The Instigator
giuocob
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Evolution is fact.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,094 times Debate No: 1339
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (17)

 

giuocob

Pro

I could use all 8,000 characters describing exactly what evolution is and how it works, but that would be a waste of time. I request that whoever accepts this debate has at least a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, so they can bring up valid points I can address. So...bring up whatever qualms you have with the theory of evolution, and I'll debate them.
cody30228

Con

Like you, I will try to be brief

1. No missing link found
2. Apes are not having human children
3. no sign of further evolution
4. why do some animals evolve and not others
5. where did monkeys come from
6. what force dictates what different evolution
7. where did the original organism come from

a little out of order and random but try to address these points first before I expand
Debate Round No. 1
giuocob

Pro

1. No missing link found
Missing link between what and what? Apes and humans? Several different human ancestors (for one example, the Neanderthal man) have been found and studied. For more examples, look at the chart at http://www.handprint.com... . If that's what you meant, then your argument is simply wrong.

2. Apes are not having human children
This demonstrates two fundamental misunderstandings of evolution. First, macro evolution certainly doesn't happen in a single generation. Humans developed over the course of about 6 million years. Second, evolution doesn't say that humans evolved from apes. It says that humans and apes at some point shared a common, now extinct ancestor (see the above page).

3. no sign of further evolution
Of macro evolution? The theory has existed for less than 200 years. Obviously no massive changes in species are going to occur over such a short period of time. But we definitely have observed examples of micro evolution, which makes up the building blocks of macro evolution. See the case of the peppered moths.

4. why do some animals evolve and not others
What? All species that can reproduce are capable of evolution. Which species, exactly, are you referring to?

5. where did monkeys come from
They evolved from some earlier mammalian ancestor. I don't know exactly what the genealogy past the old world monkeys is, but I can look it up if you want me to.

6. what force dictates what different evolution
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you clarify the question?

7. where did the original organism come from
This is called the prebiotic soup theory. The prebiotic world was comprised of an oxygen deficient atmosphere containing molecules such as carbon dioxide, methane, water, and sulfur dioxide. The ground was a hot sea of water and other such basic molecules. Constant lightning strikes provided the energy for these molecules to rearrange into simple and complex organic molecules. This has been proven by the Miller-Urey experiments, which simulated the conditions of the prebiotic soup for one week and came up with sugars, lipids, amino acids, and adenine. These molecules over time arranged themselves into more and more complex forms and eventually created a simple bacteria which had the ability to reproduce.
cody30228

Con

To debate this, obviously, it appears we need a definition
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary states:
evo.lu.tion: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in generations.

Agree?

Let's divide this debate between macro and micro evolution

here are my macro arguments...

1. You never proved evolution. (as the topic said). You simply refuted my few reasons why evolution may be wrong. Can you prove, with out a doubt as fact, that the Neanderthal and Ape come from the same evolutionary chain? I looked at the chart you gave me. Where does it say that there is a REAL link besides similarities. A genetic link maybe? Doesn't have it, so I don't take your missing link argument as fact. So you fail to prove the first part of the definition

2. Ape wouldn't have human child because it is a slow change. Says you. This is why it would never happen. The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. That's why organisms do not evolve from reproduction.

So how does evolution change through genetics? Like said before, you give no real reasons why evolution is true. So prove how evolution changes through teh generations.

3. No further evolution because to short a time. Will go into it o micro-evolution

4. All species evolve.
Really? so if humans came from the same origin as you say, then why haven't all apes evolved? If all species evolve, why are whole species extinct? Wouldn't they simply evolve and survive? Prove to me that every species has evolved. That burden is yours, not mine.

5. Doesn't matter

6. Rephrasing of my question:
What causes evolution? What forces causes evolution? If you can't prove this, you can't prove evolution exists

7. I am aware of the prebiotic soup theory. But that's not far enough. What caused the lightning? What caused the lightning? Where did the pond come from? How did Miller know that methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O) where all together? Can you PROVE AS FACT this THEORY? if not, you have yet to prove the origin of life. But still, what created all the elements? They couldn't spawn from nothing. Law of Conservation of Energy and Mass. How about second law of thermodynamics? Order can not spawn from chaos. Unlike your theories, these LAWS are considered fact by all of the scientific community.

That's all reason why Macro evolution is false

ON to Micro

1. N/A

2. N/A

3. Examples of micro evolution
I still have got no answer on how evolution works. What would cause the change among the moths? I have proved above that generational changes can not be made. Yet that's what is required for evolution. Prove your self right before proving me wrong.

4. Some not others
Why didn't all moths develop the same way as the peppered moths? What made them different

5, 6, and 7 all don't apply to micro.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have yet to prove why evolution is true.

Here is a simple explanation for evolution that may not be right but is a more plausible alternative.

A form of natural selection. Unlike evolution, there is no modification in genetics, just common sense. I you want I can go more in depth on natural selection, but like I said, I don't have to prove an alternative.
Debate Round No. 2
giuocob

Pro

1. You're asking me to prove, without a single doubt, that evolution is true exactly as we believe it? That's a completely absurd request. Can you prove to me, without a doubt, that George Washington was the first president of the United States? The thousands of documents that we have from the time can't prove it the way you want me to. What I'm saying is that all the evidence scientists have ever acquired, involving the fossil record, vestigial organs, embryonic development, etc., all point toward evolution being fact. The only reason it's called the theory of evolution is because we haven't watched it under laboratory conditions. But the evidence we have is superfluously enough to effectively prove evolution.

2. Congratulations! You've just disproved a Lamarckian view of evolution, which hasn't been prevalent for the past 200 years. What actually happens in micro evolution: Random mutations are present in all virtually gametes (as observed experimentally). Some of these mutations are beneficial to an individual's survival. Those mutations are rooted out by natural selection and passed on to future generations. Eventually, enough of those mutations pile up to make new generations be considered a new species. Your basic conception of natural selection is wrong.

4. I said all species have the ABILITY to evolve, and all have from the original common ancestor. If you had looked more closely at the ape evolution chart on that earlier link, you would have seen that all modern day apes have evolved from earlier, now extinct common ancestors. On that note, species go extinct because they are outcompeted by other, more 'highly evolved' species. How is that inconsistent with what I said?

6. Um...electromagnetism, mainly? The force that drives chemical reactions? I still don't know what you want me to say.

7. Oh, come on. You're going to have to try harder than that? What causes lightning...are you serious? And the age old second law of thermodynamics question? You don't seem to have the prerequisite basic understanding of evolution I asked for.

Onto what you deem 'micro evolution'...

3. Natural selection. And no, you haven't.

4. Again, natural selection.

And I would love for you to extrapolate on your ill-informed idea of natural selection.

And I'd also like to respond to your comment:

"I do understand evolution. sethgeeko13. But as evolution is not fact, there are different interpretations of what evolution is and how it works. Thus always with theories."

Wrong. The entire scientific community (creation scientists don't count) unanimously agree on the workings of micro and macro evolution. The only questions people disagree on are things like the exact evolution of man from homonidea.
cody30228

Con

1. No, I am asking you to prove that evolution is fact. Plain and simple. That's what the topic that you wrote is.
So far, all you have proved is that a person can travel from point A to point B, but not the medium of travel. You haven't proved anything about evolution being remotely fact.

2. So you claim that a single mutation in a gamete causes one individual to be superior, and that gene prevails through future generations? I don't believe it. For exmaple, look to humans and say hair color. If what you said were true, brown hair color would be the norm, and a mutation caused it to turn blond. And that one person reproduced and spawned a new generation of blonds. No. Different gametes such as this are not evolution but simple reproduction. My dad has blond hair and I have brown. Is that evolution? No. So you still haven't proved evolution.

4. All have the ability, sure. My question is why don't they!

6. This would be the answer to number 4 to an extent. What causes evolution! What makes the gametes change? You have no explanation to evolution

7. The point I was trying to make was you didn't prove where anything came from. Evolution is fine until you get to a point where evolution must have came from something. And that something is what I am asking you. Furthermore, you ignored by comment that the lab that "recreated" the first organism might have been wrong. Once again, how did he know all those chemicals were there back then, in that place?

So you have proved nothing about macro-evolution. Sorry.

All you said was natural selection. But as I was expanding on, natural selection, not through a change in genetics, but just differences. Such as, say Hitler would have ruled the world. He would have killed all those not blond-haired blue eyed people. Thus they live on. This isn't evolution. This is a phenotype that helps them live. It is not a genetic change in gametes!

And to your comment about my comment
evolution is not fact. it is not accepted the same way by everyone.
Debate Round No. 3
giuocob

Pro

1. Oh, so you're accepting that evolution can happen, but not that it did happen? Fine, I'll delve a bit into the specific evidence for evolution. The fossil record shows many of the 'missing links' that you claimed didn't exist. Nothing accounts for the presence of these fossils except evolution. The presence of vestigial, useless organs (the appendix, for example) can only be accounted for by the fact that ancestors used those organs for a specific purpose. Comparative anatomy shows similarities between related organisms that cannot be accounted for by complete coincidence. My personal favorite is embryonic development, which shows the evolution of man in fast-forward. Did you know humans have GILLS at one point in their development? To accurately go into these and really prove it would take entire textbooks, but I can happily suggest further reading if you'd like.

2. So are you claiming that mutations in gametes don't exist? NOW you're disputing pure fact, proven by chemical analysis in a laboratory. Micro evolution by way of mutations has also been PROVEN by observing bacteria in petri dishes. If you don't concede this point, then I'm more or less fed up with the debate, because it is cold, hard, observed fact.

4. As I said, they do, and they have. All current organisms have evolved from earlier ancestors. We have observed it in bacteria, and can effectively prove it with all other species. If you're asking me to list each of the millions of species that exist and prove that they evolved...then no.

6. I've told you this. It's caused by natural selection, which is dictated by random mutations, which is dictated by molecular movement in the nucleus and ribosomes of cells, which is dictated mainly by electromagnetism.

7. Jeez, how far back do you want me to go? The raw matter for evolution came from the earth. The earth came from leftover space material gathered by the sun. The sun came from a star-spawning nebula. But we're already waaaaaaaay beyond the scope of evolution. This is about evolution, not the origin of the universe. And we know what the composition of early earth's atmosphere and ground was by studying deep-crust rocks. Once again, you can read a textbook if you want undeniable proof, but it's there.

I'll respond to your final paragraphs:

First, I'll give you an extremely simplified and slightly flawed logical argument for evolution:

1. Micro evolution occurs. (Proven in laboratories)
2. Macro evolution logically follows from micro evolution. (Macro evolution is simply the culmination of random mutations that occur from micro evolution and natural selection. At some point, we arbitrarily draw the species line.)
3. Macro evolution occurs.

Your idea of natural selection once again excludes the possibility of random mutations, which absolutely do occur.

Lastly, the ENTIRE scientific community accepts evolution as fact. Show me an accepted, renowned scientist who doesn't accept evolution and you have a point.
cody30228

Con

1. You give explanations to how it could happen. That does not make it fact. No where close. The Ancient Egyptians used to believe that the rising sun was the Sun God riding his chariot through the sky. This is an explanation. Obviously it is not fact.

2. No, I am not claiming that mutations do not occur. I am claiming that they do not play a part in evolution

4. Why do some animals not evolve? What causes some to become extinct. What makes some live but not others. You have never explained this.

6. I defined natural selection in a way that it is not evolution

7. My point is, for you, something created everything. Then evolution occured. This makes no sense

***I don't know what to say. You haven't proved evolution as fact. You used the thought process that micro evolution is fact so macro evolution is fact. I do not call it micro-evolution. It might not be called natural selection but any one who has read this knows the "alternative" I state. Call it whatever. I do not believe micro "evolution" is evolution. You still haven't proved it is
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
lazarus is right. Cody straw manned the entire debate by arguing against what he thought evolution was.

I'm sorry the votes are so close guicob. You clearly won this in my book.
Posted by ImAPanicBomb447 9 years ago
ImAPanicBomb447
Cody ignored the request that the contender knows something about evolution... Point number 4 in Round 4 is hilarious. I learned the answers to those questions in my 9th grade Biology class. Your own ignorance on a topic is not a strength in an argument. But many creationists, christians, insert-group-with-incorrect-beliefs-heres make this appear not to be the case.

However, for gluocob to try to prove that evolution is fact- something that I believe simply can't be done online in this sort of setting, was foolish.
Posted by giuocob 9 years ago
giuocob
Your argument now hinges on the fact that micro evolution is false. You're wrong. Can you explain why an entire bacteria colony can be wiped out by an antibiotic, but a colony placed in radioactive conditions to induce mutations and then placed in the antibiotic can produce a colony of resistant bacteria? That is micro evolution.

Micro evolution produces small changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Over time, these changes build up to create new species. This MUST happen, by logic. By the way, your #1 response says everything I said shows how it could happen. You must have ignored everything I said, because that is evidence that evolution DID happen. You haven't attempted to account for any of it.

Everything else in your final argument is just rambling.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Cody, all of your arguments are garbled nonsense. It's painfully obvious that you don't really understand evolution. Case in point: You cited natrual selection as a viable alternative to evolution:

"A form of natural selection. Unlike evolution, there is no modification in genetics, just common sense. I you want I can go more in depth on natural selection, but like I said, I don't have to prove an alternative."

What you apparently fail to realize is that natural selection is NOT an alternative to evolution - it is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. And, as you said yourself there, it is "just common sense".

Anyone who doesn't understand how natural selection works, and how it becomes evolution over long periods of time, watch this video:

http://youtube.com...
Posted by mdb2290 9 years ago
mdb2290
You should have to prove as you said that "Evolution is fact" beyond any possible doubt. You called it upon yourself, whether it is fact or not.
Posted by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
Unfortunately it will take several more generations before all humans evolve to accept evolution as fact and stop fighting reality. A ton of ignorant people have to die off and hopefully their children will become enlightened. I'm guessing another 100 years. So sad.
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
Sorry, you clearly do NOT understand evolution. This is obvious from your claims in Round 2, e.g., "Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain" (which is complete nonsense, and a straw-man argument if ever there was one). I would also caution you against treating a dictionary as a textbook; despite what Webster's might say, "evolution" is not now nor has it ever been a theory in the proper scientific sense of the term. Evolution is the observed fact; the theories which explain it include natural selection based on mutation. I also see you drag in that favorite of creationists, an appeal to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - which any freshman-level physics student would recognize as inapplicable in this context, due to the simple fact that that the Earth is NOT a closed system from the standpoint of energy gain/loss. That "objection" to the current evolutionary model was discredited decades ago.

It always amazes me how creation apologists have to resort to this sort of appeal to ignorance, if not outright deceit, to make their case.
Posted by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
I'm just putting this out there cause I found it kind of humorous: cody30228 is supporting a Republican who believes in evolution and giuocob is supporting a Republican who doesn't believe in evolution.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
I do understand evolution. sethgeeko13. But as evolution is not fact, there are different interpretations of what evolution is and how it works. Thus always with theories.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
cody30228 -

giuocob said; "I request that whoever accepts this debate has at least a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, so they can bring up valid points I can address."

You shouldn't have opted to participate because you clearly don't understand the theory of evolution if you believe it says things like 'humans descend from apes', that evolution isn't currently going on (it is - why do you think you need to get a new flu shot every year?), or the origins of the first life on earth (which Evolution doesn't address).
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by azaccaria 9 years ago
azaccaria
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Drones200 9 years ago
Drones200
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jcool4debate 9 years ago
jcool4debate
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by andrewbary 9 years ago
andrewbary
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
giuocobcody30228Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03