The Instigator
jdog2016
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Dragonfang
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Evolution is a Real Thing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
Dragonfang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,237 times Debate No: 32266
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (47)
Votes (7)

 

jdog2016

Pro

Round 1 only for acceptance.

I believe that evolution is a real thing, and that humans evolved.
Dragonfang

Con

I am going to challenge this statement.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility"spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundered years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddi, and others. That leads us scientifically to only one conclusion- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God"I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall, winner of Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine)

I expect it to be a logical debate, there is no need for religion to be in the debate.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
jdog2016

Pro

ev·o·lu·tion: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes asmutation,
natural selection,and genetic drift.

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion: Evolutionary change over a short period.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion: Major evolutionary change.



The word evolution can mean either established fact, and to the theoretical model explaining observations in terms of what we know about that fact. Evolution, the fact, refers to the observed phenomenon of the changing of allele frequencies in populations. Evolution, the theory, refers to the theory that evolution (the fact) is a result of reproductive variation, and is mediated by differential reproductive success (natural selection) to produce new forms.

Far to many people out there who haven't studied the "theory of evolution" simply says that evolution has happened. That's why creationists say "It's just a theory" and why people who accept evolution but don't really understand it say "The theory of evolution has been proven!" That's not what the theory of evolution says at all. To sort this mess out, we need to take a look at the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory".

So is evolution! We have observed evolution, both in the laboratory and in nature. Now some people who don't want evolution to be true will tell you that we haven't ever observed evolution, or that we've only seen microevolution (not macroevolution). These people are wrong. There's really no other way to say it. They want you to think that microevolution and macroevolution are somehow two different things, and that one can happen while the other can't. They don't want you to know that micro- and macroevolution are just two different ways of looking at the SAME THING. Beware creationist lies.

A scientific theory is quite different from a fact. A theory doesn't say THAT something happens, but attempts to explain HOW something happens. For example, the theory of gravity doesn't say THAT gravity happens, but attempts to explain HOW gravity happens.

The theory of evolution does not say THAT evolution happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution happens.To many people who haven't studied evolution, the "theory of evolution" simply says that evolution has happened. That's why creationists say "It's just a theory" and why people who accept evolution but don't really understand it say "The theory of evolution has been proven!" That's not what the theory of evolution says at all. To sort this mess out, we need to take a look at the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory".

In science, a fact is simply a data point; something that has been observed and catalogued. For example, you could say that gravity is a fact because when you let something go, you can observe it falling to the ground. If the object is acting under the influence of gravity alone, it falls to the ground every single time.

The theory of evolution does not say THAT evolution happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution happens.

Can a theory ever be proven? No. Unfortunately, many people think that the reality of evolution means the theory has been proven. That's not the case. The explanation about HOW evolution occurs can never be proven, just as NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE PROVEN! You can accumulate evidence to support a particular theory, but there must always be the possibility of falsification. The theory of evolution could be falsified if we found some example of evolution that is not occurring in the way that we think it does. Again, even if the THEORY were falsified, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. It just means we're back to the drawing board to figure out HOW.
Dragonfang

Con

I agree with all the definition and that evolution is not a fact. However, is it a theory?
A theory begins as a hypothesis, if the hypothesis is not disproved it becomes a theory. We have limited knowledge, and as we gain more knowledge the theory may or may not be disproved.

Both issue about evolution being labeled a Theory arise due to the definition of "theory" itself.
Ask yourself, is the theory still not falsified?
Well, as you said, back to the drawing board. But what is the next thing after that? Anything to support the hypothesis?

Issue #2 is that evolution isn't a theory, they are theories mixed together. Therefore, there is no definitive theory of evolution due to the sheer amount of theories the term carried.

Lets go over the theories one by one.
The first one was spontaneous generation, that non-living matter can produce living things. A popular example was maggot appearing spontaneously in rotting meat, but scientists later learned that flies carry the larvas which grow into maggots.

Lewis Pastor refuted the theory and said that it may not raise again.

Next was Lamarckismtrait since Darwin was inspired by Lamarck, it states that the child gains the traits his parents acquired in their lives.
So if a man lost his finger, then his children will have deformed fingers. If a black smith grows muscles, then his children will have a similar muscles tone when they grow up. if a giraffe extends it's neck to eat from a tree, the offspring will have a slightly longer neck.

But this was refuted along with natural selection due to genetics.
neo-Darwanism was born since a period passed where no one, even Darwin could come up with a theory better than Lamarckism.
Darwanism was in a bad shape that brought desperation, that is how Ernst Haeckel's embryology and the Piltdown man we created.

One thing I never could understand was the peppered moths. In case it was true, what is the difference from shooting black and white rabbits in snow? Camouflage offer protection, so where is the evolution? Moths stayed moths.

But that is not it all, it is pretty much a fraud. Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, they usually hide in a hard to find place on top of trees and they only fly during the night. This proves that the pictures are glued moths.
Furthermore, one of the main predators of moths are bats, and birds see in ultraviolet "Bird vision", which renders the argument useless.

After an effort to revive evolution, mutation was incorporated in the equation to counter genetic stability.
But there is one problem, mutation is random error. You might as well say that a short circuit can upgrade your graphic card or an earthquake can improve the building's structure.
Countless mutation experiments on fruit flies only produced sick and weak ones, mutation is dangerous as radiation is not going to produce an X-Man with cancer, but a high number of birth defects. Just ask the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl.

Genuine mutations are extremely rare in nature,

So the new backbone of natural selection:
1- Is completely random and almost always causes harm to the creature.
2- Adds no new information, just distorts the genetic code or destroy it. so it may grew extra organs creating freaks of nature, but not a new type of organ.
3- Acquired mutations will not pass to the next generation.

One of the most famous evidence of beneficial mutation is the sickle-cell disease/anemia.
Basically your blood cells are deformed giving you sickness (thus the disease in the name)
The syndromes include making it hard to breathe and shortening your life span to the 40s.

So how is it beneficial?
Basically, you have protection from malaria because the parasite can't find a healthy blood cell.

The argument is similar to telling someone who was born unable to walk:

"You have a beautiful trait! Thanks to your condition, you can't cross the street, thus you will never have a pedestrian accident!"

As for fossils, well... they are semi theories.
Look at this picture here, This is apparently the evolution of whales science have proved(?).

http://itsmyocean.org...

And yet, a complete whale was found before being formed.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

Which asks the question: What is the basis of fossil-based proofs? I'd say they are trying to play jigsaw with hundreds of dead species and then act like it is an unquestionable fact rather than possibility. Way to ride the bandwagon.

As for vestigial organs. the ignorance of function doesn't prove the lack of it, this list is continuously shrinking down as more discoveries are being made.

As you can see, the evolution "theory" is not a good one, and it failed to provide decent thesieses in order to support itself. It makes use of the ideology of wishful thinking. Which makes me wonder, did the theory become more important than the evidence?
Debate Round No. 2
jdog2016

Pro

"Lets go over the theories one by one.
The first one was spontaneous generation, that non-living matter can produce living things. A popular example was maggot appearing spontaneously in rotting meat, but scientists later learned that flies carry the larvas which grow into maggots."


I do not believe that spontaneous generation is possible, I am merely saying that it is similar to evolution its self. The only difference between the two is that in evolution beings change over a period of time. Were as in spontaneous generation, living things seem to be created instantly, usually out of non living things. That is of course impossible.

Examples of evolution are all around you. Have you ever come across the details within Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It shows an experiment that he conducted on a tropical island. He noticed that there were several different species of finches living on different parts of the island. Each type of finch had a unique bodily structure based on their surroundings.


For example, one finch had an abnormally long beak compared to the other types of finches. It had gotten the beak over time, because the bugs in that area of the island burrowed in logs, and in order for that species of finch to survive, it had to adapt and grow a longer beak in order to reach deeper into the trees, and get food.


https://www.youtube.com...

Not only does this video support my arguments, but it also has quotes from people that agree with me.
Dragonfang

Con

Ouch... You never answered my points...

Neo-Darwanism is based on lies in order to survive. How else would you explain the embarrassing bandwagons?


‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ - Lewontin, R., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, p. 13, 22 October 1981


"After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed." -Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p.


I don't like games evolutionists play. So please do not avoid arguments. Thank you.


I already mentioned the piltdown man, pepper moths, Ernst Haeckel's embryology.

To show you how they are mocking our intelligence:
Here is a picture of a biology book:

http://i479.photobucket.com...

It is a 2002 print:

http://i479.photobucket.com...

They are using Ernst Haeckel's embryology as proof!

http://i479.photobucket.com...

Better yet.
They credited Micheal Richardson, the man who EXPOSED the scam, lol.



An other example of how evolution fossils are a joke is the coelacanth fish.
They believed that it is a transnational fossil, I mean look! It have two extra fins, and it it seems to be developing a brain and a primitive lungs, and it probably lived near the surface! It was extinct 70 millions years ago!

But opps... the first one was caught in south Africa in 1938 the reason being that the fish does not rise above 180 meters below water surface, they found a tiny brain instead, and the "Deveoping lungs" were simply layers of fat.


How do you explain living fossils that remained the same through millions of years?



There is no single transnational fossil. I would like YOU to present evidence of their existence.



Nobel prize winner Werner Arber 45 years of his life documenting the cumulative effects of mutations on thousands upon thousands of generations of single-cell organisms. He has found absolutely no mechanism that would enable a single-cell organism to evolve into a multi-cell organism.


One common lie is that humans and chimps are 98.5% similar.
If you look carefully, you will quickly notice something is off, Sibley and Ahlquist claimed that in 1987, but the human genome project finished in 2003.
Sarich replicated the experiment and concluded that their research is completely unreliable. Is choosing to compare 30-40 amino acids from over 100000 amino acids look reliable to you? A nematode worm is 75% similar to humans, does this mean our bodies are similar to worms?
Furthermore, a chicken's Y-chromosome is as close to humans as chimp's Y-chromosome.
And if you want to point that the difference is 2 chromosomes, then know that potato have 46 chromosome like humans, so potato is our direct ancestor.


Your singular argument is based on "microevolution", but a much more accurate term is "variation" or "traits". If you know basic Mendelian genetics, you would not preserve this as a proof of evolution.


"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No." -R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883

Danny Faulkner, a professor of Astronomy and Physics at South Carolina University, states that the finch beaks' fluctuations cannot represent evidence of evolution: "And so if you have supposed microevolution one direction and then later it reverts right back to where it started from, that's not evolution, it can't be." -Gailon Totheroh, "Evolution Outdated," 2001

"the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth" -Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, pp. 82-87


Microevolution have nothing to do with evolution since it is a closed circle that goes back and forth, theres no such thing as unlimited amount of traits, the amount is fixed and no new trait will emerge. I DARE you to prove me wrong.


BTW, Darwin never conducted an experiment or even noticed their different beaks, nor did he discover the bird. So calling them Darwin's flinches is a myth.



Evolution: Living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
You still did not remove the question marks that exist in this definition.
Particularly, regarding the "HOW" questions.
Debate Round No. 3
jdog2016

Pro


DO NOT WATCH VIDEO UNTIL YOU READ EVERYTHING PLEASE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How do you explain living fossils that remained the same through millions of years?


That question has a very simple, but true answer. NOT EVERYTHING EVOLVES. Things only evolve is they need too. Such as the finches I mentioned earlier. That finch did not grow a longer beak for fun, it evolved because it NEEDED a longer beak in order to catch food.


To show you how they are mocking our intelligence:
Here is a picture of a biology book:

http://i479.photobucket.com......

It is a 2002 print:

http://i479.photobucket.com......

They are using Ernst Haeckel's embryology as proof!

http://i479.photobucket.com......

Better yet.
They credited Micheal Richardson, the man who EXPOSED the scam, lol.


I fail to see your point in this argument..... These men scamed people about certain small aspects of evolution as a whole. This argument does not in any way show that evolution is a false cause. It merely shows the stupidity of a select few.

Don't judge people as a whole because one of them was stupid.

I don't like games evolutionists play. So please do not avoid arguments. Thank you.

This is not an argument at all!! However it IS a stab at the beliefs of many people. You seem to be saying that evolutionists in particular "avoid arguments".....
Forgive me for failing to see the logic in this statement.



BTW, Darwin never conducted an experiment or even noticed their different beaks, nor did he discover the bird. So calling them Darwin's flinches is a myth.


......I never called them "Darwin's finches". I also did not say he discovered Finches, I said he discovered a "Certain kind of Finch". Charles Darwin didn't 'discover' evolution, he theorized it, hence "The Theory Of Evolution"
He used research and facts to support his theory and put his findings and evidence from the Galapagos islands in his book "On the Origin of Species".

There is no single transnational fossil. I would like YOU to present evidence of their existence.

OK http://en.wikipedia.org...


Nobel prize winner Werner Arber 45 years of his life documenting the cumulative effects of mutations on thousands upon thousands of generations of single-cell organisms. He has found absolutely no mechanism that would enable a single-cell organism to evolve into a multi-cell organism.


Eearlier in the debate, you argued how spontaneous generation is impossible. I said I agreed with you. In this statement above, Werner Arber is talking about an organism such as bacteria suddenly having more cells appear into existence. That is along the lines of spontaneous generation. Therefore it is no wonder he found no mechanism that would allow such things. Things don't evolve instantly. They evolve over time>>>>>>>>watch the video
Dragonfang

Con

I must elaborate that this debate bores me.
First thing first: Your Accusation.

This is no argument at all?
Thanks to you!

Debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
Argument: A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
Expressed: 1. To set forth in words; state. 2. To manifest or communicate, as by a gesture; show. 3. To make known the feelings or opinions of (oneself), as by statement or art.


So legally, this IS an argument. You just fail so bad at convincing anyone.



Yes, I am stabbing the belief of many people, there is no problem in that as long as civil discussion is being used, and the purpose is not to offend or incite them, but made toward a constructive purpose away from forgery and lies.

Knowledge exists not to please, knowledge exists to inform.
However, you attempted to stab me as an individual, thus you are as bad as you claimed me to be.




"You seem to be saying that evolutionists in particular "avoid arguments".....
Forgive me for failing to see the logic in this statement."


Man... What possessed me to say such things? I wonder...
*Super hint! You are the living fossil er... proof!*

Btw, I forgive you ;)
You must have a hard time making arguments... I understand.


Since we cleaned the can of worms, lets get into the real stuff.



The first statement ignores one of the points I left last for a PURPOSE, I did NOT put it there for fun.
Therefore, I have the right to dismiss that point, However (Damn buts and howevers)... I am going to refute it in order to prove my point.


The refutation have a very simple, but true answer. A THEORY CAN NOT PREDICT THE OPPOSITE. A theory can not create a hypothesis predicting the opposite of the theory, if it did then it is not science, it is child play since this would be a contradictory trick to keep the theory alive when science should attempt to destroy theories and replace them with better ones.
Furthermore, what happened to "Luck" and "Chance" you evolutionists are so happy about? Does this mean evolution is based on intelligent design?

if the chance is 10 base 50, it will never happen. The probability of producing a human cell by chance is 10 base 119,000. Make the math.

And here is an other question: How do creatures evolve at the same time? If the luck from mutation and natural selection caused a creature to evolve into an other specie, then the said specie cannot produce on it's own.


*Note, I am ignoring the flinch statement just like you ignored the refutation*




Are you saying the book is made by one stupid person? They are not stupid, they are conspirators.
Ernst Haeckel said that there are hundreds of fellow culprits in the forgery, and many of them are seen as respected and trustworthy biologist.



“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” -Sir Arthur Keith

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."I believe that is exactly what it is. In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairy tale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years, it becomes a prince. Tat is no science. It is simply a faith." -Dr Duane Gish


"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection-quite unaware of the fact that random mutations have turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." -Arthur Koestler



Information for future Internet use: BTW = Trivial information.
Therefore,what you wrote did nothing but make your argument seem longer, it is not like it is long anyway.
Is that your super-reply to the subject?


The reason I made a claim about transitional fossils is because I wanted to encourage you to write something! Any argument.
But then you copy paste from wikipedia.
What the hell. Imma be lazy. I am out of characters anyway.

http://bit.ly...

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...




As for your last point:
Evolution: Living things (Like single cell organism) become more complicated living things by accident (Like a multi-cell organism).
Spontaneous generation: Non-Living things create living things by accident (Like the first cell).


As for the video, it is simply an imaginary scenario, not an argument, nor science.

Arthur Koestler is a Hungarian-born British novelist, journalist, and critic:

In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection-quite unaware of the fact that random mutations have turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology. 15
Debate Round No. 4
jdog2016

Pro

No more arguments during the last round please. Only closing statements.(short and sweet)


This debate has been very eye opening for me. I feel as though me and my opponent both had great thoughts to share. I also feel like me and my opponent have already said all that there is to say, and that is we argued any more, we would sound quite redundant.


You(the voters) are already aware of what I stand for, therefore I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

This debate has been a pleasure.
JDoG

Dragonfang

Con

When comparing the two sides, it is quite clear that the burden of proof was on my side, as my opponet have failed to address my points or conjure reasonable argument.
Furthermore, Evolution have failed to solidify it's position as a theory. How can a theory be based on proofless assumptions? Is this really science? Did it turn into propaganda? Did pride take them too far? Did the theory become more important than the evidence?
We should never allow our minds to lose it's ability to think for itself you are following a shepard you are still a sheep. Sadly, some very educated people believe that evolution is a fact. Although logically and scientifically, no theory can be a fact, let alone unscientific method used.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and getting through it all.


I do believe this quote sums evolution quite well:

"You can be a thorough-going Neo-Darwinian without imagination, metaphysics, poetry, conscience, or decency. For 'Natural Selection' has no moral significance: it deals with that part of evolution which has no purpose, no intelligence, and might more appropriately be called accidental selection, or better still, Unnatural Selection, since nothing is more unnatural than an accident. If it could be proved that the whole universe had been produced by such Selection, only fools and rascals could bear to live." -George Bernard Shaw
Debate Round No. 5
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Seiryuu 3 years ago
Seiryuu
1. It's a change in a defining characteristic. That is evolution, no matter how small it is.
Real scientists analyse and rationalise. Where did you see the loss of ATP hydrolysis, anyway?

2. When did anyone ever say that? It doesn't even have any polymeric characteristics.

3. They don't always turn into "more complex" creatures. Radiation makes DNA polymerase more prone to errors and as a result create proteins that shouldn't have been made.

One can't really define bacteria to have "species," as many (if not all) tend to be asexual and can use HGT to transfer genetic information. Again, what environmental stressor was there for fruit flies and living fossils to evolve from?
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
1-Again, E-Coli lost the ability to metabolize ATP. That is not evolution.
Real scientists question and dig. Indoctrinated defend constantly.
2- "Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people." Proof please. How come the coelacanth did not grow anything in 410 million years?
3-Great, that is what I said. So all animals get cosmic rays in their privacy and turn into more advanced creatures. Oh, the irony of fate.

Bacteria and fruit flies live very short lives. Did they evolve into other species? Did the living fossils evolve into other species?
Posted by Seiryuu 3 years ago
Seiryuu
1. How is it meaningless? We have observed evolution in laboratories as per Richard Lenski's results. How does everything look like absolute zero fitness? They still exist, don't they?
2. New organs are a product of a multitude of mutations given a lot of time. Fish won't (typically) grow legs because there is no need to have legs in water; in fact, the extra mass works against the fish's fitness.
3. Germ cells have many precursors that migrate from another part of the body, which share characteristics similar to that of somatic cells. The offspring WILL be affected if radiation exposure is applied to the gonads.

Evolution seems slow in our eyes because the changes are minute and we live very long lives.
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
1-Everything is meaningless until it can be demonstrated how. I see a lot of blunder on the definition of evolution, it sure as hell looks close to absolute zero, and with all these species it looks like absolute zero. Unconscious intervention will impair complex structures.
improve a building or a short circuit will improve your graphic card.
2- Mutation either torn genes their places, destroy them, or carry them off to different places. It will never cause a new organ to surface. A fish will not grow legs, but it can grow fins on it's head. A leg can stick out from the back or a ear can surface from the abdomen.
3-For the mutation to transfer to the next generation, it must have taken place in the reproduction cells. So if a mutation happens by exposure to radiation for example, the offspring will not be affect. Which means you will have to settle for the 1 in a billion chance for natural mutation in a single particle.

I have already responded to the E.Coli. please look below.

Google "mutant animals" and "mutant fruit flies". And tell me where you see an evolution.
Did a cell show a sign of evolving from the thousands of bacteria generations?
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
1-Everything is meaningless until it can be demonstrated how. I see a lot of blunder on the definition of evolution, it sure as hell looks close to absolute zero, and with all these species it looks like absolute zero. Unconcious intervention will impare complex structures.
improve a building or a short circuit will improve your graphic card.
2- Mutation either torn genes their places, destroy them, or carry them off to different places. It will never cause a new organ to surface. A fish will not grow legs, but it can grow fins on it's head. A leg can stick out from the back or a ear can surface from the abodoman.
3-For the mutation to transfer to the next generation, it must have taken place in the reproduction cells. So if a mutation happens by exposure to radiation for example, the offspring will not be affect. Which means you will have to settle for the 1 in a billion chance for natural mutation in a single particle.

I have already responded to the E.Coli. please look below.

Google "mutant animals" and "mutant fruit flies". And tell me where you see an evolution.
Did a cell show a sign of evolving from the thousands of bacteria generations?
Posted by Seiryuu 3 years ago
Seiryuu
@Dragonfang

1. Mutations play a big role in evolution, but by no means is it the sole determining factor of evolved organisms. Other factors such as gene drift also need to be put into consideration. Are many mutations deleterious? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it causes absolute zero reproductive fitness; only that it is lessened. The organism may still be able to pass on its genes.
2. How do your examples not add new information? I'm also not too clear on your criteria for "new information." Do insertion mutations count?
3. How so? Just because they're deleterious doesn't necessarily stop the organism from reproducing.

"Mutations adds [sic] no new information"
Didn't I give you that E. coli example with them developing the ability to metabolise citrate?

"the "Victim" can have extra functionless organs."
How is that not an example of new information?
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
@Seiryuu
Evolution is based on mutation right?
1- Is completely random and almost always causes harm to the creature.
2- Adds no new information, just distorts the genetic code or destroy it. so it may grew extra organs or lack them creating freaks of nature, but not a new type of organ.
3- Acquired mutations will not pass to the next generation.

Mutations adds no new information. Which means the "Victim" can miss organs or functions, the "Victim" can have extra functionless organs.
But it cannot create new organs unfamiliar to the creature.
Mutation = An error in the genetic code. Meaning it cannot add anything to the Chromosome. It either destroys or modifies. Meaning the "Victim" will almost always get hurt, and no way in hell become a more advanced creature.

@Denzel
All refuted in the argument.
Adapting to their genetic traits. The turtles can go on for millions of years, but no new traits or species will result.
The peppered moths is a hoax. And logically, it makes no sense since bats are main predators, birds see using U.V, and moths only comes out at night. Bring me a similar study that produced the same results. Moths hanging around trees? Give me a break.

Evolution is a cult. Why we don't have eyes on the back of our heads? Because they did not accidentally arise there, while they accidentally arised in their current position. Yay! Biology is explained!!
Posted by Bitemenow 3 years ago
Bitemenow
It has not been proven. Have they found bones that are the in between of a fish and land animal? No! The only explanation they have is spontaneous which has already been proven impossible by Louis Pasteur.
Posted by DenzelUram 3 years ago
DenzelUram
Evolution is a real thing and has been proven. The first example of it would be the turtles located on the Gal"pagos Islands, which all had minor physical differences, each beneficial to that species based on their location. Another example of evolution would be the peppered moth. The peppered moth changed its color through generations to have a better chance of survival, changing from white to black to blend in with the polluted air. Once the air was clear the moth eventually changed back to the original white.
Posted by Seiryuu 3 years ago
Seiryuu
@Dragonfang, I'm not too sure what you mean by new information; could you please clarify? Evolutionary mechanisms modify "pre-existing information" in successive generations which are then passed on if a "survivability threshold" is met.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with pro, he has dropped most of con's arguments even though it should have been an easy win for pro. There were just many flaws in con's arguments that pro never took advantage of, and so many arguments pro has dropped.
Vote Placed by guesswhat101 3 years ago
guesswhat101
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe in evolution before and after but con had the beter arguments. I know the theory of evolution, as I am just finishing a college course on biology and Pro explained it terribly, especially the part about Darwin's finches.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
TheSaint
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: We have observable evidence that organisms change which meets the definition of evolution. Pro points this out, Con assumes that pro means the Mechanism that we currently believe causes evolution, which it probably is, but even if it's not then evolution is still a real thing, even if god or whatever causes it. Thus the resolution is affirmed and Pro should win, simply put, nowhere in this resolution did it say "The Theory of Evolution is a real thing" It is talking about Evolution as a natural process. Also, pro's actual use of evidence instead of unrelated Jpegs give him evidence points.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Pro rambled on and did not prove evolution is real. He also did not respond to points that con made. Con wins
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted on this here debate!
Vote Placed by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty good debate. I will say it was a whole easier to read that most about the same thing. I give spelling and grammer to Pro because I seen a couple of errors in cons case. I tie conduct and arguments. I tie arguments because I was not convinced by neither but both made good points. I think Con had better sources. I leave it as a win for Con because no rules were made and Pro did not convince.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
jdog2016DragonfangTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because the first round was only for acceptance and Con used it to make an argument, Pro doesn't know the difference between "to" and "too" so he loses on spelling, Con tried to use "spontaneous generation" which is abiogenesis, not evolution, so I am less convinced of his arguments, even though he used many reliable sources.