The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Evolution is flawed

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,679 times Debate No: 11472
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)




Evolution is based on many small coincidences filled in with assumptions. For example, where does the turtle come from? Scientists deduct that it evolved from some sort of amphibian. Then where is the fossil evidence. In 200 years, ever since Darwin proposed his theory, and even before that, when fossils first were began to be found, no particular fossil(s) even suggested shell development.
Another animal that is very much doubted is the snake. Why would natural selection ever remove anything as useful as legs from a snake? In any scenario, having two legs is faster, more efficient, and easier.
Third, the relationship between human and chimp is definitely flawed. The scientist the analyzed human and chimp DNA sequence fragments picked up ones that already exhibited a high level of similarity. Sections that didn't line up were tossed out of the mix. Because normal people didn't have the tools and knowledge to analyze it themselves, the supposedly "fact" remains unchallenged. But recent studies indicate that the similarity may amount up to less than 86%- a long way off of the commonly used 98%.
My source for this is a magazine called Acts and Facts- and this was a June 2009 edition.

I would like to continue by bringing in my points.

My first assertion is simply that evolution has no real backbone. Darwin wasn't there for millions of years to see the process. He simply saw the Galapagos Islands' animals at the same time. I am not denying that minor adjustments were made to better suit survival, but large adaptations such as developing us humans from something as insignificant as a single cell of bacteria is slightly far-fetched to deduct from a couple of animals.

My second assertion is that there are no ancestor/dexcendnt relationships found. Evolution necessarily implies the concept of "descent from a common ancestor of ancestors.: Yet no ancestor/descendant relationship can be advocated with certainty based on the fossils. Indeed, the differences are obvious and make classification between types possible.

My third assertion is that basic types show stasis. Once a basic type appeared, it demonstrated a stasis. Individuals varied in appearance and whole populations varied over the generations to accommodate changing conditions as they "multiplied and filled" earths varied environments, but always they were fundamentally the same as the parent group. The fossil record features stasis as a dominant trend. It does not speak of major changes. Evolution, or the descent from a common ancestor model, demands that major changes visited every population. But this is the evolution "story," not the conclusion drawn from the fossils.

My fourth assertion is that most fossils are marine invertebrates. At least 95 percent of all animal fossils are of marine invertebrates. They are found in great variety, but all are well- designed for life in the sea. Some lived in high-energy, ner-shore environments, but others lived in the deep ocean, away from the pounding action of the waves. Among the vertebrates, most fossils are fish, again mostly marine creatures. Of the terrestrial fossils, by far most are plants. Land dwellers, such as the mammals and dinosaurs, are poorly represented in the fossil record. the majority of animals depicted on evolutionary fossil charts in textbooks, however, are land vertebrates. It is thought that a possible case for evolution can be made from thembut this does not accurately portray the real fossil record.

To summarize:
Combining all these major concepts, we see that the fossil recrd is a record quite different from that presented in support of evolution. Each basic plant and animal type appeared abruptly and fully functional, and then experiences stasis throughout its tenure. Each type was complex and distinct at the start, wiout having descended from some other ancestral type, partcularly from a less complex type. All basic types which have ever lived were presentat the start, and while some have subsequently gone extinct, no new basic typs have appeared since the beginiing. We have reason to believe substantially all basic forms which ever lived have been found as fossils. A generalule is that the fossils extend through a legthy stratigraphic range with little or no change. Most of e fossils are remains of marine invertebrates, found in catastrophic deposits, often in deposites with an incomplete ecosystem present. These predominately marine fossils are almost all found ont he continents, not in the ocean.

My sources:
Dr. Morris Ph.D.
Frank Sherwin, M.A.


Several issues right of the bat: asking "where did the turtle come from" or "why would a snake lose its legs" is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. In other words, simply because you can't imagine how or why something could have happened in a certain way doesn't mean that it couldn't have. Furthermore, there is new evidence regarding turtle evolution:

And, as you can see, there is no lack in explanations for why snakes could have "lost their legs":

The source for the chimp/human genome comparison in your article ( giving a percentage of only 86% is from 2003. Since the sequencing of the chimp genome wasn't completed until 2005, that figure is completely outdated. This is the study that led to the 90% + figure:

You also have to remember that according to evolutionary theory we did not evolve "from" chimpanzees as they now are. We and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor between 5 and 7 million years ago. [1] This also explains the apparent contradiction of genes being present in gorillas and humans but not in chimps: the common ancestor of all three had the gene, humans and gorillas retained it to the present time, and sometime after humans and chimps split the chimps lost it.

Your article also has several major flaws in reference to molecular biology. They claim that non-coding regions are "essential" to the proper functioning of cells and yet were left out of the analysis. Unfortunately, the "essential" components they are referring to are actually known as promoters, which initiate the transcription of a gene into a protein, and make up only a small percentage of the "junk DNA" that was dismissed, and for good reason. [2][3] The functionality of non-coding DNA is generally inferred from high degrees of similarity between species for certain sequences, which implies selection pressure on those sequences.[4] They seem to imply that non-functional regions are crucial to the analysis and that vast differences in such regions would be evidence against evolution. However this is absolutely not the case. If a given stretch of DNA has no physical effects on the organism possessing it, natural selection cannot act on it; it follows that any mutations occurring in this region of DNA will be free to accumulate since none of them are harmful. A mutation in a crucial gene, such as the sickle cell mutation in genes coding for hemoglobin, reduce fitness and are unlikely to spread. The sickle cell mutation itself is a fascinating case however- it is prevalent in parts of Africa where malaria is common because having one copy of it protects against the disease. Evolution in action!

To move on to your other contentions:

1. "no real backbone"

This is equivalent to the statement "I will believe it when I see it"; however, no one really lives by such a maxim. To illustrate, imagine you came home one day and your house was in complete disarray, things thrown to the ground, broken, and some things missing. Naturally, you would come to the conclusion that you had been robbed, correct? But, just like scientists were not "there to see" evolution, you were not there to see the robbery. It does not follow that the robbery did not occur or that your conclusion that it did occur is unwarranted.

You also attempt to draw a line between small changes and large changes. I assume this is the classic "microevolution" vs "macroevolution" argument. Unfortunately, this is a classic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. There is no fundamental difference between the two. Again, let me illustrate with an analogy. Imagine you are in New York; you are certain that a man cannot walk from New York to Canada. Observe this man take a single step towards the north. Frustrated, you admit that yes, he can take single steps, but it doesn't follow that he can walk to Canada. I ask you: what is a walk to Canada other than a very long series of northward steps? If you add several million of those small steps together, the man will eventually get to Canada. In the same way, if you add millions of small mutations together (ie millions of instances of microevolution) you get macroevolution- from a bacteria to a human. (note that there are many more mutations between a bacteria and a human than there are steps between New York and Canada).

2. "ancestor/descendant"

This is essentially the same argument as above. Because we cannot watch evolution occur step by step it doesn't occur. However, its obvious that we don't need to watch a process occurring step by step to extrapolate from the end result to the likely cause. I have already addressed this above.

3. "basic types show stasis"

Of course they do! Basic types are static by definition. A "type" is a grouping of certain characteristics that are similar. If you trace these groupings of characteristics through the fossil record you cannot find anything but "stasis"- because you are looking for things that stay the same over time.

4. "most fossils"

Indeed, most fossils found are of shelled marine invertebrates. The reasons for this are manifold. First of all, the majority of the earth's surface is water, so you would expect more life adapted to that environment. Second, these marine invertebrates are most often in the ideal conditions for fossilization. Being subject to the motions of the waves, they are deposited in layers of forming sedimentary rock. Being quickly buried, they are protected from the ravages of oxygen and decay. Their hard protein shells are easily mineralized and preserved, unlike soft tissue.[5][6] Land dwelling animals encounter such conditions much more rarely and are thus much less likely to fossilize. The fact that they are emphasized in school courses and such is because they tell us more than those other fossils. 50 fossils of organism X and 3 of organism Y garner the same attention from non-experts because they give the same information about 2 different evolutionary passages- the transition from pre-X to post-X and the transition from pre-Y to post-Y. Given the larger number of fossils, the X transition might be better understood than the Y one is, but except to the scientists that specifically study X or Y, that is no issue to the subject of evolution as a whole.

What would be an issue is if we discovered a fossil of excessive complexity at a time when such complexity could not yet have evolved. As JBS Haldane reportedly said when asked what would disprove evolution: "rabbits in the precambrian". [7]

Up to this point my opponent has evidenced nothing but a mangled understanding of what evolution claims and what the evidence actually is. Evolution is an extremely well researched scientific theory with multiple lines of research to support it. Incredulity is an inadequate ground to claim that one thing could not have evolved from another.

Debate Round No. 1


debateboy forfeited this round.


Hopefully debateboy will be back next round :/
Debate Round No. 2


debateboy forfeited this round.


guess not!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
Wow, I love how the YECs spout out of date creation "science". I mean if you're going to be a creationists at least keep up with their up to date nonsense.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
lol @ vote
Posted by belle 7 years ago
you forfeited two rounds, lied, and then v-bombed yourself?
not cool dude....
Posted by debateboy 7 years ago
sorry I forfeited. I was in Stratford for a debate tournament, I will post my third round speech, don't worry.
Posted by gcomeau 8 years ago
I have yet to view any debate on this subject and bring anything away from it from the "evolution is wrong" side other than the strong impression that the person making the argument holds very strong opinions on something they have studied very little, and this debate is no exception to the rule thus far.

I am having trouble finding a single statement in the entire opening argument that demonstrates that the author has an understanding of even the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory or the nature of the evidence in support of it.
Posted by mattrodstrom 8 years ago
And it's still broken... click on the link then copy and paste that last bit after it onto the end of the address.
Posted by mattrodstrom 8 years ago
Sorry the link was broken for the glass lizard.

Here it is:
Posted by mattrodstrom 8 years ago
yeah the legless one's still longer, but the Gecko's certainly "long" in it's own right.
Posted by mattrodstrom 8 years ago
yeah ok... see this legless lizard guy.

And compare to this gecko guy who's supposedly a (considerably) near relative.

Sure the legless one is much bigger generally, and so..longer... but you cant tell me you don't a fair similarity in proportion.
Posted by debateboy 8 years ago
mattrodstrom, I would like to point out that the snake didn't develop first into this long, windy thing with legs (that would, it first got rid of its legs and then grew longer.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 7 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 
Vote Placed by debateboy 7 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:70 
Vote Placed by belle 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06