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

Evolution is defensible.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 65361
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




In this debate, I will defend evolution from Con's various arguments .
But first, I will provide an definition of Evolution.
Evolution- the scientific theory that states modern organisms descended from ancient ones through a process of gradual modification over billions of years and share a common ancestry.

There will be 3 rounds with an maximum of 1,000 Characters.
Here's the debate will look like.
Round 1 - Acceptance and new arguments
Round 2 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments
Round 3 - Defense of your arguments, but no new arguments.

Here is some rules for Pro and Con to follow.
- No Semantic interpretations (For example, using the word theory in an way that means guess when you are suppose to use the scientific meaning of the word)
- Please refrain from using the bible or any other holy texts to try disprove evolution.
- You must know what the theory of evolution is.
- The debaters follow the rules at all times.
This should be obvious but I hope you enjoy the debate


I accept the challenge, with those rules. Also, please excuse me if my English is broken, it isn't my first language.

First of all, I would like to complete the definition, by saying that this theory includes the idea that all the living organism on Earth share a common ancestor.

Now, if we think about that ancestor, a single-cellular organism which reproduced itself, you'd have to ask yourselves : where did it come from ? This scientific theory says that randomly, a molecule was created that was able to reproduce itself (the definition of living) - please note that no experience has yet been able to reproduce such an event. Even worse, the second law of thermodynamics states that such a reaction would only occur spontaneously if the 'entropy', physical chaos, would increase because of the chemical reaction - however, a living molecule has to be pretty big, and creating a bigger molecule from smaller ones (such as the ones present in Earth's primitive oceans) reduces chaos.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly ,I should thank you for accepting this challenge.

The first argument is attacking abiogenesis, which is not what the debate is about, nor is it relevant to evolution.
I provide an link if you do not know what abiogenesis is.

The second argument thankfully, does try to attack evolution.
The problem with that argument is that the second law of thermodynamics describes what happens to closed systems and neither earth or living things are closed systems.
This link is where I got the information from.

It Con's turn again.


No, evolution needs abiogenesis, because either the first living organisms came from non-living material, or it came out of nothing - which is called creationism. Either you can prove beyond all doubt that abiogenesis is a fact, or you have to admit that there is a hole in the evolutionary theory, which means its validity can be discussed.

As for your argument, you are semiright. True, Earth is an open system, and as such the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not totally forbid that reaction to happen. But what I wrote is not that such a reaction could not happen, it is that it would not happen spontaneously. To go back to the example of the water going downwards (see link), it will indeed bounce back if it hits a rock - but also, it will never go upwards if it doesn't hit a rock, no matter how much energy it receives. In living bodies, larger molecules are created all the time - but life also has specific mechanisms to "force" these reactions, because they would NOT happen at random
Debate Round No. 2


Actually, Evolution can be true even if abiogenesis is false.
An god could have created that first living molecule 3.5 - 4 billions years and start observing the earth, knowing that millions (if not billions) of species would exist then eventually go extinct, due to evolution.
This analogy (that I used) is showing that evolution can be true even if abiogenesis is false.

Since I was attacking a strawman last round, I am going to refute it an different way.
But since I don't have enough time to fully refute the argument (because of the fact that I have exams),
I am going to provide an link for you to refute.


jiriakel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jiriakel 2 years ago
I would like to post here, because it is beside the debat and 1.000 chars isn't enough to discuss it anyway, that in the 2nd link provided, the statement "once that energy is used to do work (and thus produce order) it becomes unavailable for any further work" is totally and utterly false. Thermodynacis itself is build around the idea that energy doesn't appear or disappear.

Again, this is beside the argument, and the part about open systems and the second law of Thermodynamics is correct. I just made this clear so that people wouldn't start misinterpreting this.
Posted by jiriakel 2 years ago
A living molecule would be the simplest form of life possible. Every other form being more complex, my point would still stand.
Posted by Lukas8 2 years ago
Listen, a living molecule probably doesnt exist. But if many complex molecules begin to share amazing features than we may get this effect of living. But even today we dont know how life started.
Posted by DonutPieFace 2 years ago
I like this!
No votes have been placed for this debate.