The Instigator
Mike-the-wise-guy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aran55633
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Evolution is impossible to prove.

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...
Aran55633
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 77226
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

First round is for acceptance. The BoP is on the con. They must prove logically, and scientifically that Darwinian evolution is in fact a reality. They must also provide examples of Darwinian evolution (change from one 'kind' to another. Kind as in family such as the cat family, tigers, house cats, and lions). If the pro cannot provide an observable example of Darwinian evolution, they forfeit the debate.
Aran55633

Con

I accept.

Considering the nature of this debate, what with me, as Con, having the BoP, and also considering the fact that this will have been my first debate on DDO, that the voters base their decision more on the strength of our respective arguments than on the style with which we present our cases.

I intend to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that life evolves in exactly the manner asserted by the Theory of Evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

Mike-the-wise-guy forfeited this round.
Aran55633

Con

Well, that is unfortunate... I was hoping to engage in robust debate. I sincerely hope my opponent submits an argument for the next round.

But I am the one with the burden of proof, so I will state my case.

1.) The recurrent laryngeal nerve represents some of the strongest evidence available to contemporary evolutionary biologists.

https://m.youtube.com... A video, featuring Dr. Richard Dawkins, an authority on this subject, discussing the laryngeal nerve.

The point is very simple; if all the animals which possess a recurrent laryngeal nerve were individually designed by some sort of creator, why were they designed with a recurrent laryngeal nerve?

Creationists cannot provide an explanation, but this is exactly the sort of situation that evolutionary theory predicts. And the scientific answer is very simple: the laryngeal nerve was positioned on the "wrong" side of the heart in our fish ancestors, and so, as the heart pulled away from the brain in tetrapods, it pulled the laryngeal nerve along with it. This has resulted in animals with a VERY long laryngeal nerve. [1]

2.) From non-avian theropods to birds.

The transition from non-avian dinosaurs to neornithes is well-documented. This theory was first proposed by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1868, and the evidence has only ever become more compelling.

Hundreds of synapomorphies have been demonstrated. These include the wishbone, retroverted pelvis, air sac systems, feathers, and more, including behaviors. [2] [3]

This is all I have time for right now. Even if my opponent does not submit an argument for the next round, I may choose to expand upon my position.

[1] Wedel, M.J. 2012. A monument of inefficiency: The presumed course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in sauropod dinoW22;
saurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 57 (2): 251"256. http://www.app.pan.pl...
[2] Brusatte, Stephen L. (2012) Dinosaur Paleobiology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. pp 24-26.
[3] Chiappe, L. M. (2007) Glorified Dinosaurs: The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Debate Round No. 2
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

Mike-the-wise-guy forfeited this round.
Aran55633

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

Mike-the-wise-guy forfeited this round.
Aran55633

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Mike-the-wise-guy

Pro

Mike-the-wise-guy forfeited this round.
Aran55633

Con

The kinds.

All animals retain features from earlier forms, and so show evidence of common descent.

For example, what is a human? A human can be described as being a hominid, an ape, a primate, a placental, a mammal, a synapsid, an amniote, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a chordate, a deuterostome, and a eukaryote, among other labels. At every step, as our ancestors became more derived from the earlier forms, while additional traits were added on, there were many traits which were retained (those features which distinguish each of these "kinds" from the other "kinds") because evolution takes what is there and adds to it; it doesn't do radical redesigns.

Then there's embryology.

When you look at a human embryo, it resembles a fish embryo. In fact, all vertebrates start out similar to embryonic fish.

Then it resembles an amphibian embryo. And then a reptile embryo. And then it gains a thick coat of hair which is retained in the young of other apes but not humans. And then it is born.

This is also the course of our ancestry; from fish to humans through all of these various forms. Why the correlation? Because, again, evolution takes what's already there (and already works) and adds to it. Some things do change, sometimes to the point where you cannot recognize the shared ancestry of those traits (hence this debate over evolution), but many features are retained.

What passes for logic among Creationists.

Does the assertion that this divine being created the first life, in the form of single-celled organisms, more than 3.5 billion years ago, then waited about 3 billion years before creating the first chordates, then another 300 million years before creating the first mammals, and then another 200 million years before creating the first humans, seem tenable?

Does the assertion that life as it exists now came about as a result of multiple successive waves of extinction and creation, wherein the design of these new animals show obvious signs of having been derived from those earlier forms, launched by a "benevolent" and "intelligent" creator (Why design millions of doomed animal species over billions of years? They are designed and then allowed (or even made) to go extinct, only to be replaced them with new animals?), seem reasonable?

Closing statements.

As judge John Jones, a conservative, churchgoing republican put it when passing down his ruling in favor of evolution in the case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District,

"the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy."[1]

Judge Jones understood.

Creationism can put forward NO testable hypotheses, whereas evolution can put forth innumerable testable hypotheses, many of which have already been validated.

Creationism cannot provide a compelling explanation for any of the points I have brought up. Evolution does.

Evolution provides answers to questions. Religion provides an answer that you're not supposed to question.

The Theory of Evolution is a well-established scientific theory, and it is a fact that evolution occurs.

I hope that I can, at some point, have a proper debate with Con. I would be interested to see what arguments he would make.

[1] https://www.bu.edu...
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Aran55633 1 year ago
Aran55633
Selective breeding absolutely is evolution. Genetic manipulation... That would depend on exactly what you mean. Actually going in and changing the genetic information ourselves probably couldn't be described as evolution.
Posted by jollyroger 1 year ago
jollyroger
Would genetic manipulation and selective breeding be evolution? More to the point, would it make for another debate? Good comments all...
Posted by Couchsessel 1 year ago
Couchsessel
Evolution itself is a fact. It does happen, because it's a logical conclusion to the existence of mutations and natural selection.
The theory that evolution - and only evolution is responsible for all life we see on earth today is not provable. It is possible, yes, but there is no way to disprove that it was God who just made it look like evolution (because lolz.)
however, it doesn't have to e proved. Due to Occam's Razor evolution is way more probable than any other theory of creation, thus before you can actually disprove evolution, every other theory has no right to be.
Posted by slobeachboy 1 year ago
slobeachboy
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that life forms evolved over time on this planet (and still are) and any unbiased, intelligent, educated, person knows this. So, there is no point debating this aspect of evolution because it has already been proved. There is some question as to what kicked the whole process off though. Darwin"s theory of course holds that it was just a spontaneous chemical reaction. And if we are all merely intelligent animals then this is probably the case. If we are spiritual beings however who inhabit physical bodies in order to experience the physical universe then it was probably we ourselves who started the ball rolling billions of years ago (God or religion has got nothing to do with it). From a purely scientific (and purely rational) standpoint there is nothing particularly "incredible" or unlikely about either possibility. Someday science will advance enough to know for sure but in the meantime there is no real point in worrying about it.
By the way, it"s impossible to "prove" a scientific truth to a person whose psychological make-up prevents him from ever accepting that truth no mater how compelling the evidence supporting that truth may be.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Giving BoP to Con is not logically fallacious if the revolution was that evolution is false (since Con would have the BoP to prove evolution).

The thing is, by the looks of the debate, the resolution should have been that. The resolution "Evolution is impossible to prove" is simply derived from Pro injecting his personal bias onto the resolution.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
Horrible BOP setup. Furthermore, the topic is "Evolution is impossible to prove.", but you seem to want to debate the truthfulness of it. Those are two different things.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Giving the full BOP to Con is logically fallacious. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Mike-the-wise-guyAran55633Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Mike-the-wise-guyAran55633Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct to Con. Also Pro never provided a single argument due to their forfeits, which means that all of Con's arguments were essentially dropped, and remained standing towards the end of the debate. Sources were only used by Con.