The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Christian_Debater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is a fact

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,931 times Debate No: 53436
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (0)

 

nonprophet

Pro

First round is for acceptance only
No adding new arguments in later rounds No word games. No playing with semantics. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean.
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.

VOTING is impossible on this debate.
Christian_Debater

Con

I appreciate you sending me the challenge. I have no problem with there being no voting.

To start off, I would like to define Evolution. The key here, which I will get back to later, is that evolution is not the same as metamorphosis, or artificial/human enhancement. I would like to define each, to show the distinct difference between them.

Evolution - "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. "

Metamorphosis - "Metamorphosis is a biological process by which an animal physically develops after birth or hatching, involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation."

Artificial/Human Enhancement - "Human enhancement refers to any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. The term is sometimes applied to the use of technological means to select or alter human characteristics and capacities, whether or not the alteration results in characteristics and capacities that lie beyond the existing human range."

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now to my main argument - evolution is not a fact, it is a theory.

"Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.". It can not be treated as a fact, if it is only a theory.

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now to my sub-arguments. These are arguments that further prove the notion that evolution is not a fact, but only a theory.

1) The argument made by a famous scientists know as Richard Dawkins is that we come from a common ancestor of a monkey. My question is, if this is true, how come there is no evidence of it whatsoever? Even if you claim it is thousands of years old, it would have fossilized, would it not? There would be some sort of proof of it's skeletal structure, or something. To quote from the web-page, "At each point Dawkins attempts to infer, from molecular and fossil evidence, the probable form of the most recent common ancestor and describes the modern animals that join humanity's growing travelling party". The key word is "probable". There is no guarantee.

In addition, the only fossils that have been found, are not guarantees. We just assume they may be, we are not certain. The web-page states, "This means that, in terms of inquiry into the course of possible human evolution / the origins of our species, the Ardi fossil has displaced Lucy as being from the earliest "reliably known about" possible close human ancestor species.". The fossil found, as well as the previous one, do not prove anything. They can infer, but it is not 100% proof.

Resources :
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) It has never been witnessed. There is no evidence of evolution. Metamorphosis can occur, which is different as we know, but evolution has not.

3) There is the claim that we came from one old ancestor "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago.". It also states it as a fact, which I find interesting from Wikipedia when the next paragraph shows it is just a theory. Anyways, this is impossible. The reason I say this is because of logic. We have had humans around and documenting existence for thousands of years. Have we evolved at all yet? We still have some parts on our body that modern time we see as "useless". For example, the tailbone, or the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc. Many of these things get removed from people, or are seen as useless because they are never used. If we could evolve, couldn't we just get rid of these things years ago?

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will leave it to three sub-arguments for now. I don't want you to run out of characters (it happens to me all the time). So there, I would like to see your response to that.

Also, understand that my reasoning for taking this debate is solely to change your opinion, it has nothing to do with votes.

May GOD bless you.
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro

Maybe you can't read.
Maybe you can't follow instructions
Maybe you just forgot, but
The rules said "First round is for acceptance only"

So, I can just stop here and call it a win, which I would have done if this was a voting debate, OR
I can ignore everything you wrote and pretend you didn't write it.
If you are OK with that I'll move on and START the debate.

Ever since Darwin came up with the idea that species evolved, science has been trying to prove him wrong.
Over 100 years later and thousands of experiments later, science has failed to prove Darwin wrong.

Everything they tried actually confirms evolution as a fact. (They = qualified scientists)

http://youtu.be...

With DNA alone. you can take any two species that exist and trace them back to the common ancestor they evolved from.

The fossil record only confirms the DNA evidence. Using several forms of radiometric dating that all converge on the same results, every fossil ever found fits into the tree of evolution exactly where it would be expected to fit.

All it would take to disprove evolution, would be to find just one fossil that didn't belong where the theory says it should go.

It's also important to realize that a scientific theory is not the same as non-scientific theory.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com...

I want to thank my opponent for taking this debate.
Christian_Debater

Con

I'll start off by apologizing. I never meant to offend you. Regardless of what you believe, I debate you out of love. It is hard, but I try to do everything out of love.

First off, you said a lot of things, but only cited two sources:

1) A video that shows 9 things it claims are wrong with creationism.

2) A link that talks about scientific theory.

First I will address the two numbers above, then cite the problems in stating that Evolution is a fact.

1) This video does nothing to prove evolution is a fact, all it does it point out the problems with Creationism. If you want to debate Creationism, invite me for that debate.

2) It still never states it as a fact. Like you said, it is plausible due to scientific theory. However, it is never stated as a fact. You can't call it a fact, just because it fits well with your theory. It doesn't matter if scientific-theory has more evidence to support it, it is still, not a fact.

Lets me show you an example - Heliocentrism. "Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. ". It was a common scientific theory with evidence to support it's claim, however, it turned out not to be true. It was not a fact, it was just a theory.

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now I am going to bring up additional points to show the flaws in Evolution.

1) The argument made by a famous scientists know as Richard Dawkins is that we come from a common ancestor of a monkey. My question is, if this is true, how come there is no evidence of it whatsoever? Even if you claim it is thousands of years old, it would have fossilized, would it not? There would be some sort of proof of it's skeletal structure, or something. To quote from the web-page, "At each point Dawkins attempts to infer, from molecular and fossil evidence, the probable form of the most recent common ancestor and describes the modern animals that join humanity's growing travelling party". The key word is "probable". There is no guarantee.

In addition, the only fossils that have been found, are not guarantees. We just assume they may be, we are not certain. The web-page states, "This means that, in terms of inquiry into the course of possible human evolution / the origins of our species, the Ardi fossil has displaced Lucy as being from the earliest "reliably known about" possible close human ancestor species.". The fossil found, as well as the previous one, do not prove anything. They can infer, but it is not 100% proof.

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) It has never been witnessed. There is no evidence of evolution. Metamorphosis can occur, which is different as we know, but evolution has not.

3) There is the claim that we came from one old ancestor "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago.". It also states it as a fact, which I find interesting from Wikipedia when the next paragraph shows it is just a theory. Anyways, this is impossible. The reason I say this is because of logic. We have had humans around and documenting existence for thousands of years. Have we evolved at all yet? We still have some parts on our body that modern time we see as "useless". For example, the tailbone, or the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc. Many of these things get removed from people, or are seen as useless because they are never used. If we could evolve, couldn't we just get rid of these things years ago?

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

To summarize the above, it is just a theory. Moreover, there is lots of evidence that is not guaranteed proof, as well as there is evidence suggesting Evolution is false. Therefore, it cannot be stated as a fact.
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

You seriously don't have a clue about how science works.

Science is only as good as the evidence it has. It will come as close to the truth as possible using the available evidence.
As new evidence comes about, science comes closer to the real answers.

With Heliocentrism, science came as close as possible to the right answer with the evidence it had. Now that we have better telescopes, we have better evidence and better answers to how the solar system works.

1. Humans and monkeys do have a common ancestor. As a matter of fact, you can take any two species and trace them back to a common ancestor. That's how you can prove evolution is a fact. You don't need any fossils to prove evolution.
The "probable" form doesn't matter. We know it's DNA structure.

2. Fruit flies have evolved into separate species in laboratories.
http://talkorigins.org...

Plus, you don't have to observe something to know it's true. The former planet Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the Sun. We know that as fact, but nobody has ever seen it happen, since we haven't even known about Pluto for that long.

3. "It's just a theory" http://talkorigins.org...
Gravity is also a theory...want to try jumping out a 20 story window? Hmmm...it must also be a fact!

You ask "If we could evolve, couldn't we just get rid of these things years ago?
That's not how evolution works.

I'll tell you what....no matter what "evidence" you have for evolution being "wrong" There is an explanation for it on this website:
http://talkorigins.org...

If you can find something (real evidence) that isn't explained on that website, please let me know. You'll win a Nobel Prize for sure if you can prove evolution wrong.
Christian_Debater

Con

Before I begin with the definition of Science I would like to thank nonprophet for this debate. It was fun and I have no more information to use for my other debates on evolution. I would encourage the voters, who really can't vote because of the high "elo" rating, to vote via the comment section on who they thought won. Thanks again everyone for this, and [nonprophet, don't be offended. If you get offended, just pretend I didn't say it this isn't specifically for you only] may the LORD GOD bless you all.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied".

Remember it says reliably applied. This will be important later in my conclusion.

Resources:

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

So what you are saying just proves that evolution is not a fact.

Yes, so it is not a fact. You cannot call evolution a fact if we are coming as close as possible to an answer. I think you don"t realize something about the theory of Heliocentrism. It made perfect sense, it had all these things making it seem right. Then it turns out it was wrong by a long shot. Not only was the sun not the center of the universe, but it was just a tiny aspect of the entire universe. Moreover, the whole theory of the universe is still just a theory. We don't know for certain at all.

1) Who? Who is this ancestor? What is their skeletal structure? What do they look like? Is there any fossils to prove they exist? No. I already cited earlier the most popular fossil and it still itself is not a perfect match. We have tons of dinosaur fossils but there is none of this ancestor?

Just because DNA is similar, does not mean we have the same ancestor. You have yet to cite a case where someone"s DNA has even changed. If DNA can be cited to naturally change, then you might have a case. However, you did not. Also, once again, it is a theory. You have not shown any undeniable facts.

2) Before I begin, I never found your case on the fruit flies. It is due to the fact that there is no direct link from what you posted to information about the fruit flies. However, I did find this resource that claims fruit flies have not evolved in over 600 years.

To quote from the article, "If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genesR13;mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creatureR13;merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve."

If anything, that was modification of the insect"s cells. That wouldn"t of been evolution anyways because it wasn"t natural. Moreover, it still didn"t work.

One more quote for you "In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5
The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.
One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.
The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."

As for your last quote, that is different. That is like me saying I know a football will travel a distance if I throw it, yet I haven"t thrown it yet. The reason we can calculate that is because we have observed Pluto"s orbiting pattern and therefore calculated where it would go. We still observed it. It"s equivalent for me watching cars driving down the street and predicting they will pass through the street light.

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.icr.org...

3) Gravity is a theory. The reason why we fall towards the ground is not a fact yet. It doesn"t mean we don"t fall towards the ground when we jump, it just means we aren"t 100% sure why. Moreover, you cited that same website which doesn"t provide evidence. It links to other sources, but you aren"t even quoting from it or anything.

Please, when you cite a source that has tons and tons of information, I am not going to read through all of it. Your best bet is to just cite something, quote it, and then prove your point. I don"t have time to read through an entire database. Moreover, you have yet to prove it is a fact.

Moreover, you have yet to prove how the theory of evolution is a fact. To quote from wikipedia itself," Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection."

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In conclusion, you did not prove how evolution was a fact. I argued against all your claims, and showed you evidence to prove those claims. I cited 2 studies of scientists trying to force evolution, as well as the most notable fossil for evolution which still does not prove evolution is a fact. Remember what I said at the beginning of this argument, it has to be reliably applied. Evolution has yet to be reliably applied. It is not a fact, it is just a theory.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BrallaghantheOrater 2 years ago
BrallaghantheOrater
I must point out that nonprophet began every one of his arguments with an ad hominem against the Christian_Debater. Christian_Debater, on the other hand, was civil and did not utilise petty fallacies to push his side of the argument. nonprophet, it is possible to argue for evolution without using such low forms of argumentation.
Posted by ZMowlcher 2 years ago
ZMowlcher
What's with the flurry of low quality debates on here recently?
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 2 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
"Thinking yourself as a victim and you become the victim. Don't sweat the small stuff." - a big person, with a small fly.
Posted by penguin4466 2 years ago
penguin4466
Hey, a question for you, Nonprophet. Can you show us an example of a species evolving to another species? Thanks :)
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Sorry in my second thing of resources I included a link to wikipedia that was unnecessary.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
I'll post my response to your comment nonprophet, but I am busy. I haven't got much time before my fiance comes back from Korea, and I need to clean my apartment. I will respond to your argument though, hopefully in a few hours. If not, I'll try before the deadline to post my argument.
Posted by Carthage 2 years ago
Carthage
Me too.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
I hope you know nonprophet, I cannot see what you posted. I just see a giant square.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
@humanright2debate I disagree with you. As I showed, it is just a theory like heliocentrism. Let me add something. Is it just a theory that we breath oxygen to survive, or is it a fact? Of course it is a fact. Come on now. Sure, there is evidence that claims to support evolution, but it isn't guaranteed proof as I cited. Even the best fossil is still not guaranteed from [the one I cited as well]. There is proof that we inhale oxygen to survive, but there isn't any guaranteed proof for evolution.

@W4R I appreciate your honest perspective on the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.