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

Evolution is a scientific theory and is supported by evidence

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 64126
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I have challenged jh1234lnew to this debate after reading a forum post by him denouncing evolution as a legitimate scientific theory. I would like to debate him on the topic.


There are many reasons to not believe in evolution: it its a pseudoscience and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and is a complete lie.

1. No transitional fossils

Premise 1: In order for evolution to be true, transitional fossils must exist
Premise 2: No transitional fossils exist
Conclusion: Evolution is not true

Proof for premise 2:

The "scientific" community lead by the evolutionists is desparate to find missing links to prove evolution. However, all of these attempts were futile! One of the such attempts is the Nebraska man, which was an alleged missing link between men and apes. However, it is actually a pig's tooth. (

Even the evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould said that there is a lack of transitional fossils.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." (

2. No new species

All of the alleged speciation events are within kinds. We don't see elephants turning into fruit flies.

3. Differences between birds and dinosaurs

Evolutionists claim that birds came from dinosaurs. However, dinosaurs are huge and birds are small, and birds have air sacs and unidirectional breathing, and they also have no diaphragm.
Debate Round No. 1


1. This assertion is simply not true. There are many transitional fossils. Here are two links to lists of transitional fossils:
The existence of these fossils is proof of evolution.

2. Speciation is very rare and takes centuries to occur, however it does occur.

Here is a quote from Scientific American- "Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

The idea of elephants turning into fruit flies demonstrates either reductio ad absurdum or a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution happens slowly, and the genetic mistakes that are made during reproduction are not nearly large enough to result in changes such as that. Even if one did occur it would probably just result in a miscarriage.

3. This argument is just an argument from personal incredulity. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and the theory of evolution is actually supported by the fact that they have changed since then. Lots of very small changes over a long time can result in a very different product.


1. All of the alleged transitional fossils are of dubious reliability. For example, dinosaur fossils that are allegedly "bird-dinosaurs" have fluff that can be mistaken for feathers, but they are actually collagen found within dinosaur skin. (1)

Another example is the nebraska and piltdown men. They were all frauds.

2. Speciation is not macroevolution because it is not between kinds.

3. There is no fossil evidence showing how the diaphragm and air sacs can appear/disappear: "lots of small changes" is used as a convienient escape hatch.

(1) P.J. Chen, Z.M. Dong, and S.N. Zheng, An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China, Nature
Debate Round No. 2


1. It is clear that you have not looked at the two sources provided. There are more than just bird-dinosaur transitional fossils there, and to assert that all of the fossils listed are of dubious reliability is incorrect and indefensible. In regards to your reference, it is to an article originally accepted in 1997, and according to it "Both specimens have interesting integumentary structures that could provide information about the origin of feathers." Your claim that the proto-feathers could be mistaken for collagen in dinosaur skin is a controversial issue, however Hans-Dieter Sues, associate director for research and collections at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C, says "many of the Chinese theropods have complex structures that clearly cannot be explained away in that fashion."

There are many other fossils that have been discovered with proto-feathers, for example the Shuvuuia, the fossil of which was found to contain decay products of beta-keratin, and not alpha-keratin. While beta-keratin is found both in feathers and many other cells of dinosaurs, the absence of alpha keratin means that what was found must have come from feathers, which do not contain alpha keratin.

An extensive list of dinosaur fossils that have evidence of fossils can be found here:

2. Speciation is an instance of macro evolution. If two gene pools are split and evolve separately to the point where they can no longer interbreed, that is an example of macro evolution as well as speciation.

3. Lots of small changes is a convenient escape hatch, because it is how evolution works.


jh1234lnew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I suppose I will spend this round giving some proofs for evolution.These are summarised from

1. All cells on Earth are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.

2. The fossil record can show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

3. Genetic similarities between humans and other organisms show that we shared a common ancestor in the past, and the amount of difference corresponds to how long ago the genetic lines diverged.

4. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels and others all belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that as embryos all these life forms have gill slits, tails and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. In early stages of development all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

5. Bacteria can build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.


jh1234lnew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I have nothing further to add.


jh1234lnew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
The Contender is parroting numerous debunked arguments and utilizing the biblical term 'kinds', which has no clear definition. His remark about elephants becoming fruit flies demonstrates his complete lack of understanding about how evolution and natural selection work. There are no valid arguments in his posts thus far.
Posted by jh1234lnew 2 years ago

I found the source for the dinosaur here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
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: Con ff several times, so conduct to pro. Pros arguments were more compelling, so arguments to pro.