The Instigator
MyWoodenHeart
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Evolution is fact

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 4 votes the winner is...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,841 times Debate No: 61437
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (4)

 

MyWoodenHeart

Pro

Evolution is scientific fact. First round for agreeing.
UchihaMadara

Con

I 'agree' to debate this topic with my opponent...
Before we continue with the debate, I would like to note that Pro is specifically claiming that the theory of evolution is a FACT.
The definition of a fact according to Google Dictionary is "a thing that is indisputably the case".
In other words, Pro's BOP is to prove with 100% certainty that the theory of evolution is true.
Good luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
MyWoodenHeart

Pro

Alright, thanks for debating with me! But first, when I said "fact", I did not mean 100% true and there is no possible way that it could be false. I am simply saying that evolution has enough evidence that theres no reason to not accept evolution. Also, I believe that you mistranslated Google"s definition, but, if you still want to debate, let"s begin! Although, first, let me introduce myself. My name is Daniel, I am 12 years old, and it is very nice to meet you.

Evidence
---
Vestigial Parts

Humans (and other organisms) have chromosomes and body parts/functions that have no to little use in the organism"s current state. For example, humans have goosebumps. Goosebumps are almost useless in human"s current condition, but, if we had more hair, they could be used for scaring predators and other things. It is theorized that we were more ape-like and had more hair on our bodies, making goosebumps actually useful. It is theorized less hairy "humans" strived in their environment because of lice and other dangers that came along with lot"s of body hair, but our "goosebumps" had neutral effects on survival and reproduction, and so they stayed.

Some other examples of vestigial structures would be the human"s tailbones, blind cave-dwelling salamander"s eyes, and the Chromosome 2 in humans. But there are definitely many more examples to share. (1)

Transitional Fossils

Transitional fossils are "Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms." (2). There are many examples of transitional fossils. Although not every single transitional fossil has been found (which is outrageous to demand), enough have been found to conclude that evolution has occurred.

We have discovered not only transitional fossils between humans and our more ape-like ancestor, but of many species and families. For example, between the Pakicetus and the Gray Whale was the Aetiocetus. Check out source (2). If you would like to see more examples, I have a source with many different examples of evolution and transitional fossils.

Observed evidence of speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org... I would just recommend checking this link out, theres not much for me to talk about.

In Conclusion,
I thank you again for debating evolution with me. I might not be able to respond again for a day or two, but I should be able to get in time before I forfeit.

Sites and Sources (In one of the most lazy formats possible):

(1) http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...

(2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

(3) http://www.talkorigins.org...

(I apologize if there are any errors or it is hard to understand, I copy and pasted this after writing it in Google Drive.)
UchihaMadara

Con

Eh... I took this debate because I thought it would be fun crushing an ignorant evolutionist who actually equivocates theory with fact.... but since it seems to have been an honest mistake, I'll go ahead and debate this the way Pro intended. What I have to do to negate the resolution, then, is show that there is reasonable basis to doubt the theory of evolution's factual accuracy.
Since I am wholly unprepared to make a legitimate devil's advocate case against Evolution (I originally would only have had to provide a short paragraph on the difference between theory and fact), and because I am scrapped for time, I am going to have to resort to simply quoting another argument I have heard against evolution which I found to be intelligible (http://www.debate.org...):

"[The] argument that I am going to raise against evolution is from its supposed incompatibility with the Cambrian Explosion, which shall be defined, for the purposes of this debate, as the process when nearly all animal phyla first appear in the fossil record, occurring approximately 550 million years ago.

"According to Gish: 'In the Cambrian geological strata there exists a sudden, great outbursts of fossils on a highly developed level of complexity.' [1] However, there is a problem. There virtually no clear evolutionary precursors to ancestors of many the Cambrian phyla! Charles Marshall expands on this: 'While the fossil record of the well-skeletonized animal phyla is pretty good, we have virtually no fossils that are unambiguously assignable to the basal stem groups [putative ancestors] of these phyla, the first branches that lie between the last common ancestor of all bilaterians and the last common ancestor of the living representatives of each of the phyla.' [2]

"It gets worse for the ‘evolutionist.’ The Cambrian explosion occurred in an extraordinarily short space of time! Carroll, for instance, argues that the explosion approx. 5-10 million years to occur. Bowring et.al argue that it is unlikely that the explosion took more than 10 million years to occur. [2] The suddenness of the Cambrian explosion is at odds with Darwinian phyletic gradualism... The rise of such complexity, demands an explanation of how the biological information relevant to the species, has been generated, in (relative to geological time) an extraordinary short space of time. Unless my opponent can give a cogent exposition of how this is so, through evolutionary processes, we can only assume that evolution, in the Neo-Darwinian sense, has been utterly falsified, due to the sheer impossibility of a large amount of biological information arising in such a short period of time...

"Finally, contrary to what Neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology predicts, the Cambrian explosion shows a pattern of 'disparity precedes diversity,' meaning that virtually all the phyla were present in the Cambrian period, but display little variation between them. This is unexpected, if one were to affirm that evolution was true. Jim Gibson explains: 'This pattern is not merely different from what evolutionary biology predicts, it is the exact opposite of the expected pattern. It should take many small changes to add up to a large difference in the new type of animal, but small differences appear in the fossil record after the large differences…Evolutionary interpretations must explain why no new phyla have been produced since the Cambrian fossils were preserved. This pattern contradicts the expectations of evolutionary theory.'[3]"

In conclusion, I have presented a compelling argument which, at the very least, casts significant doubt upon the theory of evolution. The resolution is negated.

[1] http://www.sciohost.org...
[2] http://www.darwinsdilemma.org...
[3] http://grisda.wordpress.com...

Debate Round No. 2
MyWoodenHeart

Pro

"Eh... I took this debate because I thought it would be fun crushing an ignorant evolutionist who actually equivocates theory with fact.... but since it seems to have been an honest mistake, I'll go ahead and debate this the way Pro intended. What I have to do to negate the resolution, then, is show that there is reasonable basis to doubt the theory of evolution's factual accuracy."

:(

Good luck!

Cambrian Explosion (I)

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:
-
The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
-
Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
-
The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
-
Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
-
Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
-
Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
-
Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
-
Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
-
Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).
-
Rebuttal?

I don"t believe you responded to any of my evidence provided. You brought up a great argument, but never directly confronted my other statements.

Sources:

(I) http://www.talkorigins.org...

(Again, if there is any problem with formatting, I"m sorry. I made this in Google Drive and copied it from there.)
UchihaMadara

Con

I realize that I provided no rebuttals last round; that is because I automatically assumed that this debate was following default debate structure (R1 acceptance, R2 opening arguments, R3 rebuttals, etc). And also, I would like to clarify that the preface to my opening argument was not meant to insult my opponent in any way... the "ignorant evolutionist" quip simply represents the initial perception I had of the instigator after reading the resolution; however, from his clarifications, it is clear that Pro is more reasonable than that, being fully capable of distinguishing between an actual fact and a theory. Like I said, including the word 'fact' in the resolution seems to have been an honest mistake, which is why I am abstaining from taking the resolution literally.

With that out of the way, I will proceed with rebuttals...In order to refute Pro's arguments, all I really have to do is show that there is still room for reasonable doubt even given the evidence for evolution that Pro has presented.

R1) Vestigial Organs

First off, let's note that Pro has not at all shown why the existence of vestigial organs would indicate that the theory of evolution is true; there is no reason to believe that the existence of vestigial structures isn't compatible with / explained by / evidence for evolution's competing hypotheses, such as creationism. This observation alone serves as an adequate refutation of Pro's first contention.

R2) Transitional Fossils

I would like to begin by introducing the idea of correlation/causation fallacy: the scientific/statistical principle that the existence of a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. This principle can be applied to Pro's contention, here-- the fact that we have found of a few series of series of fossils that seem to represent evolutionary progression (i.e. correlation) does not logically lead to the conclusion that they actually are the result of evolutionary progression (i.e. causation). Furthermore, the fossil record can just as easily accounted for by other explanations of the development of life on earth; therefore, In order to soundly conclude that the fossil record is, indeed, the result of naturalistic evolution, Pro would have to provide causal evidence, which is unobtainable as it would most likely require reverse time travel.
And besides that, there are actually outstanding flaws in the fossil record that cast significant doubt upon the factual accuracy of evolutionary theory, one of the most damning being the Roraima Pollen paradox:
"According to Evolutionary Theory, plants didn't evolve flowers until around 120 million years ago... However, pollen has been found in Roraima rock...This undermines Evolutionary Theory because Roraima rock is geochronologically dated to be at least 1.7 billion years old...This is a paradox that even a child can understand, because it suggests that pollen existed over a billion years before the first flower existed." [1].

R3) Observed Speciation

Pro cites examples of observed micro-evolution. However, this does not really affirm the general theory of evolution; observing that a population's gene pool gradually changes over time doesn't even come close to indicating that all life on earth has developed via that same process. To make such a jump requires enormous amounts of conjecture and post-hoc rationalization. And besides, micro-evolution is wholly compatible with competing hypotheses such as creationism, so all in all, this contention does virtually nothing to affirm the resolution.


In conclusion, I have shown that, even cumulatively, Pro's three contentions do not affirm the theory of evolution, much less 'leave no room for reasonable doubt'. The resolution is negated.


[1] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MyWoodenHeart

Pro

I understand your confusion. Thank you again for debating evolution with me.

Vestigial Structures
---
(A small tip- “vestigial structures” covers all vestigial parts, while “vestigial organs” is much more specific)

“First off, let's note that Pro has not at all shown why the existence of vestigial organs would indicate that the theory of evolution is true; there is no reason to believe that the existence of vestigial structures isn't compatible with / explained by / evidence for evolution's competing hypotheses, such as creationism. This observation alone serves as an adequate refutation of Pro's first contention.”

If you look back to my argument that presented vestigial structures, I believe I addressed why they are further proof of the validity of evolution. I’ll just go back over it so you don’t have to scroll around to find it.

Although vestigial structures themselves are no reason to believe that evolution is plausible and likely to be real, the existence of vestigial structures are very expected if evolution is an actual process. It’s like “connect the dots”. The small dot that is vestigial structures does not create the whole picture itself, but is vital for the picture’s end result.

Let’s go back to my last example about goosebumps and hair. If evolution really did happen, then it would make sense that when we slowly evolved to our more “human” like stage and lost most of our hair, goosebumps had neutral effect on our survival, and therefore stayed.

If we were created, why were we created with random and useless structures? Pointless structures, useless chromosomes, random bones, etc.

Transitional Fossils
---
“I would like to begin by introducing the idea of correlation/causation fallacy: the scientific/statistical principle that the existence of a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. This principle can be applied to Pro's contention, here-- the fact that we have found of a few series of series of fossils that seem to represent evolutionary progression (i.e. correlation) does not logically lead to the conclusion that they actually are the result of evolutionary progression (i.e. causation). Furthermore, the fossil record can just as easily accounted for by other explanations of the development of life on earth; therefore, In order to soundly conclude that the fossil record is, indeed, the result of naturalistic evolution, Pro would have to provide causal evidence, which is unobtainable as it would most likely require reverse time travel.
And besides that, there are actually outstanding flaws in the fossil record that cast significant doubt upon the factual accuracy of evolutionary theory, one of the most damning being the Roraima Pollen paradox:
"According to Evolutionary Theory, plants didn't evolve flowers until around 120 million years ago... However, pollen has been found in Roraima rock...This undermines Evolutionary Theory because Roraima rock is [geo chronologically] dated to be at least 1.7 billion years old...This is a paradox that even a child can understand, because it suggests that pollen existed over a billion years before the first flower existed." [1].”

If evolution did happen, transitional fossils would be expected. And they are found.

As for your Roraima pollen paradox:

Claim: Pollen has been found in Cambrian and Precambrian rocks, particular the Hakatai Shales of the Grand Canyon. By standard evolutionary models, these rocks pre-date the evolution of pollen-bearing plants.

Response: Most of the palynology work was done by Clifford Burdick, who had very little knowledge of geological techniques. Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981].

Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors:
What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.
Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.
Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.

There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests. In particular, the Hakatai Shales have lava intrusions, so we would expect any fossil pollen in them to have burned up. [1]

Observed Speciation
---

“Pro cites examples of observed micro-evolution. However, this does not really affirm the general theory of evolution; observing that a population's gene pool gradually changes over time doesn't even come close to indicating that all life on earth has developed via that same process. To make such a jump requires enormous amounts of conjecture and post-hoc rationalization. And besides, micro-evolution is wholly compatible with competing hypotheses such as creationism, so all in all, this contention does virtually nothing to affirm the resolution.”


Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed [2]. (The source I originally cited had a section devoted to speciation, but I’ll link it again for your convenience)

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.


There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory. [3]

My arguments stand.

I want to thank you again for having this debate with me (and sorry if there are any editing or formatting errors, I copy-pasted this from google drive). You get a slight advantage because you get the last words, but that’s alright. Now it’s your turn, good luck!

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...



UchihaMadara

Con

In this debate, Pro is the one making a positive claim-- that one cannot reasonably doubt the theory of evolution. Therefore, he has the full burden of proof and is the only one obligated to offer arguments in favor of the resolution. In other words, all I really have to do to win the debate is show that none of Pro's three arguments affirm the resolution.

Thus, the opening argument I put forth negating the resolution is actually irrelevant in the context if this debate. And because of that, I concede the Cambrian Explosion argument (not worth the effort, especially given Pro's very thorough job of addressing it). On to the affirmative case...

After reading through Pro's defenses of his arguments, it becomes exceedingly clear that all three of them are *logically invalid*. More specifically, they fall into the category of the "Affirming the Consequent" logical fallacy, which generally follows the following syllogistic format:

P1: If X, then Y
P2: Y
C1: Therefore, X

"Affirming the consequent related to the generic phrase that "all x are y, but not all y are x" in that the formal fallacy fails to recognise the "not all y are x" part. Its statistical equivalent is confusion of the inverse, where two conditional probabilities are mistaken to be equal when this is not necessarily true." [1]

In Pro's case specifically, X represents "the theory of evolution", and Y represents "vestigial structures", "transitional fossils", and "observed speciation". The obvious problem with this is that we can use the same argument to affirm ANY alternative to the theory of evolution (i.e. Biblical Creationism, Aliens using planet Earth as a life simulator, etc.) by simply substituting it into the place of "X".
It is most certainly reasonable to doubt a theory which is only supported by logically invalid arguments; if anything, it would be UNreasonable to believe in such a theory. Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable to doubt the theory of evolution. The resolution is negated.

** I urge any and all voters to keep their personal biases out of this completely... by no objective voting standard can a resolution supported only by logically invalid arguments be considered successfully upheld **

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 3 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
Alright. Thanks for clearing that up, I was slightly confused by your wording.
Posted by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
UchihaMadara
they don't "prove" creationism any more than they do evolution (i.e. not much)
that is why affirming the consequent is fallacious-- it doesn't really prove anything.
they are simply 'explained by' or 'compatible with' creationism.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 3 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
UchihaMadara

Alright so transitional fossils explain Noah's flood.
How do the other 2 prove creationism?
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 3 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
Well I asked my competitor if he meant it that way, so I'm not exactly sure how your comment is related.

Species are not usually defined by "loss reproductive compatibility", but many creationists argue that for a speciation to occur, there must be loss of reproductive compatibility. So let me ask you, what do YOU define as speciation?

As for transitional fossils, yes, one could assume that a designer would create similar species. If you look at my example, the older the fossils were, the lower down the nostrils were. So did our designer decide to make a species with far down nostrils, than decided to make another species with higher up nostrils, and so on?
Posted by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
UchihaMadara
sort of...
all three of those are also compatible with/explained by biblical creationism (e.g. fossil record created by noah's flood) so according to the logic you were using to support evolution (affirming the consequent), those three can be used to support biblical creationism as well.

P1: If evolution happened, we would see Q
P2: We see Q
C1: Therefore, evolution happened.

same reasoning...

P1: If Biblical Creationism is true, we would see Q
P2: We see Q
C1: Therefore, Biblical Creationism is true

you could have brought up scientific methodology and occam's razor as a rebuttal, but you didn't, sooo.... yeah.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
MyWoodenHeart, even the National Center for Science Education admits that vestigial organs are not an argument for evolution anymore than they are for Biblical Creation. Transitional Fossils are also consistent with Creation; a common designer is expected to create similar lifeforms (just like cars have 'evolved' over the years, they produce 'transitionals').

Observed speciation, well, I do not even believe that exists. Not when 'speciation' is defined as 'loss of reproductive compatibility'. Even animals that 'don't interbreed are still capable of interbreeding. A white american and an African pygmy are probably not going to interbreed, but it doesn't mean they can't nor does it divide them into distinct species.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 3 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
UchihaMadara, I'm slightly confused by something you said:

"In Pro's case specifically, X represents "the theory of evolution", and Y represents "vestigial structures", "transitional fossils", and "observed speciation". The obvious problem with this is that we can use the same argument to affirm ANY alternative to the theory of evolution (i.e. Biblical Creationism, Aliens using planet Earth as a life simulator, etc.) by simply substituting it into the place of "X"."

Are you trying to say that "vestigial structures", "transitional fossils", and "observed speciation" is as much proof of evolution as it is Creationism? Could you explain a little more?
Posted by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
UchihaMadara
sorry, woodenheart :/
i wish there was an option to un-accept with the instigator's consent in the case of misunderstandings of the resolution.... i would have done so immediately after realizing that you didn't mean "fact" in the literal sense. i'm not very happy with the way i ended up arguing in this debate...
you did a good job, though. thanks for the challenge.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 3 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
What WOULD satisfy you?
Posted by ben671176 3 years ago
ben671176
I can spend all day telling you why evolution is wrong. But some text on a computer won't satisfy me.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
MyWoodenHeartUchihaMadaraTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: I hated reading the bad formatting in round 4. It is the responsibility of the debater to check the review before posting. Arguments: I agree with previous voters that Con gave us several reasons to doubt evolution. Pro often failed to give sources to his claims. For example, his claim that we have, "Pointless structures, useless chromosomes, random bones, etc." I can only assume Pro expected us to read all of his sources in their entirety. In round 2, Pro gave a link with the instruction of reading it. References are supposed to *support* an argument, not *be* the argument. http://www.debate.org/help/articles/how-to-vote/ Sources: Pro used a lot of book references (names and dates) in his arguments, but failed to provide the book references anywhere. 6 out of 8 of Pro's listed sources were all the same source (talkorigins). Pro would do better to use diverse sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
MyWoodenHeartUchihaMadaraTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used more sources so that point goes to him. Pro also failed to refute several of Con's arguments giving that point to Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
MyWoodenHeartUchihaMadaraTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con manages to rebut not just one, but pretty much all of Pro's arguments. He only had to show sufficient doubt anyways.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
MyWoodenHeartUchihaMadaraTied
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: Pro said he would show that there is "no reason" to doubt evolution. Con provided not just 1 reason to doubt, but a ton of reasons; one of them being the finding of fossil pollen way out of place by evolutionary standards. For that argument, he flattered me by citing one of my own debates, and since I do consider myself a "reliable source", of course I'm going to give Con source points :D There's also the fact that Pro relied extensively on talkorigins.org, an awful site in my opinion which is just as bad as citing Wikipedia. Con's final round was a majestically concise refutation of Pro's arguments by revealing the fallacy underlying every single one of them. I did not even try to read Con's last round because the formatting was so terrible. Con did apologize in advance, but he's still responsible for reading his arguments in the preview before he clicks "submit". I know, it sucks but I had to learn this the hard way too.