The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Loveshismom
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is a sound scientific concept

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 2 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 54652
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hi i would like to have a interesting debate about this topic!
I would like to debate that the theroy of evolution is sound.

1.Use logic
2.First round acceptance.
3.Second round opening.
4.Third rebuttals.
5.Closeing statements/rebuttals.
Failure to comply with the above will result in full 7 points to opponent,
Thanks,:)
Loveshismom

Con

I accept. Now, just to be clear, how specifically are we defining "opening" and when exactly are the closing statements? And yes, I understand the BOP to be on me.
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Perhaps the Oxford Dictionary will suffice as it is a credible source.

“evolution”

Syllabification: ev·o·lu·tion

Pronunciation: /G6;evəG2;loV2;oSHən

/

“NOUN

· 1the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin’s theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology”

Let’s proceed to my case for how Evolution is a sound scientific concept.

Now take note I will not be debating if Evolution is true simply if Evolution is a sound scientific concept.

Further definitions.

sound 2 (sound) http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

adj. sound·er, sound·est

5.

a. Based on valid reasoning: a sound observation.

b. Free from logical flaws: sound reasoning.

Scientific Concept

The scientific theory, principal or law that is the basis of your lab. It is an explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs or a logical, mathematical statement describing the consistency that applies to the phenomenon.

http://labwrite.ncsu.edu......

The science of evolution.

Evolution is as firmly established as the fact that water is made up of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen At the core of Evolution the idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time through various processes and natural selection Overwhelming evidence supports this.

.Observed instances of Evolution

Yes scientists have been able to observe Evolution takeing place an excellent example of evolution in action is a 14-year experiment done with Anolis lizards.(Losos et al, 1997) A single species of Anolis lizards was spread across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations. Over the time of the experiment, each of the lizards adapted to their environments. Several new species of lizards evolved. The lizards had changed their body shape in response to the flora in their environment. Scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results.

Vaccines are constantly changing because, the viruses keep evolving to the vaccines and actually become resistant to them this is called natural selection only the fittest survive.What about new species actually arising from evolution (which is called speciation)? Well, for some plant species can actually arise through evolution, even in as little as one generation. An observation of speciation involving plants, was a study done by Hugo de Vries. He was studying the genetics of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and discovered that a new variant evolved that could not breed with the Oenothera Lamarckiana, and had a different amount of chromosomes. This means, a brand new species evolved, that was observed in a laboratory over long periods of time the new species is named O. gigas.)

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Bacteria are able to build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. Iin every colony of bacteria, there are few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics this is survival of the fittest then resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

Evidence & the fossil record.

We have observed the fossil record, and found a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another from very simple single celled organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms which is indicative of incremental evolution. You cannot examine the fossil record and interpret the evidence as pointing towards anything other but evolution evolution and common descent are the only logically acceptable conclusions that are supported by evidence.

Not only is the fossil record a solid piece of evidence suggesting evolution is certainly but it becomes even more convincing when it is combined with other evidence for evolution such as biogeography if evolution is true, we would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography, the phylogenetic tree, and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics.We find that some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent.

If evolution did happen, then we would expect that the fossil record would show a succession of organisms as such it appears that the order of development for vertebrate animals was

Fish -> amphibians -> reptiles -> mammals.The fossil record should show the same order of development and it shows exactly that.

We should also find the fossil record showing characteristics that are intermediate in nature between different organisms that evolved.Birds are most closely related to reptiles, so we can find fossils which show a mix of bird and reptile characteristics. Fossilized organisms that posses intermediate characteristics are called transitional fossils .

Prediction Genetic change.

Extensive genetic change has been observed. We have seen genomes heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (Futuyma 1998, pp. 267-271, 283-294).

Conclusion

There are simply no reasons in terms of either philosophy or science to deny the fact that evolution has been occurring for a very long time and is still occurring today, while there is a wellspring of evidence to support that Evolution is a sound scientific concept.
Vote Pro.
sources.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com......

http://www.historyofvaccines.org......

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov......

http://www.talkorigins.org......

http://www.agiweb.org......

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

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

http://www.talkorigins.org......

https://www.boundless.com......

Loveshismom

Con

First, off, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I can already tell it will be challenging.

Rebuttal 1: Pro Argued:

"Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. "

Counterpoint 1.1: Let's go back on what evolution essentially is: the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

Counterpoint 1.2: DNA is not intelligent enough to figure out that due to some condition, the species it belongs to is dying out. It cannot see through an organism's flesh. That is unscientific. Also, they cannot consciously evolve themselves. One thing you appear to be forgetting is that speciation takes millions of years according to the theory of evolution, so that would probably be too long for the dying species to evolve into a new species so they could survive.

Rebuttal 2: Pro argued: "...across 14 Caribbean islands none of which had any previous lizard populations... The lizards had changed their body shape in response to the flora in their environment."

Here is a new idea for why they "evolved" into new species:

the floral images got stuck in their brains with the fear of dying out, and then their brains, out of fear, commanded their DNA to change so it could survive the new conditions. Because their brain DNA had changed, the rest of their DNA changed accordingly. Evolution is when DNA intentionally changes. Doing something out of fear is allowing one's emotions to control them, not doing it volitionally.

Rebuttal 3: Pro argued: "Vaccines are constantly changing because, the viruses keep evolving to the vaccines and actually become resistant to them this is called natural selection only the fittest survive."

That is not evolution. That is a process that I will refer to as "Micro-BTD" because it is analogous to when you are playing a game of BTD Battles in assault mode and you figure out that your bloon sends are ineffective because your opponent's defenses are too strong. You notice, however, that they do not have any towers that can detect camo bloons. What do you decide to do in response? you send in an MOAB or stronger containing camos, causing your opponent to lose for sure. But did anything evolve? No. You simply came back with a new weapon. That is what viruses are doing when they "evolve" to the vaccine. They could simply be going to their "bankers," as I will call them, and "borrowing" genes that allow them to fool the cells' defense system into thinking they are their allies.

Rebuttal 4: Pro argued: "An observation of speciation involving plants, was a study done by Hugo de Vries. He was studying the genetics of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and discovered that a new variant evolved that could not breed with the Oenothera Lamarckiana, and had a different amount of chromosomes. This means, a brand new species evolved, that was observed in a laboratory over long periods of time the new species is named O. gigas.)"

Again, that could be emotions mixed with brain chemistry. A new idea for why they "evolved": The plants have gotten in a fight over the nutrients in their shared soil, and one got angry, so its nuclei told the DNA to change into something else so it couldn't philosophically "marry" the other plant. Since it was from emotion, the evolution was not intentional, therefore not really evolution.

Rebuttal 5: Pro argued that the fossil record supports evolution. Here is a video about why it does not:

http://m.youtube.com...

Rebuttal 6: Pro argued: "Extensive genetic change has been observed."

That does not "develop" us. It changes only our phenotype, not our genotype, so it cannot be counted as evolution because it does not count as development.

New Argument 1: The "multiple scenario" argument

Because of the biodiversity and the billions of years it supposedly took for the human species to appear, there are many different ways that evolution could have played out, therefore many different things we could look like today if it happened. I will tackle more on this later.

New Argument 2: The "extinct fish" argument

The theory of evolution claims that a fish got on land and eventually evolved into a human. Because it was a fish, it had gills and therefore could not have possibly have survived on land, so that would render human existence impossible.

Best case scenario: some of the fish survive by getting to the surface, but they pass on severe throat damage from choking in the water to their offspring, which acts as a major limiting factor as it restricts breathing. Therefore, they eventually go extinct, completely preventing human existence. Just to make this debate less boring, here are a couple of silly clips about why evolution is impossible:

http://m.youtube.com...
http://m.youtube.com...

New Argument 3: The "unguided process" argument

As I demonstrated in the "multiple scenario" argument, evolution could have played out in a lot of different ways, so it is most definitely an unguided process. I will now demonstrate further that it is an unguided process. It is analogous to giving a robot free will and asking it to do something for you.

1. Either way, it is an unguided process

2. Unguided processes do not always have good results. The robot could do whatever it wanted to. And it could wreak havoc for all you know. Evolution is an unguided process too, and yet Darwinists claim it resulted in good physical structures. As for the "vestigial" structures? Good uses are being found for them, such as organs That once seemed useless [2].

New Argument 4: The "perfect creation" argument

Because evolution is an unguided process and yet did not leave any organs useless, that debunks a fair portion of evolution because since it did not need to happen, it was a coincidence. But even if it did happen, it was still an unpredictable coincidence. Therefore, if there is no such thing as a vestigial structure, then we were divinely created rather than evolving.

A small reminder to my opponent: because of the second definition he gave of the word "sound," "free from logical flaws," if just one of my arguments is left standing, at the end of the debate, then he is disproven.

Sources:

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2]- http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro


1.Use logic
2.First round acceptance.
3.Second round opening.
4.Third rebuttals.
5.Closeing statements/rebuttals.
Failure to comply with the above will result in full 7 points to opponent,
Thanks,:)

PRO VIOLATED THE RULES I WON THIS DEBATE. 7 points go to me.
Loveshismom

Con

Only because I did not fully understand it.
Debate Round No. 3
Loveshismom

Con

I didn't understand what you meant by "present your case," so you do not have the right to count it against me.
Debate Round No. 4
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Should of followed rules.
Loveshismom

Con

I did not completely understand the rule I broke, so that means you cannot count it against me. Besides, they are really just a cheat format so you can make up excuses for other excuses. You should have expected them to be broken. Therefore, it is up to the voters who wins.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Hey wait a minute, Wylted. By your logic about Pro's rules, he was cheating, and that means I win by default! Also, he left all my points standing, thus disproving himself due to the definition he gave of the word "sound."
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Thx 4 the tip Wylted. Also, you'resmarterthsanme98, you broke your own rules.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
One more thing: you said in round 3 that "Pro violated the rules."
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Thx for the clarification.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Simply,present your case.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
imsmarterthanyou98LoveshismomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con if you misstep, just ignore the 7 points to pro rule and continue to argue. The judges may take mercy on you. This debate was derailed so I'm only awarding conduct points.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98LoveshismomTied
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: Pro's arguments for Evolution were well constructed and Rational. Con's arguments on the other hand assertions without any rational basis, showing a total lack of knowledge about not only Evolution, but about the basics of the simplest forms of biology. In biology 101, Con would receive a Fail. This debate was very one sided indeed.