The Instigator
MarsUltor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NothingSpecial99
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't

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 1 vote the winner is...
NothingSpecial99
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 75216
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

MarsUltor

Pro

1. BoP is shared
2. Evidence is required
3. Logical Fallacies are illegal
4. If you think there should be any other rules put them in the comments

Evidence of Evolution
http://www.toptenz.net...
http://listverse.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.cracked.com...
http://www.wired.com...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://evolutionfaq.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Java Man
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Nebraska Man
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Orce Man
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Lucy
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Neanderthal man
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Radiometric Dating
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Beneficial Mutations
http://bigthink.com...
http://ratiochristi.org...
https://answers.yahoo.com...
Labs
http://www.newscientist.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://friendsofdarwin.com...
Dinosaur Tissue
http://www.livescience.com...
Irreducible Complexity
http://rationalwiki.org...
DNA vs. Information
https://www.youtube.com...
Whale Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Macro vs. Micro
http://atheism.about.com...
Imperfect Design
http://www.iampleasant.com...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Fossil Record
http://darwiniana.org...
DNA is not Information
http://livinglifewithoutanet.com...
http://godisimaginary.com...
Peer reviewed Creationist Articles
http://www.skeptical-science.com...
Abiogenesis
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Stupid Creationists
http://www.ldolphin.org...
NothingSpecial99

Con

I accept assuming that my opponent won't be source spamming the next couple of rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
MarsUltor

Pro

I think that evolution has been proven as it has so much evidence. Don't worry I'm not going to source spam any more I was just hoping that it would keep any one out that uses stuff debunked years ago.

The Fossil Record
The fossil record is best shown in Humans. Fossils such as Neanderthal, Taung Child, Lucy, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, and many more.
http://humanorigins.si.edu...

It's been observed in labs
Evolution has been shown to happen in labs.
Refer to 1st argument.

Similarity of Organisms
Many animals are similar physically and Genetically showing that they came from a common ancestor.
http://necsi.edu...

Conclusion
Evolution is true
NothingSpecial99

Con

Argument 1A306;Obstacles of Evolution
Setting the issue of abiogenists aside, evolution has to take leaps of faith to overcome multiple obstacles where no natural law is capable of overcoming.

Let"s say that somehow a bunch of lifeless chemicals come together to form the simplest organism. The first problem is that this organism is useless for the progress of evolution unless it has the means of replicating itself. DNA and RNA are the only molecules capable of this so the question stands. Where did it come from?

All organisms have DNA, a very complex molecule that is responsible for the production of all proteins that make up that organism. What is most intriguing about DNA is that it is a very sophisticated language system where the "words" have a completely different meaning than the nucleotides or "letters" much like how the meaning of words are different than the letters it is composed of. Evolution doesn"t provide any explanation on how such a coding system could evolve on its own; much less the mechanisms that take that code and make them into functional proteins. Have you ever seen a code or language not written by an intelligent mind?

Not to mention that DNA and RNA are also very fragile molecules and will easily disintegrate in the environment without something to protect it. Take a look at forensic science, when DNA is collected at a crime scene, environmental factors such as moisture, heat or lack of heat.[1]

Even after you get the issue of DNA and RNA solved there is another stumbling block for evolution. Why and how would organisms make the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction where sexual reproduction has disadvantages such as only 50% of genes passed down meaning a 50% chance of losing a beneficial mutation? The organism would also have to expend energy to maintain sex organs in addition to the vulnerability of sexual displays.[2]
The next issue at hand is how did cells adapted to individual survival "learn" to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? In order for multi-cellular organisms to arise, unintelligent bacteria will have to somehow cooperate and soon take on specialized roles like the different cells in our body (ex. Red blood cells, brain cells).

Argument 2: Evolution isn"t observable or testable

There are two kinds of science, operational science and historical science.

Observational science is the science that involves the experimental method, observation, experimentation, measurement, etc. Sciences like physics and chemistry fall under observational science and this is the kind of science that produces smart phones, jet craft, radar, automobiles, medicines, and the list goes on.

On the other hand we have historical science which uses today"s observations and interpret them to try to find out what happened long ago. Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, Harvard professor of paleontology wrote:
"Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory"[3]

This is where evolution lies. The issue at hand is that we weren"t there when the world was created and we can"t know for sure what really happened. Creationists admit that we weren"t there when the world was created so we rely on God"s word since he was there when the world was created.

Evolutionists often accuse creationists that we are the only ones who make this distinction between observational science and historical science but this is not true. For example, the prominent atheistic, evolutionist Harvard Professor, Dr E.O. Wilson said:

"If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history"how it came to be made and its journey thus far."[4]

This is not an isolated quote. Prominent atheistic biologist Ernst Mayr wrote:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."[5]

The big problem is that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution has not been observed. The leader of evolutionary thinking Richard Dawkins even admits it when he said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening."[6]

Argument 3: Natural Selection/Mutation don"t drive evolution

There is no doubt that natural selection is observed in nature. The concept is rather simple. The first issue is that natural selection is not a creative process. Natural selects the traits that are most fit to the environment and eliminates those that are not fit. Traits are being eliminated in organisms, the wrong direction for evolution.

Evolutionists have looked to mutations to fix this problem, but the problem is that mutations do not create new information in the genome. Mutations or copying mistakes of DNA destroy functional genes not creating them. For example, a mutation in the p53 gene disables the production of a protein responsible for regulation cell growth. And when cells uncontrollably grow and reproduce, you get cancer [7]. Even beneficial mutations such as lactose intolerance are due to the destruction of functional genes. Lactose intolerance is caused when there is a mutation in the LCT gene that is responsible for producing the lactase enzyme which breaks down lactose[8]. Therefore mutations and natural selection do not produce the type of change necessary for evolution.

The question I would like to ask my opponent is can you find an example of a mutation that results in the increase of information?

This question is one that stumps even Richard Dawkins (video link below).

https://www.youtube.com...

Sources:
1: http://www.forensicmag.com...
2: http://creation.com...
3: Gould, S.J. (1941-2002), Ever Since Darwin, W.W. Norton, New York, NY, pp. 161-162, 1977
4: Wilson, E. O., From so Simply a Beginning, Norton, 2006, pg. 12.
5: Mayr, Ernst (1904"2005), Darwin"s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.
6: http://www.pbs.org...
7: http://www.cancer.net...
8: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
MarsUltor

Pro

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
http://atheism.about.com...

DNA is not information, it is a molecule, and last time I checked DNA can mutate and change causing it to be a new DNA strand.
http://livinglifewithoutanet.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I feel that this page answers the rest of the question.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Sexual reproduction is helpful because it has more variation, and therefore less chance of genetic diseases.
http://www.diffen.com...

Evolution has been observed in Laboratories and outside them to
Refer to 1st argument
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
http://atheism.about.com...

If you want to use God you first have to prove he exists no one has done this so you can't use him.

He's saying that we are coming after it is done, scientists concluded that it was evolution, just like at a murder scene the detective concludes that it is a murder.

Mutations do create new Information in the genome
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Conclusion
Evolution is true.
NothingSpecial99

Con

The first thing I noticed in my opponent"s argument is that he/she is using sources to make their argument. That is not how debates are supposed to work. A debater is supposed to present information and use sources so that there is a good reliable source for their arguments. Imagine a live debate where a debater says "I"m right because this link says so".

"The fossil record is best shown in Humans. Fossils such as Neanderthal, Taung Child, Lucy, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, and many more."

The first thing I saw when I clicked your link was a page filled with artist depictions of supposed human ancestors. I've clicked the fossils link and saw hundreds on bones. Because I don"t have the knowledge or understanding of fossils to properly refute your claims I will leave that argument for another day.

However, I can refute the claim that humans descended from ape-like creatures using genetics. It is commonly believed that humans share around 98.5% of common DNA with chimpanzees. However, looking at how the human genome contains around 3 billion base pairs [1]. A 1.5% difference would mean 45,000,000 pair difference. A couple of mutations in the right pairs would be fatal. However, another study by Roy Britten, a molecular biologist, found the difference to be at 5%, a significant increase [2].

Another study by Gagneux and Varki revealed that there are vital differences between chimp DNA and human DNA. To begin with, chimps have 24 chromosomes whereas we have 23. In case you don"t know, chromosomes are thread-like structures that consist of heavily compacted genetic information. Considering the chimps have an extra chromosome makes a big difference [3].

One of the biggest differences between DNA of humans and chimps is the Y-chromosome. In the study, the Y-chromosomes of chimps and humans are around 50% different from each other.

Mutation will not be enough to account for this difference as it is mathematically for ape-like creatures that reproduce rather slowly to undergo enough mutations to account for the difference. I"m referring to Haldane"s dilemma [4].

Conclusion 1: We did not descend from ape-like creatures.

"It's been observed in labs. Evolution has been shown to happen in labs."

I would note again that my opponent used a link as an argument without explaining what the link even describes. The link and the YouTube clip basically refer to Lenski"s experiments with E.coli bacteria. Since bacteria rapidly reproduce, it would make sense that if evolution is to be observed, it would be seen with bacteria. In the experiment, E.coli bacteria have been observed to be able to use citrate as an energy source in an environment low in glucose. The author of this article makes it look like that bacteria using citrate is anything new. However, this is not the case. First of all, E.coli bacteria have always utilized citrate in aerobic respiration during the Krebs cycle [5]. In addition, E.coli bacteria have had the ability to use citrate as an energy source during anaerobic respiration [6].

How this has happened is unclear as the article doesn't specify what kind of change occurred. There are multiple possibilities as to how this could have happened due to the loss of information. Let me quote Dr. Don Batton on this one:
"So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium"s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down"a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations." [7]

I"m going to reiterate from my first argument. Mutations do a great job of destroying functional genes but cannot account for information to make bones, feathers, brain cells, nerves, and complex motors such as Adenine Triphosphate Synthase.
Now in your rebuttal you brought up a couple more links saying that evolution was observed. However these links amount to natural selection has been observed so evolution is true. However as stated in my previous argument, natural selection is not a created process but destroys information. I would like to refer to your Scientific American article guilty of using a straw man argument that we creationists believe in fixed of species. This is not true, we believe in fixed kinds. You can have many varieties of dogs but they will remain dogs.

"Many animals are similar physically and genetically showing that they came from a common ancestor."

I do not see how this refutes creationism. If we are a result of an intelligent designer, it would make sense for him to use common designs for his creatures. Genetically similar organisms do not mean that there is a common ancestor as shown in the first part of my rebuttal.

Now let"s look closer at your rebuttal.

"Abiogenesis is not part of evolution"

I believe you misunderstood my argument as I made the evolution obstacles argument under the assumption that lifeless chemicals already came together to create the first organism.

"DNA is not information, it is a molecule, and last time I checked DNA can mutate and change causing it to be a new DNA strand."

I"ll just refer back to my first argument.

"What is most intriguing about DNA is that it is a very sophisticated language system where the "words" have a completely different meaning than the nucleotides or "letters" much like how the meaning of words are different than the letters it is composed of."

Arguing that DNA is not a code because it is a polymer is analogous to saying that the words on this page is not information but a bunch of electrons excited pixels on a screen.

Conclusion: DNA is a code

"DNA can mutate and change causing it to be a new DNA strand."
Well last I checked you sort of have to have DNA to begin with before it can start mutating.

"Sexual reproduction is helpful because it has more variation, and therefore less chance of genetic diseases."
Explaining why something would be advantageous does not explain how it would arise.

"If you want to use God you first have to prove he exists no one has done this so you can't use him."
There is intricate design even in the simplest cell. An archaeologist finds ancient pottery, the pottery has a designer. A person sees a building, the building has a designer. A person sees a machine, there was a designer. There is design in every living thing, there is a designer. The universe follows natural laws, there is a lawgiver.

"He's saying that we are coming after it is done, scientists concluded that it was evolution, just like at a murder scene the detective concludes that it is a murder."

You"re missing the point of historical science. You weren't there so you can"t truly know what happened. In addition, a detective looks at a fact and makes an interpretation that will fit his story. For example, a dead body is not always indicative of a crime. Also eyewitness testimonies play a huge part in criminal investigation. In addition, forensic science looks at facts observed today to solve a crime that occurred rather recently whereas evolution tries to look at facts observed to find out what happened millions of years ago.

"Mutations do create new Information in the genome"

I believe that my rebuttal of E.coli using citrate as a food source is sufficient to refute this claim and because of character limitation I can"t go in depth into each case.

Conclusion: Evolution is false. Creation is sounder.

Sources:
1.https://www.genome.gov...
2.Britten, R.J. 2002. "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels." Proceedings National Academy Science99:13633"13635.
3.Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. "Genetic differences between humans and great apes." Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2"13.
4.http://creation.com...
5.http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...
6.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
7.http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 3
MarsUltor

Pro

MarsUltor forfeited this round.
NothingSpecial99

Con

Since Pro has forfeited last round, I will take this round as an opportunity to defend the creation model which I have not been doing much of. After all the resolution of this debate is "Evolution is correct while Creationism isn't". I'll begin with by defending the creation model.

Argument 1: DNA

I've talked about how DNA disproves evolution but it can also be used to promote the idea of an intelligent creator. Let's say theoretically that the random mix of chemicals somehow also produced a single strand of DNA despite the environmental factors that work against it. A single strand of DNA is useless unless there is a mechanism to take the DNA and turn it into functional proteins. However, in order to go from DNA to functional proteins, a special enzyme called DNA polymerase makes a copy of the DNA so that the copy can be used to make proteins without the risk of the main copy of DNA to be damaged outside the nucleus. However, before DNA polymerase can copy the DNA, another enzyme DNA helicase has to unzip the double helix structure of DNA so that DNA polymerase can do its job.[1]

The issue at hand is that the instructions to make DNA polymerase, helicase, and many other proteins and enzymes that are required to make functional proteins are encoded in DNA. To add to this issue, the process requires Adenine Triphosphate (ATP) to provide the energy required to complete this process. The source of ATP is a complex motor existent in all living organisms called ATP Synthase. However, the instructions for the proteins that make up ATP Synthase are encoded in DNA decoded by mechanisms that require ATP. What we have here is a three-way chicken and the egg dilemma. All three of these systems would have to come into being simultaneously and would not be possible under the laws of nature so an intelligent designer must be behind it.[2]

Argument 2: The age of the Earth
The genealogies of the Bible suggest that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. However, evolutionists would scoff at this claiming that there is no evidence to prove it. In this argument I'll bring up evidences of a young Earth.

Part 1: Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs are believed to have existed 65+ million years ago because they are found deep in the geologic time column therefore this disproves the biblical timescale. There is evidence to the contrary that dinosaurs have existed more recently than what was generally believed.
To begin with, soft tissue has been discovered in dinosaur bones [3]. The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen, hemoglobin, and osteocalcin. A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years [4]. I find it interesting that evolutionists haven't even questioned the age of dinosaur bones. Their train of logic seems to amount to circular reasoning.

1.Dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago
2.Soft tissue and proteins have been found in dinosaur bones
3.Experimental evidence showed that these structures would not be able to survive for that long.
4.#3 is false because we know for a fact that........
5.Dinosaurs lived 65+ million years ago

I'm well aware that Pro has a link [5] that "explains" this discovery however these claims are easily refuted. The claim that the blood vessels were result of biofilm formed by bacteria recently while could possibly explain the blood vessels does not explain the proteins that were confirmed to belong to the dinosaur.

The claim that iron from the blood preserved the proteins is flawed. In an experiment, ostrich flesh was dipped in an iron-rich solution and the other dipped in water. The one dipped in water was a complete mess in a couple days whereas the one dipped in the iron solution was recognizable.

The first issue is that iron is not as good as formaldehyde because formaldehyde directly forms covalent bonds with the proteins whereas iron does not. And formaldehyde is not capable for preserving something for millions of years. Also using a two year experiment somehow proves 65+ million years. Who is being unscientific? [6]

Part 2: Radiometric Dating

Radiometric dating seems to prove an old Earth but there is evidence to the contrary.

For example, Carbon-14 has been discovered in diamonds, coal, and other materials supposedly millions and billions of years old [7] [8]. But first, let me clear a common misconception about carbon dating. It does not prove millions or billions of years because its half-life is only around 5730 years and every half-life, the amount of C-14 existent halves. With such a short half-life, a lump of C-14 the size of Earth would be completely decayed in less than a million years. The fact that C-14 is still present in materials billions of years old poses a huge issue to the old age of the Earth.

Another proof of a younger Earth lies in the findings of Dr Robert Gentry on the helium retention of zircons. In zircons, uranium decays into lead and helium. And in various zircons, uranium is found that has partially decayed into lead. From dating the uranium, the age of the zircons is believed to be 1.5 billion years. Because of the size and the fact that helium reacts to nothing, helium easily leaks out and should almost be completely absent from the zircons. However, the amount of helium still present is significant. Dating the zircons by the amount of helium still in the minerals yields an age of between 4,000 and 14,000 years consistent with the biblical timescale. [8]

A note on Pro's rebuttal: Multiple links lead to rather lengthy articles and it is unclear at times what information Pro wanted to take from it. I can't refute the entire article with character and time limits. What I ask of Pro in the future is to first:

1: Explain what the article is about and its arguments
2: How this supports your argument or refutes mine

I tend to avoid using creationists' arguments that I don't understand as to use such arguments without understanding it or the arguments against them would be dogmatic.

Sources:
1.http://www.news-medical.net...
2.http://www.bio.davidson.edu...
3.http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
4.https://news.ncsu.edu...
5.http://www.livescience.com...
6.http://creation.com...
7.http://www.globalflood.org...
8.https://answersingenesis.org...
9.http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 4
MarsUltor

Pro

So if you look in the comments why I forfeited and I thought that I had lost it but apparently it auto saved so here it is.

Round 3

So where is the evidence that genes changing is fatal because I haven't seen it. So what if it's 1.5% or 5%, if it isn't fatal it doesn't matter.

Chromosome number 2a and 2b were fused in chimps creating our chromosome 2. The two in the ape when laid end to end produce the same banding structures as the ones in a human.
http://www.evolutionpages.com...

So I will take your 45 million and divide by 2 (chimp mutations and human mutations), so humans now need 22.5 million mutations. So they gave 10 million years and reproduce after 20, so that is 500000 generations, each kid can have 60 mutations (http://www.livescience.com...) meaning since there are 100000 kids per generation a total of 6 million mutations if only 600 of them are beneficial then you would have 300 million over the 10 million years. That means you have 300 million when you only need 22.5 million. You need a minimum of 45 beneficial mutations per generation and have 60 in every kid.

One still evolution any mutation that helps a species survive better is evolution. Also this isn't the only case of this there are smaller elephant tusks, rats have less tooth decay, bacteria who grew an extra flagellum, and many more.
http://www.cracked.com...
https://books.google.ca...
(If you can't find where your supposed to be use Control F and type in "Tooth decay" or "Rats")
[http://www.cell.com...]/[cell-reports/abstract/S2211-1247(13)00388-4]
(This one won't work, I think because of the brackets around the 13, so copy it then take out the square brackets)

Kinds is not scientific it needs a fixed definition.
So you deny speciation can occur, so I would like to know how this is impossible to do. Speciation is when two parts of a species separate for long enough that mutations to their DNA can happen that they can no longer reproduce together.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

DNA is not information in the way you think, those are technically Information but words need someone to create them, DNA doesn't need intelligence. We put the letters there so we could understand it better.

Cells can exchange genes to as it has been observed on occasion, over time it can easily evolve to handing over more genetic information until it got to 50 50. The sexual organs wouldn't be to hard to evolve, and once you have sperm and eggs, they would evolve to make it easier to exchange more genetic information.
http://evolution-101.blogspot.ca...

That isn't proof that is only speculation that he could exist. I want definitive proof that a god or gods exists. Pottery has evidence that it was created, a building has proof it was created, a machine has proof that it was created, the proof is that we can talk to or dig up where they were created. Life on the other hand has no proof that it was created and neither does the universes laws.

Eyewitness testimonies do not take as much presidence as science such as DNA testing, Checking heat, or any other scientific test. You probably saw the video where you didn't notice something until the end.
http://www.visualexpert.com...

I showed that new Genes can be added, you have not refuted that new genes can come about so my point still stands.

Conclusion
Evolution is true, while creationism isn't.

Round 4

There hypothesis that it came from Viral DNA and evolved to our type of DNA. This is easier because viral DNA only needs one Protein which would be easier. I don't understand this area very well so I probably didn't do a good job explaining.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The Iron was one, another is that densely mineralized fossils protected it over time. Others say it may have been contaminated and therefore not helpful to your cause.
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...

They use radiocarbon dating to find the age a fossil.

So basically your saying that Iron isn't the best thing but you are agreeing that it does work.

These diamonds have been contaminated likely, and are therefore not evidence. Questions to ask are why do only some diamonds or coal deposits have it. Carbon 14 can also be created in the atmosphere when cosmic rays hits a nitrogen 14 atom, this turns it into a Carbon 14 atom and a Hydrogen atom. To date the age of the earth they use many different radioactive materials and check the half lives.
http://www.asa3.org...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
In this he does not take into account that if it's pressure was over 250 bars, and around 700 Celsius it would take tens to hundreds of millions of years. He does not check this but still tries to use it to prove a young earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Conclusion:
Evolution is the only logical way that life got here.
NothingSpecial99

Con

" So where is the evidence that genes changing is fatal because I haven't seen it. So what if it's 1.5% or 5%, if it isn't fatal it doesn't matter."

If you refer to my first argument, I've talked about how a mutation in a p53 gene messes up the production of a protein responsible for regulating cell growth. If the cell is growing and dividing uncontrollably, you have cancer. Another example would be sickle cell anemia where a change in a single nucleotide out of billions in the hemoglobin gene results in a distorted hook-shaped red blood cell instead of a healthy donut-shaped one. [1]

There is evidence contrary to the claim that the chimp 2a and 2b chromosome fused to create the human chromosome 2. For example, there are genes found at the "fusion" site not present in 2a and 2b chromosomes. The site of this supposed fusion is in the functional DDX11L2 gene whereas the fusion-like DNA sequences of 800 bases are extremely degenerate. [2][3]

A major flaw in your calculations is that you don't take into account the cost of substitution as seen in Haldane's dilemma. J.B.S. is a strong believer in the theory of evolution and one of three founders of population genetics. So the cost of substitution is that whenever a beneficial mutation occurs in a population, it has to increase the number of copies for the population to progress in evolution (If that mutation remained to the individual, then that beneficial mutation is useless for the progress of evolution). However, the rate at which the beneficial mutations can take over non-mutated genes is limited.

So Haldane's calculations begin with 100,000 apes. Suppose that in that population, 2 out of the 100,000 had a mutation so beneficial, that the rest of the population died out. Then the surviving pair reproduced and passed their genes to their offspring. And somehow that pair produces enough offspring refills the 100,000 apes. If this process was repeated every 20 years for 10 million years, you would get 500,000 beneficial mutations which would fall short of the 45,000,000 or even the 22.5 million that pro suggests ignoring the fact that the genetic difference between chimps and humans is more like 5% so 75 million. As seen in this scenario, even with the unrealistic circumstances that is the best case scenario for evolution it still falls short. And with more realistic rates of fitness and selection, Haldane recorded that no more than 1,667 beneficial substitutions could have taken place.[4]

The example where elephants are gradually losing their tusks are not due to mutation but natural selection. Elephants with short to no tusks have always existed but since poachers are killing all the long-tusked elephants for the ivory, the elephants with the shorter tusks get to live on and reproduce to pass on their short-tusked genes to their offspring. I mean, why waste ammo on an elephant with no tusks.

The example with the rats' tooth decay is artificial selection where the lab scientists selected the rats that had a slower decay rate and bred them together. That trait was already present in the population.

The example with the extra flagellum is due to the loss of information as the mutation occurred in the gene that synthesizes the flagellar synthesis regulator so there is no regulation on how the flagellum in bacteria grows.

We creationists define kinds as a term that is a larger grouping than species. The origin of kinds comes from genesis 6:19-6:20 "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive." God did not tell Noah to get every species of dog on board the ark but two dogs. When did I deny that speciation occurs? In fact, rapid speciation is a part of the biblical creation model as all animals today descended from the animals of Noah's ark. Just because different species can't breed doesn't mean they are not of the same kind. For example, Great Danes can't necessarily breed with Chihuahuas doesn't mean that they aren't both dogs.[5] [6]

"DNA is not information in the way you think, those are technically Information but words need someone to create them, DNA doesn't need intelligence. We put the letters there so we could understand it better."

Yet Pro provides no natural mechanisms capable of producing DNA therefore an intelligent mind must have been behind it.

"Cells can exchange genes to as it has been observed on occasion, over time it can easily evolve to handing over more genetic information until it got to 50 50. The sexual organs wouldn't be to hard to evolve, and once you have sperm and eggs, they would evolve to make it easier to exchange more genetic information."

It is important to note that this is not true sexual reproduction as only one partner"s genetic information is exchanged. Sex organs simply evolving would require new genes that produce the proper proteins to construct them. And both the male and female sex cells would have to create sex organs that can be used together to produce offspring.[7]

"That isn't proof that is only speculation that he could exist. I want definitive proof that a god or gods exists. Pottery has evidence that it was created, a building has proof it was created, a machine has proof that it was created, the proof is that we can talk to or dig up where they were created. Life on the other hand has no proof that it was created and neither does the universes laws."

What proof do you exactly want? Living things have intricate design in them from bacteria's flagellum to the human brain. It would make sense that there is a designer. Even Richard Dawkins wrote, "biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose." As I've said in my previous argument, the ATP Synthase, DNA, decoding system dilemma proves that in order for DNA to arise and be able to be used, all three systems must have arisen simultaneously and the chance that all three could arise naturally or by chance in nature is zero. Therefore it is logical that a designer must be behind it.

Just because eyewitness testimonies aren't the most reliable doesn't mean they should be completely thrown out. This doesn't solve the problem with historical science. A detective looks at facts and interprets them to fit his/her story of what happen in the past. You cannot know for sure what exactly happened in the past.

The reason that I didn't initially refute the "links" that supposedly prove that new genes can be created in the genome is part of annoyance. I find it irritating at that point that my opponent was throwing links whereas I have to put in three times the effort to read the articles in depth, do some additional research on the topic, look up the refutations of the claim then summarize it all.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Now looking at this article that Pro has used it mentions transposons or genes that are able to jump around chromosomes. Is this new information? No.

Then it mentions polyploidy where chromosomes duplicate themselves. However duplicating chromosomes does not create new genes required for microbes-to-microbiologists evolution. It can actually work against it. For example, Down Syndrome is caused when there is an extra copy of chromosome 21.[8]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com......

What I found in this link was more proof that in order for species to evolve over millions of years, new genes must have arisen. This article does not bring up any modern instances where new genes have arisen. Let me use a quote that summarizes the article, "Chen et al. found that a surprisingly large number of genes had arisen in the D. melanogaster lineage over this 35-myr period. Here's a summary of their results:".

I don't have the space to refute everything.

"There hypothesis that it came from Viral DNA and evolved to our type of DNA. This is easier because viral DNA only needs one Protein which would be easier. I don't understand this area very well so I probably didn't do a good job explaining."
Pro is dodging the issue that in order to have functional DNA you must have the mechanisms and the energy to make proteins but all three rely on each other.

"The Iron was one, another is that densely mineralized fossils protected it over time. Others say it may have been contaminated and therefore not helpful to your cause."
Mineralization does not explain the soft tissue that is still flexible and contamination does not explain the proteins.

I used the lump of C-14 the size of Earth to illustrate how fast it decays. I'm well aware that new C-14 molecules are being made in the atmosphere but I don't see how C-14 molecules made in the atmosphere could contaminate one of the hardest materials on earth extremely deep in the Earth.
"In this he does not take into account that if it's pressure was over 250 bars, and around 700 Celsius it would take tens to hundreds of millions of years. He does not check this but still tries to use it to prove a young earth."

I don't see how this relates to diamonds.

Vote Con

Sources:
1.http://genetics.thetech.org...
2.http://www.icr.org...
3.http://creation.com...
4.http://creation.com...
5.The Holy Bible
6.http://creation.com...
7.http://www.britannica.com...
8.https://www.nichd.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mclachlan// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con makes more sense. Has more proof and facts to back him up.

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter doesn't explain S&G or conduct, nor does he sufficiently explain sources or arguments. Saying that one side made "more sense" isn't an explanation for the vote, nor is providing more proof sufficient for allocating source points.
************************************************************************
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
@Mclachlan I've reported your vote as your RFD was too vague and does not justify rewarding all points to me.
Posted by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
Okay we should talk then.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
Not now for me as I have to worry about college stuff. Maybe in a week or so.
Posted by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
How do you retract, is it only in debates or can you do it in polls and opinions. Also isn't his profile not open for comments. I don't know right now at school we have a lot of work including a ISP in Resource Management about GMOs, so I don't know. I could possibly do one this weekend as I have a 3 day weekend starting tomorrow.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
Tejretics, is rather busy as one of DDO's top debaters so it is unlikely that he will retract a vote he has made over 5 months ago. Not to mention that he has a bunch of other people commenting on his profile and sending him messages. However, it seems you are interested in a rematch. Am I correct?
Posted by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
A few things I'd like to say.
First I did more research on genetic increase but will not post it unless you want me to, because you will likely call me for debating in the comments.

Second Tejretics are you ignoring me because you have been on in the last little while, or do you have notifications turned off.
Posted by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
Tejretics do you have any other reason to vote against me or is that it because I explained that forfeit in the comments section.
Posted by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
In this he does not take into account that if it's pressure was over 250 bars, and around 700 Celsius it would take tens to hundreds of millions of years. He does not check this but still tries to use it to prove a young earth.
This wasn't about the diamonds it was about the Zircon diffusion.
Posted by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
Sorry I had no internet my internet provider refuse to upgrade the area we have about 10000 people for a wire that was put in place for like 3000 people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
MarsUltorNothingSpecial99Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited one round of debate.