I have stated throughout the lack of fossil evidence there is and the sites that say so.
In conclusion.
My name is Brian N. Johnson and I have stated why evolution is unsound. Look for me ion more evolution debates sure to come. That"s all for now!
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
It's actually kind of funny that omission
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
Should have picked that up earlier.
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
lol you evolved? ;-p
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
*evolution debate
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
I have no doubt about that. I remember how bad my first evolution went. PM me if you want to discuss how to improve.
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
I will improve however. Watch out.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
Your welcome
Posted by Briannj17 10 months ago
Thanks for your honesty.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
I apologize for taking so long with the RFD. In the middle of DDO glitches, college applications, another debate to attend to, my RFD was delayed.

However, both sides did a great job.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
Pro's main argument against evolution falls on Michael Behe's irreducible complexity. The logic behind the argument makes sense. If there are complex features in organisms that cannot evolve gradually then there will have serious implications on evolution. Con's rebuttals to each case are a mixed bag. Some structures like bacteria's flagellum, Con has proven could be less complex and still function. His explanation for the cilia revolved around a very technical explanation to advanced for me to understand. Because Con didn't explain this more in a way that is more understandable, it is not very convincing. And then there are some cases where Con's response fails to state that the structure can be simpler or evolved gradually like the bombardier beetle where describing how sectioning of the mechanisms in the beetle proves it could have evolved is not convincing.

So in conclusion, Pro has maintained that some structures are truly irreducibly complex.

His argument with fake missing link fossils between man and ape doesn't really seem to matter. How does a couple of invalid fossils refute the supposed many missing links out there. Pro should have not wasted space arguing against this unless Con has brought up fossils that prove descent from apes in which it is worth it to refute.

However, where Pro loses this debate is the whole issue of "micro" vs "macro" evolution. Pro states that micro is adaptation within the species and macro is from species to species and states that macro hasn't been observed. Con however brings a case where new species have been observed to form. Pro loses by arguing on a straw man of evolution and although there is a clear reason why micro works and macro doesn't he did not state it correctly.

Also, Pro's response to the fusing of chromosome 2 is insufficient to explain why it hasn't happened. He should have gone into more detail.

So in conclusion, I give arguments to Con.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling/Grammar and sources are equal. Pro has forfeited a round awarding a conduct point to Con. My arguments explanation is in the comments below.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 10 months ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. To add, I'm also awarding conduct to Con. I thought I was going to award sources, but since none of Pro's sources are directly refuted, I have to accept that there's not a huge gulf between the two sides, though I personally find fault with many of Pro's sources. I'm awarding conduct for 2 reasons: 1) Pro is clearly getting much of his information from outside sources without directly sourcing them, particularly in R2, which is plagiarism, and 2) Pro practically quotes his entire R4, and in multiple rounds tries to expand on his arguments by requesting that voters read further into them to grab out more information.
Vote Placed by Soldier_4Christ 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Conduct sources and grammar were the same. I will be adding the reasons for arguments in the comments.