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

Evolution is a Proven Scientific Fact - Not Something to "Believe In" or not

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 72222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




"I don't believe in evolution" is the single most rage inducing statement a person can make. Evolution, similar to global warming, the theory of special relativity, and pancakes has been scientifically proven through discovery of fossils, study of ecosystems, and more. Accept it.

Evolution: The process by which different living organisms are subject to various genetic mutations, sometimes resulting in an increased chance of survival, and being passed down through generations - eliminating the previous species through natural selection.


Evolution is not yet a "scientific fact."
That's why it's still called the 'theory' of Evolution. Like the Big Bang and Aliens. it's a theory and not a fact. It hasn't been proven to be logically and scientifically true because there is a missing link that connects the apes from us, the humans.

I personally think that it is too, hard to accept that we humans came from animals. I can't even imagine that my greatest ancestors were apes.
If we look at it scientifically, our race MAYBE animals in the past, MAYBE we have evolved to be smart creatures in order to survive in this planet so that we could survive the rule of natural selection. It's all a MAYBE that's why I don't believe in it. Because Charles Darwin's theory all came from circumstantial evidence only. He saw fossils of apes, and pretty much made a story on how apes became humans from those fossils. That is the missing link in the theory of evolution, there is no solid direct evidence that would prove that we indeed came from apes.

Here's an analogy:
Imagine that you're a spectator on the criminal court, watching a trial of murder. (I'm not a Lawyer but I'm just using this as an analogy)
A man working in a restaurant was stabbed. And one of the main suspects is his coworker, the chef.
The prosecutor have 2 evidences.
- The suspects fingerprints were seen on the murder weapon. A knife (Circumstantial Evidence)

If this was his only evidence, then the prosecutor would lose the case and the judge verdict will be not guilty. Why? Because it's only circumstantial evidence. You think that the Chef murdered B because of the fingerprints. But what if he was framed? What if someone stole that knife that he uses in order to point him as the murderer? And the fact that he is a chef makes it normal for him to wield a knife. In this case, you need a stronger evidence that will really prove that the chef stabbed B. And that is direct evidence

Evidence 2: CCTV Camera (Direct Evidence)
- The CCTV Camera captured the chef stabbing the victim on the spot. This is what direct evidence is. Now there's no way that the chef could deny that he indeed stabbed the victim because there is a direct evidence that proves it. There's a witness.

And this is the thing that the evolution theory lacks. It doesn't have a direct evidence. Plus no one could testify that he/she have seen an ape evolve to a human being right? Think about it.
Debate Round No. 1


I will admit partial defeat here. My new focus is the denial of evolution. I'll accept that it may not be a proven scientific fact, due to certain gaps, but there is no denying that it is an extremely rational, practical and sound theory. It is similar to Hawking's realization of the expansion of our universe. Galaxies have been proven to be moving away from each other at increasing speeds, proposing that they were closer together in the past. This of course can't physically be observed, but there's no denying it. Just as fossils have been found that can trace the current homo-sapien back to an earlier homo-erectus species, suggesting that a process of evolution occurred. Of course nobody can physically observe this. But common sense, and a logic thought process combined with sound scientific discovery and evidence is surely enough to get the job done.


I agree when you said that the Theory of Evolution is a rational, practical and sound theory that Charles Darwin came up with.
Though, there is something really incomplete. It's like a jigsaw puzzle of an elephant but there's one missing piece. And without that one missing piece, we cannot know if that elephant is just kicking a ball or killing a human. Same with Evolution.

Even if it does sound logical, there really is NOTHING that can prove it. Even those fossils.
Example is the dinosaurs, we just found its fossils but we don't know if dinosaurs really look like how we know them now.
It's just merely scientific inference that led the scientist to say, "Ah! this dinosaurs MAYBE looks like this because the shape of the skull is that." And in the case of evolution Charles Darwin discovered the ape fossils and said "Ah! MAYBE we (the humans) came from apes because this fossil suggest something like that." But, where's the evidence? Why will you believe it if it ONLY SUGGESTS so?

It's like forecasting that a big man will surely win a fistfight with a small man because he's got bigger muscles and a better body. So it suggests that he will most likely win. But what if the small man was a master of martial arts that could easily overtake a bigger man? See what I mean?
Debate Round No. 2


I agree that there are minuscule gaps. But how much more evidence is really needed? We have found hundreds of fossils, linking our current species back to ape-like ancestors. These fossils have been found in locations that perfectly fit this theory. I don't think it's fair to debunk evolution based on the premise of a "Well, do we REALLY know?" related question. Of course not. Nobody REALLY knows if there is or ever was a God. Are we REALLY alive? Who knows? This is treading on the realm of philosophy, which is not my intent. Evolution is a perfectly robust concept that I believe to be irrefutable. I acknowledge that there are slight gaps, but I do not think it is fair to use these gaps as argumentative fuel. I don't really mean to bring religion into this debate, but just as you said, "There really is NOTHING that can prove it." I'd like to agree and disagree with this. From a philosophical standpoint, you're right. We can never truly know. But when we piece together this scientific evidence to the best of humanity's abilities, we receive the theory of evolution. These simple fossils more logically support the theory of evolution than "Holy Bible" supports the theory of Creationism. We know where these fossils came from. We know how they link together, and we know how old they are. We know of their existence, and scientific evidence tells us that they are our ancestors.

I would also like to refute your comment on dinosaurs. Our conception of a dinosaur skeleton may not be 100% correct, but I think it's safe to say that the model of a Tyrannosaurus-Rex was due to a link in discovered bones, and very thorough, accurate scientific inquiry. I do not doubt our vision of dinosaurs for the same reason I do not doubt evolution. Scientific discovery, and evidence has led us to many accurate, outstanding realizations throughout history. I would like to conclude my portion of this debate with one final statement: Evolution, although possessing very minuscule gaps, is a proven theory through scientific evidence.


I'll make this one short.

Yes, there is a very huge possibility that this theory might be true, because it is very logical.
If Evolution really is "perfectly fit" as you said, why do you think we still call it as a theory?
Why does scientists don't acknowledge this as a scientific fact?
We are so much into this theory because this is only the scientific theory that is trying to tell where we humans came from. Of course, who wouldn't be curious?

I don't really think that Evolution has proven itself with scientific evidence
The minuscule gaps in this theory. are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Without this little things, we wouldn't know the whole picture of Evolution.
What if these fossils just led to another specie instead of humans? Why did we suddenly evolve from a tall homo erectus to an extremely intelligent homo sapien? Why didn't we became extinct when we were a very dim witted ape?
The world is changing much faster today, than billions of years ago, but why do we still look the same since the time of Jesus? And if there really was evolution, why does a chicken in present time the same chicken eons ago?

There is a lot of possibilities and questions that haven't been answered in this theory that's why Evolution remains a theory. Yes some of us believe that this maybe true, like you and me. Though we can't prove it yet until we answer this questions.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by aloysious 2 years ago
Biologists can't prove we even have a physical body. According to the BBC (Do We Really Exist?), the odds are billions to one against us having physical bodies. And according to Einstein, time is relative. Since time is relative, and biologists can't prove we exist in physical bodies... what makes anybody think the theory of evolution explains our existence?
Posted by aloysious 2 years ago
The "partial defeat" the op conceded to... totally negates the whole point that is described in the title.
This debate was won by TheMadMusician with one post.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
con has no understanding of evolution, when he thinks evolution explains that humans evolved from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
common ancestor;
in genealogy, any person to whom two or more persons claim descent; also, the most recent ancestral form or species from which two different species evolved
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
The scientific method only admits for universal negatives " in science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
There is a possibility that basically nothing exist. Everything you think you know about the world comes from messages to the brain. Effectively if something that could copy these messages and connect up to an advance form of virtual reality, everything you see, hear, feel, taste, smell, could be fake.

Now if there is a possibility that basically nothing exist, then there is a greater possibility that macroevolution is incorrect.

If "I don't believe in evolution" is the most rage inducing statement a person can make, then you either have
A) a rage problem or
B) don't know of many rage inducing statements
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
I believe that the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is merely a scientific theory, and yet, we take that as fact (Heliocentric Theory). There is no way to directly observe this from the Earth.

The Big Bang Theory is separate from the Theory of Evolution.

"selection isnt natural, so natural selection is false"
You're reading that way too literally. The use of the word selection does not mean that there was a conscious selection being made by nature. It is merely a way to describe the process.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
evolution is absolute, it must be but theory of evilution is probably bs

selection isnt natural, so natural selection is false
Posted by Excalibur 2 years ago
For it to be a fact it would have to meet its challenges 100%. There are too many gaps in the theory. One of the main ones dealing with the Big Bang, as we have to start there to get to evolution, is where the energy came from that created it.

"We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn't resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from."

You can't call something a "fact" just because it fits your belief. That is pure intolerance.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Not going to snipe this... but you may want to look up the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory.
Posted by jsgolfer 2 years ago
You need to better define evolution. Once a definition for evolution is given I may accept.
No votes have been placed for this debate.