The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Evolution is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,805 times Debate No: 28247
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

I have new evidence against evolution. Run scared or stand up and debate!

First round is acceptance only.
Microsuck

Con

I'm looking forward to this "new evidence" that you have.

Remember these definitions:

Theory - A well supported, conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, data, and observations and explains them in a coherent way (Fairbanks, 2012)

Evolution: genetic changes over many generations ultimately result in the emergence of new and different species from a single ancestral species”. (Fairbanks, 2012)
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

Thanks.

1.Glue
The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution.

2. Law of large numbers.

The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this

3. Flagellum

" The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2]

4. Mates

All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts.

5. Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction.

6. Chromosomes

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosome while apes have 24. Evos say there has to be a fusion. Yet go back before the apes we should have its ancestor with 25 pars and its ancestor with 26 so on and so on. Yet we don"t see this.

[1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006).
[2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for your swift opening arguments.

1. Glue

I have not been able to find any other reference to the book that you cited. Also, can you please tell me which molecule holds glue together? I have not been able to find the name of the molecule.

In the comment section, you alluded to 12Al, which is a non-existent isotope of Aluminum.

2. Law of Large Numbers

The Law of Large Numbers is a theorem that describes the results of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.[1]

I am at a total loss to see how this contradicts common descent. Can you please expand on this in the next round? My opponent simply states “evolution directly contradicts this” without explaining why or giving any evidence.

3. The Flagellum

My opponent argues from irreducible complexity which is the argument that , in the words of Michael Behe:“A single system of several well-matched interacting parts contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts cause the system to effectively cease functioning.”[2]

So, how did the flagellum evolve?

“Ian Musgrave suggested in interesting evolutionary pathway for the bacteria flagellum: First he casually points out that the major components of the flagellum, the filament, the hook, the rod and the motor are hollow. He then noted that there are major structural similarities between the major components of the bacterial flagellum and a type of bacterial protein secretion system called the type III secretory systems. The type III secretory system has a rivet identical to the rod of the flagellum. The switching/torque generation system also has homologs in type III secretary systems. Some type III secretory system even have tubular structures attached to the rod which resembles the filament of the flagellar system! In type III secretary system proteins are exported through the hollow motor ring and rod! Homology studies have also shown the proteins of the type III secretary system and the flagella are related, in fact in some bacteria these proteins are identical to each other!”

“Given these clues, he then suggested how the flagellum could have evolved. First the SMC ("Motor") rod pore is evolved forming the simplest secretory system. Then the proto-flagellum arose as part of the protein secretion structure. Finally an ion pump which initially was used for something else (such as keeping ionic cell balance) was incorporated into this structure which gives it perhaps some weak motility. This then is a case where a structure originally meant for some other purpose (protein secretion) evolved to a point where it could be used for another entirely different purpose (motility).”[3]

4. Sexual Reproduction

This is not just a matter of being sexual or asexual because there are several intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is more than possible.[4] The earliest steps involved single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information, not necessarily distinct sexes. Male and females would most definitely not have evolved independently. Sex, by definition, involves both genders.

5. Thermodynamics

I will copy and paste my rebuttal from a previous debate that I have done[5].

This is such a common argument against evolution and yet it is flawed in so many ways: First, it misunderstands what the Law of Thermodynamics is; secondly, it misrepresents what evolution is.

First, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The concept of entropy is defined as heat (in calories or Btu’s) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above “absolute zero”, the coldest temperature that can exist. Consequently, heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease.

Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. I am at a complete loss to understand how this violates the Law of Thermodynamics. Firstly, the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight has low entropy and shines on the Earth and heat has higher entropy radiates off. This can, and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. Secondly, this confuses the difference between entropy and disorder. They are not one in the same. Although at times the two correspond, at times order increases as entropy increases. Finally, in a closed system, pockets of left over entropy form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. This happens on earth all the time.

Conclusion: My opponent’s criticism via the Law of Thermodynamics fails to understand what Thermodynamics is and misrepresents the Theory.

5. Chromosomes

I’m at a total loss as to how you came to the conclusion that because there was a fusion, we have to go back infinitely, until my opponent clarifies, I’ll let Dr. Ken Miller explain in the video to the right.



[2] Behe, M. “Darwin’s Black Box”

[4] Kondrashov, Alexey S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435.

Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. Glue

Acrylate. We know by how glue wears out that it cannot be millions of years.

2. Law of large numbers.

This contradicts evolution because evolution says over time animals will become more and more diverse and look different from its ancestor. Contradicting evolution. The law is not just with trails or tests.

3. The Flagellum

Weak response. Creating a possible explanation for an impossible event is good science fiction not science. The big flaw here is with the ion pump. You just assume it works without showing its origin and assume it's fully functional. Also the explanation is vague and lacks anything that can test their hypothesis.

4. Sexual Reproduction

Con uses hand waving and jumping jacks to run from this one. Con claims there's intermediate stages to a male and female. We know however to reproduce there must be a male and female.

The first dog just evolved, if a female didn't evolve with it, then they dog will be the only and last dog. Moreover there would need to be whole populations having the same exact random mutations to prevent inbreeding.

5. Thermodynamics

" First, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The concept of entropy is defined as heat (in calories or Btu"s) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above "absolute zero", the coldest temperature that can exist. Consequently, heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease."

Creationwiki writes

"This is a nearly accurate statement of the 2nd law, although entropy is actually a measure of unusable energy, not useful energy. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is:

http://creationwiki.org...

S is entropy.

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder.

Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder."

" Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"

True, however microevolution is consistent with the second law. But macroevolution would need a decrease in entropy. Just about all the observed heritable variations show an increase in entropy.

"Firstly, the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight has low entropy and shines on the Earth and heat has higher entropy radiates off. This can, and will power local decreases in entropy on earth"

Well some do say the earth IS a closed system[1]. You claim that the second law only applies to closed systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University (now Sanford) states:

" there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. " There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [2]

6. Chromosomes

That video has been debunked
http://youtube.com...

It's simple. For there to be a fusion in us and the apes, there has to be a fusion in everyother related creatures. It's special pleading to claim it can only happen in apes and humans.

1. http://www.uvm.edu...
2. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.
Microsuck

Con

Thank you. I am having a difficult time deciphring your BS so forgive me if I miss something or misrepresent your position.


1. Glue

The idea that Propene has a half life, and that it cannot be produced anew in nature is utterly false. Acrylate is produced from propene which is produced from methane, which is produced from bacteria in nature, particularly from digestation of cellulose by bacteria. None of the elements which compose Acrylate are unstable in any way; carbon, hydrogen, and Nitrogen as found in nature are all stable. [1. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org... ]

2. The Law of Large Numbers.

You state that over time, children becoming different from their ancestory is the key facet of evolution. Even "living fossils" have this trate and would not be genetically compatible with their ancestors, an effort forced particularly in small populations. When it comes to outward appearance, if something is strongly adaptive for its environment then its appearnce is unlikely to change; it already has the major physical trates that work. Such is evidence in favor of evolution, not against it. Talk Origins notes:

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago. [2 http://www.talkorigins.org...;]

Irreducible Complexity:
If something can be shown to be possibly reducible, it cannot be irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity requires that thing cannot be reducible.


Sexual Reproduction:

Differentiation events do not at the time of the event produce a new species. Reference ring species. Further, you have not discredited my source, and thus your claims are mere assertion.


Entropy

The CreationWiki commits the fallacy of equvivocation between "uniform randomness of kinetic energy" and "randomness of the particles in the system", which are completely different things. Everything you says hinges on that equivocation. Given the presence of that equivocation, his source is suspect. He might as well be arguing that there's Trouble in River City, and that starts with T that rhymes with P which stands for Pool...

YouTube Video

It has no sources whatsoever, and the creator is of dubious credents; even as an obvious argument from authority, it is particularly dubious. The video essentially claims unprecidented mobility of telomeres and centromeres, and of other DNA markers, but does not explain why the redundant centromeres and central telomeres of the merged chromosome 2 are in just the right place to resemble merged chromosomes from other primates, not to mention they also contain all the other major features of the original chromosomes in all the same places, save for the merge.
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. Glue. God"s little proof.

Wikipedia isn't a good source. That's all the source you have. Your Propene thing is irrelevant. As were dealing with the Acrylate.

2. The Law of Large Numbers.

Some animals still change rapidly from their ancestor. Just because some don't doesnt mean all so.

3. Irreducible Complexity

This isn't how Behe defined IC. You evade my argument!

4. Sexual Reproduction

You evade. Ring species have nothing to do with anything. A fully evolved dog needs to have a fully evolved female dog. Ring species only deal with created kinds.

5 Second law

Wrong. Its not an equivocation. You haven't shown it is. You evade my argument that top experts in the field saying the second law applies to open systems too.

6. Chromosomes.

You evade. You go after the video in a fail way. Ignoring the argument. Fail.
Microsuck

Con

1. Glue

Poisoning the well fallacy from my opponent [1 http://www.fallacyfiles.org...;]

2. LLN

My opponent still has yet to show how the LLN disproves evolution and I have adaquetly shown that evolution=/=all animals will morphologically change.

3. Irreducible Complexity

I did not evade your argument, you evaded mine. I showed how your example was not irreducable complex.

4. Sexual Reproduction.

Already shown.

5. Second Law
6. Chromosomes

If anyone reads my arguments, they will see that I have answered the arguments in full. My opponent needs to elaborate on the chromosome argument as I pointed out in round 3.
Debate Round No. 4
Anti-atheist

Pro

My opponent"s last round was laughable and sad. All of it is evasion and running scared. He doesnt back up his rebuttals with "Glue argument".

He doesn't even touch upon the Second Law (because he knows its too good)
Microsuck

Con

Microsuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
errya, hate is a strong word, I dont hate religious people because I dont hate victims. Religious people are victims of lies spewed by religious leaders.

WAKEUP 2:2--Cornell University is a very respectable institution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, ALL AGREE with this, A Very brief guide for the curious and confused...

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu... :)
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Yeah..pro got killed.
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
He has changed his account to "DoubtingDave"
Posted by errya 3 years ago
errya
noooo! I wanted to debate Microsuck at some point!
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Why did MS close account? Is it because I owned him in debate and he's afraid to show his face again?
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Yeah devent wheres the evidence
Posted by errya 3 years ago
errya
And maybe you should provide some evidence. Otherwise no one will take you seriously.
Posted by errya 3 years ago
errya
Why do you hate us religious people?
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
errya, it doesnt matter what you were trying to do. You are taking a quote out of context like religious fakers do.

There is nothing that makes the theory of evolution fall apart in 2013. Evidence is beyond obvious.

Save your weak attempts to refute science. Religious humans poison the earth with ignorance and there is no gray area here.

Religious people are holding us back as a species!

Ignorance and outdated ideals do not grow a culture. Learning and growing intellectually make mankind a more effeective species :)

Grow up jesus freaks youre ruining everything and you are lying losers as is apparent in errya's misuse of a geniuses quote :)
Posted by errya 3 years ago
errya
devient.genie, by that quote I was not trying to suggest that Darwin doubted his own theory, but simply to reinforce the fact that if such an instance was found, the Theory of Evolution would collapse.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
Ron-Paul
Anti-atheistMicrosuckTied
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: Counter.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman
Anti-atheistMicrosuckTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: One of his few thrashings of an opponent.