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

Evolution is false.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 78089
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




1st round is acceptance.
2nt round is also acceptance. Just kidding, its arguments.
3rd round is arguments.
4th is more arguments.
I'm this guy.


Thanks Pro for this debate opportunity. To win this debate, I will have to show that evolution is not false.
Debate Round No. 1


An a opportunity it is.
Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory that has been all but proven WRONG, and most scientists KNOW it.
Evolution is a philosophical theory, NOT scientific fact.
It has been demonstrated that the biological mechanism allegedly responsible for evolution - chance mutation - does not increase genetic information, as molecules-to-man evolution would require. Rather, mutations result in a loss of information. This evidence from genetics provides perhaps the most devastating scientific argument to date against evolutionary theory.

Read -

Dr. Lee Spetner - "Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" (1998)
Phillip E. Johnson - "Darwin on Trial" (1991)
Two books written by a born-again Christian and a Creationist, two groups of people who provide very little basis to any argument they make.
There is no common ancestor between mankind and apes. It is a fairy tale. Modern genetics does not support the theory, and neither does the fossil record. Sorry - but evolution is not real.


Thanks again I'm looking forward to a good debate. Lets get to it, starting with a definition:

Evolution is a theory that states that evolutionary change comes through the production of variation in each generation and differential survival of individuals with different combinations of these variable characters. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.

Pro's first argument is that irrefutable scientific evidence shows that chance DNA mutations can not create an evolving chain of life from simple to more complex. This is a somewhat worrisome scientific position to take in my opinion. The real world is not that simple and science almost always contains elements of uncertainty. Sean Carroll, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, states:

"On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology." (1)

Here Professor Carroll speaks of a level of confidence, not of irrefutability. My favorite scientist of all time, Richard Feynman, weighs in on this:

"The first principal is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." (2)

"I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity this is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist" (2)

I will now counter Pro's first argument that DNA mutations can't create evolving chains of life. One way DNA mutations do just that is through neofunctionalization, a type of gene duplication event.

"Gene duplications are an essential source of genetic novelty that can lead to evolutionary innovation. Duplication creates genetic redundancy, where the second copy of the gene is often free from selective pressure — that is, mutations of it have no deleterious effects to its host organism. If one copy of a gene experiences a mutation that affects its original function, the second copy can serve as a 'spare part' and continue to function correctly. Thus duplicate genes accumulate mutations faster than a functional single-copy gene, over generations of organisms, and it is possible for one of the two copies to develop a new and different function." (3)

"Neofunctionalization, one of the possible outcomes of functional divergence, occurs when one gene copy, or paralog, takes on a totally new function after a gene duplication event." (4)

As far as examples of neofunctionalization in the real world, from the same wikipedia sources:

"Major genome duplication events can be quite common. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago. Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six copies of its genome." [3]

"The evolution of the antifreeze protein in the Antarctic zoarcid fish provides a prime example of Neofunctionalization after gene duplication.... After duplication one of the paralogs began to accumulate mutations that lead to the replacement of SAS domains of the gene allowing for further development and optimization of the antifreeze functionality. The new gene is now capable of noncolligative freezing-point depression, and thus is neofunctionalized. This specialization allows Antarctic zoarcid fish to survive in the frigid temperatures of the Antarctic Seas." [4]

Second, Pro states that "there is no common ancestor between mankind and apes", hence disproving evolution. First, a gap in the evolutionary chain does not disprove evolution, but rather would indicate an unknown discovery. When you look at the fossil records of the evolution of mammals, where there are hundreds of examples showing evolutionary chains, we don't dismiss the evidence because a gap exists elsewhere. A good analogy here would be the discovery of the elements of the periodic chart. In this case, gaps existed in the chart during the history of elemental discovery. Presence of these gaps did not refute the evidence presented by the chart itself, such as the arrangement by atomic mass, groupings by metals, gases, and what the qualities of the missing elements would be once discovered.

In addition, I would challenge Pro's assumption regarding a lack of a common ancestor. But first, a definition:

Common descent is the scientific theory that all living organisms on Earth descended from a common ancestor.

It does not state, necessarily, that "Humans share a common ancestor with modern apes that have ape-like features and dating back 6 million years". I could solve this riddle by stating the common ancestor is the fish (See below on fossils). The problem with my answer is not that it's wrong, but that it is not as detailed or definite an answer as we would like in order to match fossil and DNA records. Scientists in this area are trying to match fossil and DNA records based on assumed rates of mutations. However, this is a recent and evolving study. For example, recent evidence shows that the "common ancestor" may date back much further (12 million instead of 6 million years) than originally thought (5). The search for the exact details of the "common ancestor" is important not because the theory of evolution rests on it but because scientists are simply trying to further solidify these disciplines.

It's important that we not assume we have discovered all there is to know about evolution based on genetics and fossil research. Indeed, many important discoveries have been made in recent decades. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim either that we know all there is to know OR the presence of missing details is a sign that the overall theory is flawed.

Fossil evidence of evolution
The evidence for evolution in fossils is not only strong but has been ongoing for decades and thus has withstood the test of time and much peer review. In fact, the study of fossils predates Darwin's theory of evolution. The evolutionary tree is too large to display in detail in a single picture, but the following image shows the complexity:

However, it is both impractical and unnecessary to explain the whole tree in order to show that fossils support evolution. Instead, I will describe one particular case, that being the formation of what we now call our human "legs". From the American Geo sciences Institute web site:

"The possession of legs defines a group of vertebrate animals called tetrapods - as distinct from vertebrate animals whose appendages are fins, the fishes. Certain fishes are called 'lobe-finned,' because of the stout, bony supports in their appendages. Lobe-finned fish first appear in the fossil record in early Late Devonian time, about 377 mya. The bony supports of some lobe-finned fishes are organized much like the bones in the forelimbs and hind limbs of tetrapods: a single upper bone, two lower bones, and many little bones that are the precursors of wrist and ankle bones, hand and foot bones, and bones of the fingers and toes that are first known in Late Devonian amphibian-like animals from about 364 mya. These animals were the first tetrapods." (5)

I believe the scientific evidence for evolution, while not "irrefutable", is overwhelming.


Debate Round No. 2


Gravity is nothing more than a scientific theory, just like Evolution; gravity's theory has a huge mass of evidence pointing towards the legitimacy of the theory, or does it? Evolution is not the most likely possibility for how we currently are. Not the origin nor the process.
Now if you or another darwinist, like many others before you have done, wish to argued evolution, If you do wish to know the truth, simply ignore all the evidence that the current theory of evolution has accumulated is false. Where did these fossils come from? God put them here for no reason.
Why do we find ancient dead animals whose skeletons are somewhat different but significantly close in dna and structure to animals of the current age? I dont know. To challenge, or question this is just ridiculous. Surely this midpoint of Creationism and science is something that you could agree upon?
Something much more likely than the tales of evolution or any other Holy scripture (other than the bible) is not likely.
Even the title says that evolution is false. wtf case closed.
Smashing babies against rocks will make you happy.


I extend all my arguments from round 2 which Pro didn't challenge. The only new argument I can find from Pro in round 3 is this:

"Why do we find ancient dead animals whose skeletons are somewhat different but significantly close in dna and structure to animals of the current age?"

No specific example was given for me to refute, so I'll just provide these general responses from wikipedia (1):

Oftentimes, this argument involves confusing different taxonomic categories with individual species. For instance, it is often said that there were coelacanths millions of years ago, and coelacanths today. What this neglects to mention is that "Coelacanth" is the informal name of an entire order of fish, Coelacanthiformes, not just a specific species. The current genus and the two species within it, for instance, are not known in the "millions of years ago" fossil record. The modern species may well be similar sorts of creatures to those that lived millions of years ago, but the are clearly not the same unchanged species (or even the same genus).

Evolution does not predict any one rate at which major changes will happen to a given lineage, and in fact it strongly suggests that the rate of change will vary widely with different species in different environments.

Charles Darwin coined the phrase "living fossil" and suggested that species would have evolved slowly in the absence of competition.

Not all differences between species, such as coloration, behavior, or songs, will appear in the fossil record.

Evolution is continuous, and external appearance of an organism is no metric of it. Just because crocodilians today strongly resemble crocodilians of 50 million years ago does not mean that they could have interbred. It is possible that two species far removed from each other could evolve to become externally similar, if not identical. This happens particularly often with insects, and is called convergent evolution.


Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
I wonder if Pro knows what the word theory means in scientific terms
Posted by ax123man 2 years ago
Have you tried therapy? I'd stay away from pharmaceuticals. I don't trust them. I'm certain smashing babies against rocks is ineffective.
Posted by Gogert777 2 years ago
At the end of the debate, I got just what I wanted. My laugh.
Posted by ax123man 2 years ago
yea, I was having all kinds of issues with http 500 errors the last couple days. Maybe that's why they were down today. Seems ok now.
Posted by Gogert777 2 years ago
An unexpected error occurred, wtf.
Posted by Gogert777 2 years ago
ahhh!! cant post arguments! stupid site!
Posted by Donderpants 2 years ago
Sigh. I'm too sick of these ones on evolution to even write a scathing remark on how unoriginal this is.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheSatiricalAnarchist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Quite honestly, it's like Pro came to this debate with the intent of losing; they presented little-to-no evidence, had the bare minimum of arguments, and didn't at all seem prepared for this challenge. I congratulate Con.
Vote Placed by SeekinTruth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Really disappointed in Pro, I was looking forward to this debate and he made it a joke. Pro is representing the Creationist community terribly, and fulfilling all ignorant Christian stereotypes. Con obviously wins this debate, although he wasn't claiming too strongly that Evolution is true, but rather that it is a likely theory. Such is the modern scientific method. Despite my wishing it weren't so, Con blew Pro out of the water.