The Instigator
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Losing
71 Points
The Contender
ournamestoolong
Con (against)
Winning
92 Points

Evolution is a ridiculous theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 26 votes the winner is...
ournamestoolong
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,328 times Debate No: 6941
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (26)

 

rougeagent21

Pro

I stand in affirmation. I will allow my opponent to open up the discussion. Why is evolution (Macro-Evolution) a plausible and provable idea?
ournamestoolong

Con

Though I feel that in this instance you have the burden of proof, I will start.

Evolution is a theory that consists of small changes or adaptions to a species in order to make itself stronger and improve its life overall. This can be proven by changes that bacteria have made to be able to resist vaccines.

My opponent must prove that this is implausible.

SOURCES:
1. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
2. http://www.newscientist.com...
3. http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net...
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Pro

First let me define evolution as: The Development of higher species (Such as humans) that have evolved (or changed) from lower species as a result of natural selection and the passing down of common genes to the next generation. (Common ideas of "evolvees" are fish, apes, and even yeasts)

My opponent has challenged me to prove why this is implausible. Now, to fully understand the theory of evolution, one must first have a basic understanding of genetics. Traits are passed down from one generation to the next by alleles. Alleles are located on the chromosomes, and determine the phenotype of an organism. Here is an important part: The phenotype of an organism is dependant on the genotype, or the genetic makeup of an organism. If the gene is not present, that neither can the phenotype. So, lets apply this to common evolutionary theories.

One common theory is Lamarck's proposition of evolution. This basically says that phenotype is based on usage. He givs the examples of the blindness in moles, and the large claw on some crabs. Applying proven scientific facts, this cannot be true. Since phenotype is based on genotype, this cannot be the case.

Another common theory is Darwin's. Similar problems occur within his theory. He says fish started walking on land, and turned into little crawlers, which turned into bigger critters, which turned into apes, which turned into humans. Again, science is against this theory. How does a fish get oxygen-competent lungs? Or even legs for that matter? How does it get toes? Lose its scales? Lose its fins? Get hair?! This is an absurd theory. Granted, neither Darwin nor Lamarck knew what we do now about genetics. They could not have know. But, with what we know for fact, these are absolutely implausible ideas.

Another problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of intermediate-staged fossils. If evolution were true, there would be unmistakable fossil evidence. Because there are no such fossils, given a few mutated examples, Evolution is again proved false. IF it were true, there would have to be ample amounts of the fossils.

So, combining what we KNOW FOR FACT about the fossil record, and genetics, we see evolution as COMPLETELY ridiculous. There is no way that this theory is even plausible.

"Evolution is plausible." NEGATED.

Now I leave my opponent with a challenge. I have proven evolution to be false. The burden is now on you to show I am wrong. You must deny scientific fact, for the sake of this absurd theory. (An impossible task for any man in his right mind) If you fail to do so, you surely have lost this debate.

http://biology.about.com...
http://www.bible.ca...
ournamestoolong

Con

"First let me define evolution as: The Development of higher species (Such as humans) that have evolved (or changed) from lower species as a result of natural selection and the passing down of common genes to the next generation. (Common ideas of 'evolves' are fish, apes, and even yeasts)"

I will agree with this definition

"My opponent has challenged me to prove why this is implausible. Now, to fully understand the theory of evolution, one must first have a basic understanding of genetics. Traits are passed down from one generation to the next by alleles. Alleles are located on the chromosomes, and determine the phenotype of an organism. Here is an important part: The phenotype of an organism is dependant on the genotype, or the genetic makeup of an organism. If the gene is not present, that neither can the phenotype. So, lets apply this to common evolutionary theories."

We agree here.

"One common theory is Lamarck's proposition of evolution. This basically says that phenotype is based on usage. He givs the examples of the blindness in moles, and the large claw on some crabs. Applying proven scientific facts, this cannot be true. Since phenotype is based on genotype, this cannot be the case."

Lamarck's theory is disproven and out of date. There is no proof to it and it should be excluded from this debate

"Another common theory is Darwin's. Similar problems occur within his theory. He says fish started walking on land, and turned into little crawlers, which turned into bigger critters, which turned into apes, which turned into humans. Again, science is against this theory. How does a fish get oxygen-competent lungs? Or even legs for that matter? How does it get toes? Lose its scales? Lose its fins? Get hair?! This is an absurd theory. Granted, neither Darwin nor Lamarck knew what we do now about genetics. They could not have know. But, with what we know for fact, these are absolutely implausible ideas."

Your statment has a common problem. Most people ask how these changes are made. The changes are a series of small changes. Now all these changes are made because of a cause. For example, Single celled organisms needed to get more energy (food) so they grew larger into multiple celled organisms. Then they needed to transport energy and nutrients through their body so they formed the respitory, digestive, and circulation systems. It is through this cycle that they developed body systems in order to make their lives easier, somewhat like the bacteria in my sources becoming resistant to antibiotics. All organisms change due to our environment, like dogs shedding. Then, they pass these changes on to their offspring.

"Another problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of intermediate-staged fossils. If evolution were true, there would be unmistakable fossil evidence. Because there are no such fossils, given a few mutated examples, Evolution is again proved false. IF it were true, there would have to be ample amounts of the fossils."

First off, we don't have many fossils because of the way they are formed, when something dies, it doesn't always have a fossil. Second off, we do have these:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.utexas.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...
https://www.msu.edu...

All of these fossils are examples of "transitions" from apes to humans. So the idea that there isn't fossil evidence is absurd.

"So, combining what we KNOW FOR FACT about the fossil record, and genetics, we see evolution as COMPLETELY ridiculous. There is no way that this theory is even plausible."

Not quite, genetics can completely uphold this theory and there is more than enough fossil evidence.

"Now I leave my opponent with a challenge. I have proven evolution to be false. The burden is now on you to show I am wrong. You must deny scientific fact, for the sake of this absurd theory. (An impossible task for any man in his right mind) If you fail to do so, you surely have lost this debate."

I think I can do this.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Pro

So, my opponent and I agree with all but two main things in this debate. Here is the first:

Your statment has a common problem. Most people ask how these changes are made. The changes are a series of small changes. Now all these changes are made because of a cause. For example, Single celled organisms needed to get more energy (food) so they grew larger into multiple celled organisms. Then they needed to transport energy and nutrients through their body so they formed the respitory, digestive, and circulation systems. It is through this cycle that they developed body systems in order to make their lives easier, somewhat like the bacteria in my sources becoming resistant to antibiotics. All organisms change due to our environment, like dogs shedding. Then, they pass these changes on to their offspring.

My opponent is denying scientific fact! They can't just "grow", or "form respiratory, digestive, and circulatory systems." He is not applying modern science. He agrees with the basic laws of genetics. How then can a resp. system be formed, if it is not in the genes? The offspring inherit what the parents (or parent if the organism is unisexual) pass on to them through genes. If the bacteria don't have a resp. system, they can't pass one on to the offspring! If we agree on modern genetics, how then can my opponent blatantly ignore them for the sake of his precious theory? Cold hard fact: If its not in the genes, its not going to be in the offspring. Plain and simple science.

Now to address your fossils.

To all onlookers, these may seem pretty legit. However, not a one of them is. Please note that they ALL are only a partial fragment, (too small to make any assumptions on it) drawings, (NOT photographs, but a scientist's depiction of it) or have been filled in using clay. Do you see the large areas fill in with artificial substance, or clay in some cases? More than half of the piece has been filled in BASED ON WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK WOULD GO THERE. These are evolutionary scientists, who obviously want to prove the theory. This IN NOT legit evidence, since it is massively biased.

Now, the affirmative side proposes a rational conclusion, based on solid facts. The negative, on the other hand, offers fake data in an attempt to uphold his theory. He denies modern science, science that we both agree on. He contradicts himself throughout his case. Therefore, you ought to vote Pro.

"Resolved, Evolution is a ridiculous theory."
Affirmed.
ournamestoolong

Con

"My opponent is denying scientific fact! They can't just "grow", or "form respiratory, digestive, and circulatory systems." He is not applying modern science. He agrees with the basic laws of genetics. How then can a resp. system be formed, if it is not in the genes? The offspring inherit what the parents (or parent if the organism is unisexual) pass on to them through genes. If the bacteria don't have a resp. system, they can't pass one on to the offspring! If we agree on modern genetics, how then can my opponent blatantly ignore them for the sake of his precious theory? Cold hard fact: If its not in the genes, its not going to be in the offspring. Plain and simple science."

They had the genes through the adaptions, it is simple science. They got the respitory system through need, and possibly, mutation. But the adaptions do happen, like in the bacteria examples I provided. They became resistant to the antibiotics, even though they weren't before, and they passed the trait on to the offspring.

"To all onlookers, these may seem pretty legit. However, not a one of them is. Please note that they ALL are only a partial fragment, (too small to make any assumptions on it) drawings, (NOT photographs, but a scientist's depiction of it) or have been filled in using clay. Do you see the large areas fill in with artificial substance, or clay in some cases? More than half of the piece has been filled in BASED ON WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK WOULD GO THERE. These are evolutionary scientists, who obviously want to prove the theory. This IN NOT legit evidence, since it is massively biased."

All the fossil may not have been the real thing, but they were based off of the real fossils. For obvious reasons, it is not possible to pass the fossil around so everyone can get a look. As onlookers we must trust that scientific models are accurate and up to date. If PRO wants to show me ACTUAL evidence disproving these fossils I urge him to do so. ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS NOT BIAS.

"Now, the affirmative side proposes a rational conclusion, based on solid facts. The negative, on the other hand, offers fake data in an attempt to uphold his theory. He denies modern science, science that we both agree on. He contradicts himself throughout his case. Therefore, you ought to vote Pro."

My data is not fake, your conclusion is not rational, and modern science stands firm. Vote CON

"Resolved, Evolution is a ridiculous theory."
Negated.
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Wow, thats actually a really good idea!
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
If an account has been banned, their votes are reversed.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
And what would that be?
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Well now they've changed due to the new feature put in by Phil (The moderator)
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
thats hard to believe...
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Yes, there are many debates that I am discouraged about my opponent being vote bombed.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Dude, if you were winning, and obviously should have lost, would you say the vote was unfair? Stop whining.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
I can't believe i'm losing. AM I UNBLE TO CHOOSE A CONTRAVERSIAL TOPIC AND GET A FAIR VOTE.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
ya i dont see how they overlook that. i guess its just cause im really big into science.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Thank you! So many people overlook that.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by DeadLeaves93 7 years ago
DeadLeaves93
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by BellaC 7 years ago
BellaC
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by v3n0m 8 years ago
v3n0m
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tanager 8 years ago
Tanager
rougeagent21ournamestoolongTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01