The Instigator
alexmiller887
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
DTSmember
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Evolution is a proven scientific theory

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 4 votes the winner is...
alexmiller887
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 49453
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

alexmiller887

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that evolution is a proven scientific theory.

Rules
1. No personal insults.
2. 1st round is acceptance.
3. No Wikipedia or Huffington Post.
4. The Bible/Koran/ other holy book are not evidence, and will not be accepted as proof.
Thank you in advance, my worthy opponent.
DTSmember

Con

I accept your debate and your criteria. I will not use Wikipedia or Huffington post.
Debate Round No. 1
alexmiller887

Pro

My job in this debate will be to rebut your evidence and present mine.

First, a definition
Evolution
A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Point 1
Our family tree can be traced back to Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. (he was probably a bacteria) From there, we lose track until Lucy, Australopithecus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org......

This is startlingly human-like. However, scientists have carried out test which show that she knuckle-walked, just like a gorilla (you can see the rounded fingers), and probably had fur, just like an ape.

Point 2
Our genome is like a map of who and where we came from. We share 99.8% of our genome with apes (and 99.99% with pirates!), therefore it seems almost self-evident to assume that we must be close relatives of apes.

Point 3
We've seen it happen.
We've started, and are continuing an experiment known as the e-coli project. Basically, it consists of taking bacteria, and waiting. A long time. And sure enough, the generation 50000 bacteria grow about 100 times faster than Generation 1.

(1)http://humanorigins.si.edu......
(2)http://myxo.css.msu.edu......
(PS, thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. It's going to be interesting!)
DTSmember

Con

DTSmember forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
alexmiller887

Pro

Extend all arguments and rebuttals.
DTSmember

Con

I believe my opponent has tried to cut me off with a very small time limit. I say evolution is not proven because it is a theory. Theories, as we all know, are hypothesis on certain things. It is not scientific fact. Therefor the only way to prove it definitely would be to take a time machine and watch it occur over time. Mutations are not evolution. Humans have not been around long enough to notice evolution in any animals either.
Debate Round No. 3
alexmiller887

Pro

I'm afraid that you are sadly mistaken about scientific theories.

Scientific theories, until they are replaced they can be considered laws, for example the laws of thermodynamics.
'Therefor (sic) the only way to prove it definitely would be to take a time machine and watch it occur over time. '
You did not read my point three, did you. It clearly states that we've seen it.

You have
1. Failed to engage with any of my points
2. Directly contradicted my evidence.

Thank you to Con for a great debate, and I hope you vote Pro.
Thank you.
DTSmember

Con

Your sources have people that say evolution is proven because chimpanzees act like humans. I know cats that act human too. All I have to do to win this debate is prove that a theory is not scientific law. They can be very convincing theories, but still are not proven by the scientific field as of yet.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I especially like the second entry, "An idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true."
Again as I have said, it is possible that it is true, but not 100% guaranteed, scientific law.
Thank you con for my first debate and please vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
alexmiller887DTSmemberTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got the definition of Scientific Theory wrong for starters, Theories in science is not the same as theories in philosophy. There really was not much else to go on.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
alexmiller887DTSmemberTied
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: DTSmember accused alex of time limit restrainst of his forfeiture, but he accepted the terms before this debate. it shouldn't be a problem, but that accusation is serious and warrants a loss of conduct. DTS resorts to theory attacking while Pro provided evidence on chimps and bacteria, which in itself an evidence. Sure, its not 100% but burden of proof has been met as evidence have been provided. Attacking theories without rebuting evidence are without merit. So arguments to Alex
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
alexmiller887DTSmemberTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: blaming Pro for the short time limit to which Con had to agree when accepting the debate is low, so conduct goes to Pro. Arguments barely go to Con, as he correctly pointed out that theory is not proved, quoting Merriam-Webster's definition. This awards him a point for sources, as the basic dictionary MUST be the superior source, and it effectively proves the proposition wrong.
Vote Placed by Skrone 2 years ago
Skrone
alexmiller887DTSmemberTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just went about this horribly. He should have just played off for something to be a 'theory' itself means that it isn't 'proven' a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena from dictionary.com saying that is it is regarded as 'correct' but not in itself 'proven.