The Instigator
BoggyB
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The-Lone-Hunt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is false. Evolution is not scientifically sound.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 67037
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

BoggyB

Pro

Evolution isn't logical or scientifically sound. To say that the earth is billions of years old is absurd. You cannot observe something billions of years old. Trying to defend these statements of billions of year old earth is just speculation and not anything more than a hypothetical standpoint. To say that animals such as simple-celled bacteria could evolve into fish, which evolve in to lizards, which then evolve to birds. It is not scientifically possible. You cannot take DNA from one animal and make it into another species. The only "evolving" that happens is adaption within a species, where helpful traits are expressed directly from the genetic code already possessed. You cannot plant and apple orchard and millions of years later expect a peach tree. You cannot take fish DNA and rearrange it into reptile DNA.
The-Lone-Hunt

Con

First and foremost, the initiator of this debate as well as the audience observing our dispute must understand Planet Earth is indeed around 4.5 billion years old. No, we don't know exactly how old our planet is, however, the oldest rocks and stones ever found on the surface of Earth date back over 4 billion years. Thereby, we may safely presume Earth may be more ripe than these aged stones themselves.

Nonetheless, the age of our planet is not the nucleus of this argument. The challenger disputes the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. To which I respectfully refute his thesis; the theory of evolution is our best bet to explain the origin of not only human genesis, but the dawn of life itself. Thus, while evolution may not always make sense, the theory provides an outline far more greatly supported by conclusive and concrete scientific evidence than the idea of creation, this stated with all due respect.

My opponent unjustly looks over many scientific facts propelling evolution and gives a very ignorant and shallow overview of the theory. You're right, a lizard doesn't magically puff into a bird, however, no one has ever stated that's how the theory goes. Evolution is a process encumbered by time and it may takes millions upon millions of years.

Moreover, I hope we all understand what a theory is: a proposal of an idea backed by strong scientific evidence, however, not enough as to make it a scientific law, no equation to pillar it, and cannot be readily observed. Hence, the theory of evolution will never "graduate" unto scientific law, still there are ways we may behold the seeds of evolution in a much more minute scale: adaptation.

If you move to an area with a radically different climate, your body will adapt to that climate, it has to. As evidence, your skin tone may become more fair or more dark, depending on where you are. This is exactly what race is: a different colored skin and or different body structure in accordance to the surroundings of the individual. When our forebears explored beyond Africa and stepped foot on Europe to challenge the bitter climate, their bodies had to radically adapt to the northern arctic snow.

Adaptation of an animal or plant may lead to its ultimate evolution; no evolution may lead to animal or plant extinction. Evolution is key to the survival of all species on Earth. Why? All animals and plants are always evolving new tactics to survive, while the predators are evolving new abilities to counter these new gains. This world belongs to the most evolved and when you trace the Animalia Kingdom (the kingdom includes humans) to its youngest roots, you will find all animals have a common forebear.

Ultimately, you may not agree with the theory of evolution and to an extent, it is benighted to say the theory is utterly "false" when you falsely accuse lizards of puffing into birds. Before one debates against a subject, one must make sure their intellectual reach on the topic is dominant and steadfast.

Goodluck and farewell.
Debate Round No. 1
BoggyB

Pro

You are right. I had a very loose and abstract beginning argument. I certainly didn't specify my thoughts and arguments. Please allow me to make a more justified argument, with a more concise thesis. I do not concede the earth is billions of years old, but that is a discussion for another time. I think we can say evolution is widely accepted worldview, and by a very brief overview, the concept is that animals "change." This encompasses both natural selection, and adaption. There is no doubt adaption occurs. Everyone knows that. Adaption as you explained extremely well is the variations of a species. Natural selection is the adaption of a species to an extent were given enough time a population could change into an entirely different species. The main key of the Theory of evolution is natural selection, and that is the point that I was hoping to cover first, but did so very ignorantly. So let me me clarify myself. You are correct, I jumped to conclusions of reptiles evolving to birds. Instead let me say that one organism cannot evolve by natural selection into another species. Natural selection can only occur to the extent of adaption. For example, Iguanas in the Gal"pagos Islands. There are iguanas in South America, and Iguanas in The Gal"pagos. When the Iguanas were introduced to the Gal"pagos by means of a maybe a storm carrying eggs to the shore, or a bird carried eggs somehow. The point is when the Iguanas were first introduced they didn't have the right traits to survive well. Adaption kicked in and over time they developed a flattened tail, and darker pigment. The tail helped them enter the water for food and aided them in catching it. The darker pigment allows the iguana to warm up quicker once entering/exiting the water. These helpful traits were passed down through several generations forming a population with flat tails and dark pigments. These adaptions have the iguanas advantages that they didn't have before. These iguanas didn't just create these helpful traits. It was already possessed in their genetic code and DNA. It didn't create these new traits. Natural selection states that over time these adaptions would "pile up" and combined with mutations generate a new species. This is where evolution is flawed. Theoretically if organisms had enough time, they could change into a new species. This is incorrect because DNA cannot change. It only can express traits already contained. Mutations can not change a species either. More mutations than not are harmful to an organism. Look at all the diseases and disorders in our world today. The amount of beneficial mutations needed to completely re-order DNA, which is one the most complex structures we can discuss, would be an enormous number to which would already be outnumbered by all of the mutations that harm the organism which reduce its chance for survival. Here is my source for Iguana information. (http://www.galapagos.org...).
The-Lone-Hunt

Con

The-Lone-Hunt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BoggyB

Pro

BoggyB forfeited this round.
The-Lone-Hunt

Con

The-Lone-Hunt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BoggyB

Pro

BoggyB forfeited this round.
The-Lone-Hunt

Con

The-Lone-Hunt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Seanburns 2 years ago
Seanburns
The-Lone-Hunt won in a landslide. He refuted all of the propositions arguments and simultaneously made a subtle insult at his intelligence as well. Well done, I am thoroughly impressed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.