The Instigator
godfather38
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NothingSpecial99
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Evolution is fact

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 2/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 87178
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

godfather38

Pro

I believe evolution is fact and has been proven. i am debating this a month from now so i thought this would be some good practice. i am looking for some interesting discussion at the least.
NothingSpecial99

Con

Very well. I accept
Debate Round No. 1
godfather38

Pro

Evolution has been proven in many instances. for example, e coli in a long term experiment were seen to have evolved to a small extent. not to mention Darwin finches (Galapagos finches), which although not directly seen over the course of their adaptation, have been seen on different islands with beaks best suited to their islands food supply.
Now I want you to think of a generic caveman. you are most likely thinking of a stupid hairy man waving a stick around, which, although wrong in many ways, is quite similar to the real thing. now think of a caveman from a century or two later, less hairy, more complex tools, maybe some clothes. this is also similar to what happened. as we depended on natural hair less and less we began to lose more and more.
Now, I must point out the obvious, there is no proof that creationism is fact. Despite that fact I will restrict this to the topic at hand rather than say there is no god, it must be stated that by many accounts the bible is pure fiction & propaganda. I mean, when you put it all in to perspective you are saying a magic invisible man is controlling the world and building species. but if there was a "great designer" then why would he leave so many imperfections. we have a long tube (effectively) running to be 3 feet long running around our organs when the designer could have just taken a direct route.Objectively our species, as well as all others, are flawed. what designer would do such an odd thing?
But despite all that, lets say there is a designer, and he intentionally created those imperfections, then why would that say evolution is false? the fact is that continuing to deny evolution is simply detrimental to our society. As Darwin himself stated "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change"
NothingSpecial99

Con

Genetics:

Genetic Entropy, an idea put forward by Cornell geneticist, Dr. John C Sanford, I believe provides the most compelling evidence that genetics don’t support evolution but rather the opposite. To begin with, I’ll present the mutation rate for humans.

The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [5]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [6]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.
Now how many bad or deleterious mutations are there compared to the beneficial ones. Below is a diagram adapted from population geneticist, Dr. Motoo Kimura which shows the distribution of mutations [7]:



As seen here, Dr. Kimura shows that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and more importantly, cannot be selected out of the population which I will get to later on. One might ask, beneficial mutations exist, why aren’t they included in the distribution? That is because deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations to a point where they cannot realistically be shown in the distribution. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, “mutation”, he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word “beneficial” [8]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [9]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [10]. In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.



With the distribution, it can be deducted that most, if not all mutations that are passed to the next generation are deleterious. Therefore the human genome is losing functionality over time. Natural selection cannot eliminate all the deleterious mutations because as seen in the distribution, most mutations fall within the shaded “no-selection zone” meaning that most mutations are not deleterious or beneficial enough to give an organism a disadvantage or advantage that nature can select. Geneticists are in agreement that the human genome is degrading. The decline of fitness of the human species is calculated to be around 1-2% per generation [11].

How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.

1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator.

2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of species.


[17]

Fossils:

Another issue with the evolutionary model is living fossils. For example, the horseshoe crab which still exists today remains completely identical to the fossils 445 million years old [12]. The fact that such organisms don’t change in these huge timescales proves a problem for evolution. Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and an evolutionists recognizes this as a problem when he wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” [13] The fact that modern creatures have coexisted with “ancient” species affirms the creation account that all kinds of animals were created at the same time which brings me to my next point.

Dinosaurs have been used to ridicule creationists as it is seemingly absurd that humans and dinosaurs lived together. However, there is evidence that seems to point otherwise. For example, evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted lies in soft tissue found in dinosaur bones [14]. 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 [15]. 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 [16]. However, it is believed that dinosaurs lived in warm moist environments that would quickly degrade such proteins.



Arguments from Design

I'll be brief with this as I'm running very low on characters. Within organisms exist complex features that can't arise through the gradual process of evolution. Some of these features are really complex but they provide no distinct advantage for nature to favoribly select such traits. A prime example of this can be seen with human facial muscles.



On top of performing tasks necessary for survival such as eating and speaking, almost half of those muscles are solely dedicated to creating facial expressions. The problem is that having the ability to smile, frown, or smirk does not aid in the survival of humans. Such traits aren’t features that nature would necessarily select. Yet we see examples of overdesign often when it comes to engineering [18]. This implies that there is an intelligent designer behind such features.



Sources:

[5] Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27
[6] Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558
[7] Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444
[8] Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23
[9] Gerrish, P.J. and R. Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144.
[10] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
[11] Crow, J.F. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386
[12] http://news.discovery.com...
[13] http://www.nature.com......;(Must have subscription to view)
[14] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[15] https://news.ncsu.edu...
[16] http://www.biochemist.org...
[17] Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy. N.p.: FMS Publications, n.d. Print.
[18] http://creation.com......
Debate Round No. 2
godfather38

Pro

godfather38 forfeited this round.
NothingSpecial99

Con

Extend and vote con
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
squonk
"...having the ability to smile, frown, or smirk does not aid in the survival of humans"

The ability to smile, frown and smirk is part of communication, which is essential to human survival.
Posted by Inspector 9 months ago
Inspector
The problem is, An animal wont evolve unless it needs to. Why do you need to change if everything is well? And are they identical perfectly? Because even if there was a tiny change of DNA that is still a change and that is still evolution. I'll be following this one as it appears to be interesting.
Posted by squonk 9 months ago
squonk
You tell us, ViceRegent.
Posted by ViceRegent 9 months ago
ViceRegent
On what basis does evolved pond scum know what is a fact and what is not?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 9 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
godfather38NothingSpecial99Tied
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: Foreiture.