The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Evolution is an incorrect theory

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 4 votes the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 36441
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Solomon_Grim

Pro

I believe that their is enough evidence to prove to someone that evolution does not exist, if they are willing to listen.

Evolution- I will be talking about macro evolution in this debate ( evolution by natural selection and mutations)

My opponent may start immediately if he would like.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate; I wholeheartedly accept. I will not post any debate on round one, rather I will refute my opponents arguments after my opponent makes the case in round 2. However, my opponent mentioned macroevolution. However, this sounds like it is dangerously close to what creationists such as Kent Hovind have put forward.
You never hear scientists and (to be more specific) biologists talk about "macroevolution" only "evolution". This idea that there are two types is a fallacy - all macroevolution will occur through microevolution if you give it enough time.

Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham etc... have all demonstrated their evident lack of understanding of the scientific method and have used various fallacies. I would like my opponent to note that this is not an argument, merely a warning that so called "macroevolution" is not "another form" of evolution - there is only evolution that many creationists call "microevolution". If one really wanted to push it though - give (micro)evolution enough time and big changes that could constitute as "macroevolution" will occur.

Again, this was not an argument; this was a warning. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I will now get into the basics.

Already you have stated that micro evolution and macro evolution is different, that enough small changes causes bigger changes. Now, allow me to give you this:
The majority of the time when micro evolution is used, it refers to the changes caused by natural selection alone. Macro evolution refers to the large changes causes by natural selection and mutations in the DNA.

So two questions come to mind with this statement:
1. Can natural selection cause large enough changes over time to create the diversity in life as we know it and
2. can mutations cause the diversity if natural selection can't

Obviously, we have two parts to evolution. Natural selection and mutations. I will look at these individually.

1. Natural Selection- By definition, natural selection are small changes and adaptations that happens to a species so it can continue to live.

2. Mutations- Mutations are tiny mess-ups in the DNA of a single animal that may or may not be affect the animal, or be passed on to the next generation.

First off, lets get something right here. The theory of evolution states that all plants and animals came from a single celled organism. Although it is true that small changes do happen all the time, just to say that these will eventually become big ones is missing the point. The point is that natural selection is not able to add information. Information is the most important thing in this debate as, without it, nothing new is made.

So mutations have to be able to add enough information over time to create muscles, blood, cartilage, bone, and everything else you have in your body. So micro evolution and macro evolution are two different things. Micro evolution is natural selection, which changes information your body already has, and macro evolution is adding information to eventually make something new.

I'm feel now that I have put in my opinion about your warning, I will now go on.

1. Good mutations- There are no good mutations in existence that have been found. Many mutations that are good, tend to be good for bad reasons. The Sickle Cell mutation causes immunity to malaria, but it does that because it distorts your blood cells. But even more than that, good mutation doesn't just imply a helpful effect, but also a mutation that adds information instead of changing the DNA already there. No mutation can even claim to add information.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments; I will now respond.
My opponent starts by stating that "you have stated that micro evolution and macro evolution is different". Ok - kind of. I don't think that they are entirely the same; I think that they work on the same principle.

My opponent also states that: "Natural Selection- By definition, natural selection are small changes and adaptations that happens to a species so it can continue to live." I agree with "changes and adaptations" and "continue to live", but I disagree with the word "small". I haven't found a definition that specifies small, but have found several definitions that don't.[1][2][3][4]

My opponent states that natural selection doesn't add information - without defining information. Despite this, I'd agree with him.

My opponent then states that that was his opinion on my argument (and so not an argument in itself) before making his actual argument. My opponent say that good mutations are good for bad reasons. I dispute this idea, but a refute is not needed because good and bad are just opinions. I need not refute anything, except the last sentence.
"No mutation can even claim to add information."
That is a lie.[5] There have been several instances of this, for example:

"increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)"

Now that I have refuted all of your arguments, allow me to add two of my own.

Contention 1: The distribution of fossils supports the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution predicts that as we move up the higher levels of strata, we should see more complex life forms fossilized, because animals will have evolved more over longer periods of time. However, the Argument for Creationism (should) predict that fossil distribution is random as bunnies were made with cyanobacteria which were made with mammoths which were made with humans etc... OK, fair enough. But which does the evidence support?
The Theory of Evolution.
The fossil record show the distribution as predicted by the theory of evolution. You never find mammoths with humans! I conclude that this fact (of the distribution) supports evolution.

Contention 2: Transitional forms support evolution.
The Theory of Evolution predicts that because of random mutation and natural selection, we will see animals in transition from one form to another. We should see these in fossils. However, the argument for Creationism states that we shouldn't see any at all, because all animals were made how they are now. What do we see?
Transitional forms, supporting evolution.
"From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians." As an example.

I thank my opponent and await his next argument(s).

Sources:
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.answers.com...
[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]http://www.biology-online.org...
[5]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for your argument.

1. Information- I didn't think that information had to be defined, but I will now to advoid confusion. Information tells cells how to do different jobs. Information makes each of your body parts to do a special job. So somewhere along an evolutionary trail, new information had to be added so new things could be produced. The cell that evolution proposes we came from did not know how to produce hair, so something had to give it information how to.

2. Good and Bad- you have stated that good and bad are opinions, I go against this. I do believe the majority of people can agree on good and bad. If I say to someone, " hey, want to be completely immune to malaria? Only downfall is that your suffer in pain for your whole life." I think we would all say no due to common sense. If a mutation does mainly a bad thing, and it just happens to produce a good side-effect, it is not good. As it stands, mutations that do a good thing is like this.

3. Adding information- the examples you have given are all dual sided. I will just give the first one as an example right now. The first example described a experiment to house E. coli cells for several generations to see what is produced. The cells did thrive very well based on changes that occurred to them. However, the experiment is misleading. If you look up the Exact Same Experiment, you will find that when released into nature, the "good changes" went away or actually hurt them. The experiments you have given just shows how quickly things adapt and they usually go wrong later on.

4. Fossil records- you state rather openly that fossil records support evolution. I say otherwise. One of the biggest things that goes against your statement is the lack of transitional fossils. The majority of fossils just show up without a transitional. Their is no fossil with a half evolved eyes, legs, lungs, bones, ect. These things all come along during events such as the Cambian Explosion or other such events.

5. Transitional fossils- this one goes with the last one. You have stated that these two animals, one amphibian one fish, are so similar that a bridge between them must exist. However, all your saying is that since they are similar, we will assume they evolved. However, no transitional fossil between them. There is no fossil with half-leg half-fin growth. But this is where they claim the legs come from.

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...

http://www.genesispark.org...

http://www.bestbiblescience.org...
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments. I will now respond, addressing my opponent's contentions.

Opponent's contention 1: (I'm interpreting this as he doesn't explicitly state the actual argument). The "cell that...we evolved from did not know how to produce hair, so something had to give it information how to."
My opponent appears to have changed his argument. At first (in round 2), he was referring to natural selection adding information; however this appears to be implying that nothing in evolution adds information. If he means the first, then I'd agree. I'd state that natural selection "refines" (selects) information that is already there for future generations. If he means the second, then I'd disagree; I'd state that genetic mutations add information by changing (mutating) the DNA. (Please see my previous arguments for the source of this).

Opponent's contention 2: Good and bad aren't just opinions as the majority of people agree on what is good and what is bad.
This is an obvious ad populum (also known as an appeal to majority) fallacy, as it assumes that majority equals truth. It doesn't. One person has an opinion. If a lot of people share an opinion, it's still just an opinion. I need not refute any more as my point stands; good and bad are just opinions and an opinion does not make an argument by itself.

Opponent's contention 3: "Good" changes will in fact negatively affect an organism in the long term.
This argument has strange conclusions.
"The first example described a experiment to house E. coli cells for several generations to see what is produced. The cells did thrive very well based on changes that occurred to them." By changes, my opponent is referring to genetic mutations and natural selection, supporting my argument. The rest is a red herring fallacy, as my opponent just consented my argument with the afore quoted statement. Nevertheless, I will continue to refute.
"If you look up the Exact Same Experiment, you will find that when released into nature, the "good changes" went away or actually hurt them." This is probably due to the fact that suddenly these cells found themselves in a completely different environment very quickly. This is like saying that:
"However, when humans were placed on the Moon with no protective suits, the "good changes" went away and actually hurt them." This is not a perfect analogy, I'll admit, because the "good changes" didn't hurt these poor humans in itself; but my point stands. Of course an organism will die off or be otherwise unprepared if it is released into a completely unnatural environment too quickly and by unnatural interference. I believe my argument stands.

Opponent's contention 4 and 5 (as these are essentially the same): There are no (or very few) transitional fossils.
My opponent contradicts himself very quickly, by saying first that:
"Their is no fossil with a half evolved eyes, legs, lungs, bones, ect." and then stating that:
"These things [fossils] all come along during events such as the Cambian Explosion or other such events."
First there were none, and then, there were. This is what my opponent is stating, and a point is not made.

My opponent also misrepresents my argument, too. He uses the word "must" to imply that I am assuming that a bridge must exist. I didn't say a bridge "must" exist; rather I said that the evidence constituting to a virtual bridge is very strong with all the similarities between this fish and that amphibian. (Please see my round two argument for the specific phrasing).

Lastly, I would like to mention that my opponents sources are probably using a foundational bias fallacy. Four out of the five sources have names (eg, answersingenesis.org...) that imply this foundation bias. While I cannot prove this; therefore this is not an argument, I would like to urge voters to take this into consideration when checking the "trust level" of my opponent's sources.
Because of the above refuting, I'll extend all of my arguments. Thank you, and I await your response.
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for your post.

1. New information caused by mutation- As I have stated, all information needed to make up your body must have come from mutations along the way. However, we see now that mutations only rearrange the information already present in the DNA. That's why many cases of any type of mutation is talking about deformities or problems people must live with no due to mutations. As I have stated, even "good" mutations have awful outcomes.

2. Good and bad- you say good and bad are opinions and nothing more. I thought you would agree with the fact that a harmful outcome is bad. By an evolutionary standpoint, it would be making a human less likely to live with a mutations such as sickle cell mutation. So, whether good or bad, it makes it difficult for that animal to reproduce and live a normal life. I'm pretty sure we can agree that is not the outcome hoped for with mutations.

3. Mutations- you state that it should be expected for something to die when changes occur quickly. However, think of this
A. E. coli lives in the wild normally.
B. The lab E. coli had no changes done to it.
C. This implies that it is normal E. coli, which should do fine in nature.
D. However, they mutated in a way that seemed helpful.
E. But when released, the E. coli died off when it should have survived.

Mutations, by evolution standards, should be a help to the organism it effects to be useful in later generations. So a mutations that helps in one way, but kills the organism in its natural domain has no place in evolution.

4. Transitional fossils- perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Their are no half evolved limbs in fossils, as it is expected to be. But everything in modern times comes fully evolved in events such as the Cambrian explosion.

5. Biased- are you implying that your websites, that attempt to show off evidence for evolution is not biased? It would be a difficult task to find a website that has no biased in either evolution or creationism. That's just how it is. There are many websites to back me up and many to back you up, so everything is fine.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his refutes - allow me to respond.

Opponent's Contention 1: "Mutations only rearrange the information already present in you present in your DNA"; this I will interpret as ""Mutation don't add information; they only rearrange it"". I'll refine my refute from my previous posts. Some genetic mutations add information and others subtract it; some might (as you say) rearrange the information, but to say that mutations *only* rearrange the information is simply a lie[1]. Many cases have been seen where DNA adds or subtracts information[1]. My opponent does not even cite a source for this, either and thus "we see now" doesn't hold up.

Opponent's Contention 2: Good and bad are not opinions.
This has gone off the topic a bit, but I'll respond anyway. My opponent doesn't really give any evidence despite stating that "I thought you would agree..." (which I would), however whether I agree or not on whether certain mutations are good or bad is not an argument. It's opinion. My opponent moves onto a semi-red herring fallacy about an animal's ability to reproduce and live a "normal life". I would also ask my opponent to define "normal life" for an animal.

Opponent's Contention 3: Mutations.
Again, I'm not sure as to what this argument is actually about when it comes to disproving evolution, as it is all based off another mis-phrasing of my argument. My opponent states that: "you state that it should be expected for something to die when changes occur quickly." I didn't - not at all. I was trying to explain that unnatural changes by unnatural causes happening too quickly for an organism to adapt would probably cause it to get into negative situations and die. I didn't - at any point - state that something changing quickly would kill an organism; which is what you misphrased my argument to come across as. My opponent makes a five stage argument in an attempt to show why this straw man is wrong; but despite this straw man, the E Coli died anyway, which is what my argument (and your straw man) predicted.
As for the five stage argument itself, you make an assumption that this lab E-coli and the natural E-coli are the same E-coli, but at no point did you state this. It appears that:
A. There's wild E-coli in the wild
B. Then there's lab E-coli that had no changes done to it; but they could have still originated in the lab.
C. "This implies that it is normal E. coli, which should do fine in nature." No, it really doesn't. I believe your straw man is revealed and your argument refuted.

At this point, my opponent goes onto my contention 2 (transitional fossils) and makes no mention of my contention 1 (fossil distribution); I'll assume my opponent consented this to me.

Opponent's Contention 4: Transitional fossils - there are none!
My opponent states: "Their are no half evolved limbs in fossils, as it is expected to be." ((Please note, voters; this grammar mistake is not mine; it's quoted.)) I wish to introduce my opponent to the Tiktaalik; which has these traits[2] that my opponent is failing to find. These aren't *literally* "half" evolved, but the indications of evolution in the fossil records can be demonstrated in this example nonetheless.
An interesting note is that this fossil, which refutes my opponent's contention, was the first thing that came up upon my search for "half evolved limbs in fossils". I would kindly ask if my opponent searched for what he is denying? (I hope this doesn't appear to be a sarcastic ad hominem argument, it's not by all means! I am just genuinely curious as to where my opponent got this fallacious claim from, and did he proof check it?) This refute also refutes the claim that:
"But everything in modern times comes fully evolved in events such as the Cambrian explosion."

Opponent's Contention 5: Biased.
Again, this is getting off topic slightly, but I'll respond nevertheless. I will break this down.
"are you implying that your websites, that attempt to show off evidence for evolution is not biased?" Yes.
" It would be a difficult task to find a website that has no biased in either evolution or creationism." My opponent has provided no source to back this up.
"That's just how it is" Again, no source for this paraphrase; it appears to be opinion. As demonstrated in refute 2: not an argument.
"There are many websites to back me up and many to back you up, so everything is fine." Appears to be an ad populum argument that many = fine. Ad pop. arguments are a fallacy; this claim is wrong.

However, to avoid further confusion; allow me to clarify. Maybe "bias" was the wrong word to use. This is the topic for another debate, so I'll drop the argument; though I will say that at the least: answers in genesis is (in this claim), factually incorrect. To prove this, please see my source 1, which demonstrates how a claim (about how mutations don't add information) from answers in genesis is, indeed, wrong.
For my refutes, I'll extend my contentions.

I thank my opponent and the voters once again - I await your response for round five!

Sources:

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Thank you for the post, I will start right away.

1. & 3.- Mutations and Evolution- ( I will be combining arguments one and three as they will aid each other) I did not put any direct examples here last post since I cannot prove all mutations wrong. However, I will use E-coli as an example now. As I have shown with the Sickle Cell mutation, mutations that can be seen as helpful are usually hurtful. This comes up many times in evidence for evolution as many supporters of the theory tend to stretch the truth. You can look up many different examples of this (Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings still being used in text books). The same occurred with the E-coli experiment. Below is an article explaining how the E-coli in the experiment either gained nothing or were hurt.

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

2. I agree that this topic got side tracked, so I will no longer be continuing this one.

4. Transitional fossils (namely the Tiktaalik)-
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu...
Here is an article discussing why this fossil is a breakthrough with evolution. I will like to quote one sentence from this webpage. "Tiktaalik has a mix of fish and amphibian traits", also, "Tiktaalik looks like a cross between the primitive fish it lived amongst and the first four-legged animals...". These quotes point out a major problem with evolution. Just because this fossils looks like two animals, does not mean it evolved into either one of them. The only evidence that this animal is connected to either land or sea animals is how it looks and a few features. This, however, is not really what I was implying in my last post. Between the first cell and the us, eyes had to be half formed. Their are fossils that have this quality. As with the Tiktaalik, it had fully functional legs and gills (from what we have observed in fossils), so where are the animals with half legs and half gills. There are none.

5. Biased- I will only be stating that all humans are biased towards their beliefs. This is why many creationist lie for their cause and many evolutionists lie for their cause. This post I have provided articles that are either or neither side and one from an evolution website. I will not be carrying this argument on farther.

I await your reply.
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his refutes and his closing statements. Allow me to respond with mine:

Opponent's Contention One and Three: Mutations.
My opponent appears to have reverted back to his round two argument about how these mutations were bad or neutral. I did not deny this; I merely demonstrated how this represents genetic mutation and nothing more. I showed how these E-Coli cells were lab grown and developed and tested on etc... in the lab. Not in the wild. So this goes back to my original point of how when something that has been tested on by unnatural causes and has its environment changed very quickly by unnatural causes one would expect an organism to die off or have negative experiences. My opponent has ignored my refute.
Please note, I'm not saying that mutations are always helpful - they're not - but to say, as my opponent has, that mutations are *always* bad or neutral is just wrong; particularly when the research is clearly on the mutations themselves, not on the *lab* mutations effectiveness in the *wild*.

Opponent's Contention 2: He has dropped the argument and (implicitly) conceded it.

At this point, my opponent has still not made any comment on my contention one; we should assume he has conceded that, too.

Opponent's Refute 4 (my contention two): Transitional Fossils.
My opponent doesn't really quote mine, but he uses the word "look" in a casual way. Normally, "look" is what something appears to look like to us (often at first glance); however this article and scientists use the word "look" in a different way to get it across to the public more easily. I don't think they would have expected such nit-picking at the time, but that is why I'm refuting it. They would only use the word "look" after cross checking, peer reviewing, predictable compatibility, observing as objectively as possible, etc... Scientists wouldn't use "look" in the sense of "oh that looks like x and y; therefore it's a cross and/or transitional form!" If scientists did that; I grantee the world would be rather different for the negative.

My opponent also appears to expect us to have millions of transitional fossils. This appears to be an appeal to ignorance, as well as ignorance to the formation of fossils. We shouldn't have many transitional forms due to the conditions that fossils need to form. My opponent appears to conclude that:
"We haven't found any = we never will because there are none." This is not logical. =

Side note: Bias. My opponent and I have both stated to drop this. No one concedes for this debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this enjoyable and entertaining debate. I also thank the voters for taking their time to read this through. Until next time, everyone!

J
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I have noted that Pro relies heavily on the biggest website of Porkies on the planet, in Answers-In-Genesis.
Ken Ham is making a massive amount of loot out of telling porkies to his followers, so he may be Intelligent, but he is being deliberately deceptive to his audience.
Most probably, he really believes in Evolution, but attacks it, because it makes him RICH!
Ray Comfort may be like Ken and is deliberately trying to take a slice of Ken's money pie.
Ripping off the mostly, poorly educated, extremely naive population of the US Bible Belt is easy and they both know how stupidly wealthy and completely Ignorant those suckers are.
The "Creation Museum" and the now being built "Noah's Ark" are proof of the gullibility of those LOSERS.

Though if Ken and Ray both actually believe in their Lies, they join the Ranks of other Young Earth Creationist Fundamentalists.

In that: Young Earth Creation Fundamentalists are provably, the least Intelligent (or most Irrational) humans on Planet Earth.
Flat Earth believers used to hold that position, but, they are almost, and I said Almost, Extinct, which is where YECs should be.
Then Ken Ham would be usurping some other brain dead group for money.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Grim,
there were three more examples, and you yourself chose the not peer-reviewed one. I stated several times how small changed occur and gave transitionals. My websites weren't around atheism, they just weren't around any particular God, and the "mutations never add information" nonsense that answersingenesis.org gave was shown to be inncorect in roundtwo.

But I'll say no more - let the voters decide.

Regards,
J
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Grim,
there were three more examples, and you yourself chose the not peer-reviewed one. I stated several times how small changed occur and gave transitionals. My websites weren't around atheism, they just weren't around any particular God, and the "mutations never add information" nonsense that answersingenesis.org gave was shown to be inncorect in roundtwo.

But I'll say no more - let the voters decide.

Regards,
J
Posted by Solomon_Grim 3 years ago
Solomon_Grim
To Mrparker in the voting section, I would like to clarify some points. I never conceded the fact that small changes happen through natural selection, I have no problem with it. However, I did make clear my stand on mutations not adding information. Natural selection can only refine the information currently in the animal. Mutations, on the other hand, claims to add whole new information, which I provided science links to back me up with this. So no, little changes does not prove evolution, you have to prove that mutations add information, which I feel my opponent did not do. Also, the sources I gave are science websites based around God. Just how my opponent's sources were science that centered on atheism. If you claim that mine is biased, you cannot ignore his. Also, I provided a link in the last round to show how the report on E-coli actually was not peer reviewed at all. The experimenters were vague and unspecified in explaining what the claimed mutation did. It also gives a very specific and clear report on how the experiment did not support evolution. So this "peer reviewed sources" don't exist.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
@devout skeptic

Right below the topic at the top, next to Pros name, where it says My Favorites. Click that and it lets you add the debate to your favorites.
Posted by devout_skeptic 3 years ago
devout_skeptic
I am just posting a comment so I can be notified when an argument has been posted. I haven't figured any other way to do this.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Exactly. Easy way to win, no?
Posted by Dominomac 3 years ago
Dominomac
by the way, you can not talk about evolution on a large scale without talking about it on a small scale because all evolutionary traits start off small. Humans did not evolve overnight.
Posted by Dominomac 3 years ago
Dominomac
not quite sure how you are going to do this sol when we see evolution happening on a smal scale right now.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 3 years ago
Lordknukle
Solomon_GrimMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Haven't actually read the debate, but just looking at the sources, it's clear that con gets the sources point.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
Solomon_GrimMysticEggTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con talked about the misconceptions of micro and macro evolution in the beginning of the debate and Pro did not respond to it at all. Because of this, Pro's acknowledgement of minor mutations that change species from generation to generation are in fact a concession that evolution does exist. Sources go to Con for quoting scientific journals. Evolution is a science, so only peer-reviewed scientific journals serve as acceptable sources for this topic. Religious sources have no place in this debate.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Solomon_GrimMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Great debate guys. I really can't give arguments to either side. However, as a personal crusade of mine, sources go to Pro because Con used Wikipedia. Also, I'm sick of hearing "You can't use Creationist sites or Creation research to support Creation." Why the heck can't we? Exactly what changes that make a man with a PhD who supports creation unusable while a man with an exact same degree who supports Evolution is always right. Sorry for the rant.
Vote Placed by D.Wolf 3 years ago
D.Wolf
Solomon_GrimMysticEggTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a more convincing argument with sources that appropriately correlated with his statements.