The Instigator
DebaterforAtheism
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
jp_porwisz10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is a Fact

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...
DebaterforAtheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 58199
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

DebaterforAtheism

Pro

This debate is concerning the validity of evolution. I will be on the 'pro' side, meaning I support evolution being a fact. My opponent, whoever he or she may be, will be on the 'con' side, meaning they do not support evolution being a fact.
I will now present some rules.

1. Proper spelling and grammar must be utilized at all times. A few minor mistakes in various places are acceptable.
2. All sources, if any are used, must be cited. Any citation format is accepted.
3. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 is for main arguments, not for rebuttals. Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttals. A conclusion will be made in round 4.
4. Failure to follow these rules will result in a loss of the debate.

I will now give some definitions:
Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth/something known to exist or to have happened

Now that I have given definitions and rules, I believe it is time for the debate to commense. I look forward to the outcome of the debate.


Sources

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DebaterforAtheism

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for assuming this debate. In this round, I will state my arguments to defend evolution.


Arguments

I will begin by talking about the common misconception that 'evolution is JUST a theory'. I am now going to prove this incorrect. A theory is not an unclear hypothesis that is made to try to explain things. A theory is a framework made of of facts and evidence that is used to explain something. The theory of evolution has been proven time and time again with evidence. Evolution has occurred and continues to occur. It has been proven in laboratories and has been seen in nature.

I will now move on to talk about the facts I just talked about.

In order to defend evolution, I must first define it. Strictly speaking, biological evolution is the gradual change in the genetics of a population over time. A simpler definition could also be the alteration of the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next generation. When discussing biological evolution, scientists do not mean evolution of the universe or people, but specifically evolution of populations of living organisms. Evolutionary biology does not attempt to find the origin of life, but rather limits its study to the evolution of populations of living organisms. Scientists are discovering new evidences about the origins of the first life forms on earth.

The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and comes from a wide range of sciences including genetics, archaeology, anatomy, physiology, etc. Among the molecular evidence showing evolution are examples of redundant pseudogenes which show common descent. Pseudogenes are genes which serve no purpose and are not capable of transcribing into mRNA or being translated into proteins with a function. Redundant pseudogenes are genes which have counterparts which are functional in an organism. Due to the fact that these pseudogenes serve no purpose and have no effect on the organism, mutations which occur in them would not be selected out by natural selection. It would make no difference what sort of mutation occurred in them because the genes themselves have no function. There are many examples of the same pseudogenes being found between two separate species, one being the eta-globin pseudogene, a beta globin gene which is shared among all primate species.

As convincing as the genetic and molecular evidence supporting evolution is, more tangible evidence exists in the fossil record. Countless species existing millions of years ago have gone extinct, and the fossil record shows that essentially no modern species existed at that time. The question then put forth is where all of the species living millions of years ago went, and from where did all of the species alive today come. The fossil record shows that the species of organisms living on earth have changed dramatically over the past few billion years. If evolution is indeed true, then there should be a clear transition between ancient organisms and their modern descendants. This fact is observed in countless species where fossils of ancient species show transitions to modern species, suggesting that these fossils are ancestors of today's creatures.

While observing the characteristics of fossils shows evidence for evolution, observing the characteristics of modern species also produces evidence for evolution. One of the most striking aspects of evolutionary change are vestigial structures. Vestigial structures are simply structures on organisms which are no longer functional or which serve a reduced function when compared to other species with the same structure.



Conclusion

In conclusion, I have given arguments to support the claim of evolution. My opponent must now make arguments to attack my claim effectively and correctly. If he or she fails to do so, I will claim victory. If my opponent can give viable evidence as to why the theory of evolution does not work, the results may not be in my favor.

I patiently await my opponent's arguments.



Citations

1. http://www.talkorigins.org...
2. http://www.newscientist.com...
3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
4. http://genomebiology.com...
5.
http://www.evcforum.net...

jp_porwisz10

Con

jp_porwisz10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DebaterforAtheism

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. I am thoroughly disappointed, as I was looking forward to the continuation of this debate. For there are no arguments for me to refute, I cannot write anything else here. I hope my opponent posts something next time.
jp_porwisz10

Con

I would ask that voters forgive my round 2 forfiet, as I was packing because I am moving in a few days. I would also like to ask all athiest, agnostic, and skeptic voters to give an unbiased vote on this debate. Thank you for you cooperation.

[Opening argument]

I rebute that Evolution is not theory, because in reality, it is.
Charles Darwin came up with the idea of evolution in the 1800's. Charles Darwin theorised it. Which means it is what he thought happened. Evolution cannot be a fact because Charles Darwin is the one who theorised it.
If we are talking about evolution of plants, that is a fact. But I will say this.
Organism's apparently created apes which created humans.
Organism's seem unlikely to create every living thing. Why? It seems unlikely. Organism's like the ones that supposedly made apes would have to have a heart, a brain, working legs and bones, circulatory system, and a digestive system. It seems as if organism's randomly created apes which created humans. It is said that humans came after the dinosaurs, which means you can't say these human creating apes went extinct. If apes created humans, why aren't apes creating humans now? Apes now cannot walk on two legs. Now apes apprently turned to humans. I ask you this. How were these cavemen able to speak eachother? How come we have hundred's of different languages? How come we have people of different colors? How come we have so many advanced words in different languages? Apprently cavemen were not so smart, so how were they able to come up with these things?
Debate Round No. 3
DebaterforAtheism

Pro

DebaterforAtheism forfeited this round.
jp_porwisz10

Con

I would like to ask voters to forgive my opponent's round 4 forfeit and not deduct conduct points from his score.

In conclusion,evolution cannot be a fact because we as humans don't know if it is true. Apparently evolution happened a long time ago, and there are no accounts of evolution happening. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Is there some aspect of my vote you would like clarified, Con? Because whining about bias without any actual justification seems rather unfair of you otherwise.
Posted by jp_porwisz10 2 years ago
jp_porwisz10
I feel like I don't have a chance to win. Because all these athiest,agnostic, and skeptics are going to give a biased vote
Posted by jirk4133 2 years ago
jirk4133
Could I be enlightened as to an example of a vestigial structure and a transition fossil?
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
@YYW
Sure it is, I mean, it's not like my definitions are well supported... oh wait:

http://www.nap.edu...
http://www.geo.sunysb.edu...
http://www.project2061.org...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://chemistry.about.com...
http://ncse.com...

Is that enough for you, or would you like more?

I accept your apology and I am glad that I could teach you something, learning is always a good thing.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
@burncastle

Learn the definitions of words. This is embarrassing for you.
Posted by DebaterforAtheism 2 years ago
DebaterforAtheism
My opponent has accepted the debate, yet written nothing. Something makes me think he has forgotten about it. I hope he will post his argument soon.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
People who say "Evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory" are making two mistakes.

First, it is a FACT that living things evovle over prolonged periods of time, the theory tries to explain how and why this happens.

Second, saying that evolution is JUST a theory denotes a lack of understanding of the scientific defintion of a theory. In science, a theory is not an idea that you just come up with, it is a well substantiated explanation for a number of observable facts. To be valid, a scientific theory must be falsifiable and must be able to produce accurate predictions. A theory does NOT become a law or a fact; laws describe facts and theories EXPLAIN facts.
Posted by DebaterforAtheism 2 years ago
DebaterforAtheism
I apologize for taking the debate down for a few days. I had some urgent matters to tend to. Now, however, they have been cleared up and I can focus my attention to this debate. Please feel free to accept.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
@YYW lol, what did I say now?
Just stop trolling lol.
You seem mad about something, but I'm not sure why.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
@arctimes

Just stop embarrassing yourself.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Enji 2 years ago
Enji
DebaterforAtheismjp_porwisz10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refers broadly to a variety of evidences for evolution, including evidences from genetics and molecular biology, more visible morphological data from the fossil record and extant species, and observation of vestigial structures all of which support descent with modification and the accuracy of the theory of evolution. Pro's argument could have benefited from inline citations, but the references he provides support his claims nonetheless. Con concedes the evolution of plants, and in his other points Con seems to have confused evolution with intelligent design - erroneously claiming that some organism(s) created apes and humans (and every living thing). Con claims this seems unlikely so evolution is not a fact, but this is not even a claim which evolution makes. His arguments against the development of languages, skin colours, and bipedal walking are similarly unconvincing, and he cites no sources. Arguments and sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
DebaterforAtheismjp_porwisz10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: "It seems unlikely" is not an argument. Con should have asked Pro for examples of transitionnal fossils and vestigial structures, but he didn't so I can not blame Pro for not giving them. Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
DebaterforAtheismjp_porwisz10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not awarding conduct, as both sides forfeited (though Con was pretty gracious about Pro's forfeit, btw). Unfortunately, Con failed to provide substantive objections--besides an appeal to incredulity, he also attempted to object despite agreeing that "If we are talking about evolution of plants, that is a fact", and appealed to a lack of direct experience. These objections just weren't compelling. S&G was equal enough, and Pro actually sourced while Con did not. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.