The Instigator
AnthonyR
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DrFuzenstein
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Evolution is more likely than intelligent design to account for our modern selves.

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...
DrFuzenstein
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 74525
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

AnthonyR

Pro

Evolution has many supporting factors that, in weighing all of the ideas on the origin of life, push it above all of the other origin points. I am not saying that it is one hundred percent undeniably the only source, but the margin between it and the next best thought (intelligent design) is quite great when one looks at every bit of information from every possible point of view and comes to a conclusion without a predetermined belief in this or that. One should not look at something as an absolute truth, as those are extremely rare in any subject, but base their personal beliefs on careful and thoughtfull analysis from every angle through all others beliefs and work to make our own conclusion. When one goes through these steps without already having an answer in mind, I strongly believe that they would agree on the point that evolution is far more likely. If we look at the anatomical makeup of the human body, it seems to me that the vertebrae are compressed more than they should be, but have been decompressing slowly over the past few hundred years or so, and that is simply caused by the need for our vertebrae gain a a greater span between each other to account for our growth into a bipedal animal. Being able to observe fossils from thousands to millions if years ago has given us such a great span of life and growth to study that we can almost watch the history of evolution play out before out very eyes. It is quite a wondrous thing on its own that believing in intelligent design is a downplay on the fantastic greatness of nature.
DrFuzenstein

Con

I accept your challenge.

Firstly I would like to distinguish macro-evolution from micro-evolution. As you probably already know, macro-evolution is generally what the theory of evolution refers to. It is the change from one species to another over a long period of time. Micro-evolution is the small changes in a species that allows the species to adapt to its environment; commonly referred to as natural selection. But from this point on, I will simply refer to macro-evolution as the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution pokes several holes in reason. The first of which is its natural opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which basically states that all systems, if left to themselves, move from a state of order to disorder. This universal law completely contradicts the theory of evolution which claims that complex beings evolved from single-celled organisms.

A common theory about the origin of life is the primordial soup. I won't go into detail with this term as I am certain that you are already familiar with it. The basic theory is that all the necessary elements for life to exist were in one pool of "soup", and by chance, everything came together in the exact formula for life to spring up. This theory has already been disproven scientifically by Sir Fred Hoyle. "Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia[aliens] was one in 10^40,000"[1]. Mathematicians tell us that if an event has less than a 1 in 10^50 chance then it is scientifically impossible. Now Hoyle did entertain the idea of aliens being the origin of life on Earth, and that is a common theory among evolutionists. But this theory only poses more questions. Where did alien life originate? Where are they now? This is an entirely different debate though.

Moving on, I will propose an argument for intelligent design. Intelligent design is observable in everyday life. Architecture, machinery, clothing, etc; all the proponents have been brought together to craft something, not by random chance, but by individuals or organizations. A pile of bricks will not make itself into a sturdy wall without a human there to build it. Now if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, intelligent design is not such a far fetched idea. To say that anything happens by complete random chance is non sequitur. Cause and effect is a law of the universe that can never be attributed to dumb luck. Events that we label as "chance" are simply too difficult for our senses to determine the outcome, so we use chance to make meager decisions like deciding which ice cream flavor to buy.

Intelligent design can explain many things that the theory of evolution cannot. Consciousness is something evolutionists have been trying to understand for ages without any success. Why does only the human race have consciousness? Monkeys and humans have a 99% similar DNA structure, so why don't they have consciousness? Maybe the extraterrestrials or God gave humans a consciousness so that humans would be special and have dominion over the Earth. Of course you cannot disprove the existence of consciousness in monkeys or other animals, but I think that if they did have consciousness, they would make a greater effort to organize and/or communicate with humans.

Maybe there is a God who created all organic and non-organic material in the universe. Maybe extraterrestrials sparked life in the primordial soup and guided evolution along. Intelligent design is prominent in both of these theories, but in any case, there seems to be more evidence surrounding intelligent design than the theory of evolution.

I look forward to your reply.

Source(s): http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AnthonyR

Pro

AnthonyR forfeited this round.
DrFuzenstein

Con

I am disappointed that my opponent failed to post his argument this round, so I will not post one this round either.
Debate Round No. 2
AnthonyR

Pro

AnthonyR forfeited this round.
DrFuzenstein

Con

I win...?
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by drag0vien 1 year ago
drag0vien
DrFuzenstein seems to have a misunderstanding of what the second law of thermodynamics is. He says in ALL systems entropy would increase but that's only the case for isolated systems. Earth is a closed system.
Also the simplest self replicating peptide's chance of forming is about 1 in 10^40.
Intelligent design? Why did God add vestigial telomeres in the middle of chromosome 2, and a vestigial centromere for that matter? (This also helps in showing that evolutionary process are accountable for our modern selves since the only explanation for chromosome 2 is the fusion of chromosomes.)
And are you aware of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve? In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it around seven times longer than it needs to be. So much for intelligent design... Evolution would explain this flaw better than a deceptive God.
Also your point is invalid. Creating a brick wall is not a natural process, and it's not that a pile of bricks will not make itself into a sturdy wall, it will make the most basic wall that can self replicate, then evolve into a sturdy wall over a long period of time. So the brick analogy is not accurate.
Lastly you mention the origin of consciousness as a point but just because we don't know, it does not mean God. Well, don't know yet. We didn't know how the universe originated and people thought it was God. Now we know that it was the big bang.
Good luck to both.
Posted by AnthonyR 1 year ago
AnthonyR
FinalFan: I have some knowledge in the fields, but I am by no means an expert on anything, merely an observer. Also, Darwins theory explains everything very well, there aren't many holes in the theory that cannot be proven. But as far as accepting anything as a true fact is rather difficult as we can never know with absolute certainty, I am however a strong supporter of evolution, as I have stated, in terms of likeliness.

DrFuzenstein: Macroevolution is the main point here. One of my references may have been more on a microevolutionary scale but that was simply a small supporting fact. Also on the point of macroevolution, there are very little to no holes in theory. I suspect we will be diving in to everything a bit further 8n the coming days.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Darwinian's theory of Evolution through natural selection! Pretty much fills the gap and satisfies! These holes you speak of.. Do they retain your focus? Its possible you are not allowing yourself to see the bigger picture!
Posted by DrFuzenstein 1 year ago
DrFuzenstein
Are you talking about macro-evolution or micro-evolution? Micro-evolution has been undeniably proven while macro-evolution still has many holes in its theory.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Anthony: Are you familiar with Phylogenetics, Linean Taxonomy, or Cladistics? These will be an ace up your sleeve if you have discovered that they provide an elegant framework to help understand evolution!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
AnthonyRDrFuzensteinTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by theisticscuffles 1 year ago
theisticscuffles
AnthonyRDrFuzensteinTied
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: It appears that Con cited at least one source but Pro did not. There were some interesting arguments made by Con (Macro vs. Micro Evolution) and others but Pro did not respond to those even though he had opportunity to do so.