The Instigator
MyWoodenHeart
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
BecauseCheetahs
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is most likely true

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 1 vote the winner is...
MyWoodenHeart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 864 times Debate No: 61770
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

MyWoodenHeart

Pro

This round is stricly for acceptance. I believe that evolution is most likely true.
BecauseCheetahs

Con

I accept I guess? My first argument is how is evolution any more likely than God creating us? There is not definitive proof we evolved from anything.
Debate Round No. 1
MyWoodenHeart

Pro


Hello and thank you for debating with me, BecauseCheetas. I’d like to introduce myself; my name is Daniel, and I am 12 years old. I hope we both can stay civil and polite. Since you presented your arguments in round one while I did not, I ask that you please do not participate in the final round to balance our turns out.

There are many different reasons why we believe in evolution. Of course, a deity could have created life, but there is no doubt in the scientific world that evolution has and is occurring. In fact, a Pew Research Center poll showed that close to 97% of scientists accept the Theory of Evolution.[1] There are many different pieces of evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. To name a few, vestigial structures, transitional fossils, ring species, and more. I’ll address three pieces of evidence in the favor of evolution.

Argument one: vestigial structures)

Vestigial structures are structures in an organism that has lost all or most of it’s original function in the course of evolution. To simplify that, let’s take human “goosebumps”, or piloerection. When humans were more “ape-like” we had much more hair covering our body, our piloerection abilities allowed us to make us appear larger to scare off predators and maintain our body heat.
Mark Pagel, head of the evolutionary biology group at the University of Reading in England explains that we may have lost fur because of dangerous insects and diseases that are easy to catch with body hair, or possibly we lost fur because of a hotter climate than the Chimpanzee population.[2] Even though we lost our fur, our piloerection function remained because of it’s neutral effects on our survival.

Some other examples of vestigial structures in our body are the appendix, 2 chromosome, and the pinky toe.

Argument two: ring species)

I think this wikipedia page words it rather nicely: “In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two ‘end’ populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, ‘end’ populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a ‘ring’”

Ring species strengthen the argument for evolution by showing an example of small characteristic changes slowly occurring until speciation.

An example of ring species would be the Ensatina salamanders in California that exhibit subtle morphological and genetic differences all along their range. They all interbreed with their immediate neighbors with one exception: where the extreme ends of the range overlap in Southern California, E. klauberi and E. eschscholtzii do not interbreed.

Argument three: observed instances of evolution)

Contrary to popular belief, evolution has in fact been observed. This URL contains a whole list with references of observed evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Thank you for debating with me. If you have any questions or couldn’t understood what I meant in any part of my argument, just ask in the comment section.

Sincerely,

MyWoodenHeart

[1] http://www.people-press.org...

[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...

[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...
BecauseCheetahs

Con

BecauseCheetahs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MyWoodenHeart

Pro

My arguments stand.
BecauseCheetahs

Con

BecauseCheetahs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 2 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
Cheyennebodie, you are totally wrong. Space travel was actually proven when Mohammad flew on a pony to heaven. Duh.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
Both statements were utterly ridiculous.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
myks.... The bible then knew something that we did not know for milleniums.And how about the satellite thing. Why not comment on that?
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
"When God took Elijah up in that chariot of fire, we now now that space travel is possible."
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
myks: Your god , science, has proven that the bible has validity.When God took Elijah up in that chariot of fire, we now now that space travel is possible. And when the book of revelation talks about the whole world seeing those two witnesses dead bodies lying in the streets of Jerusalem, technology has proven that was possible.I see God as being further ahead texchnologically when the bible was writtin than we are right now. But God is not so much interested in technology, but the thought and intent of the heart.
Posted by Snuphalem 2 years ago
Snuphalem
"There is not definitive proof we evolved from anything."

You've already lost Cheetahs you fool. There's more evidence supporting evolution than there is your story book.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
If anyone is interested in seeing the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" being used correctly, read "The Diversity of Life" by E.O. Wilson.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
UchichaMadara et al. are wrong in this instance. Like I said, would be akward to say the theory of evolution is a fact (interposition of two words that answer different questions), but saying that evolution is a fact is totally legitimate.

You'll find it hard to please everyone on this kind of debate, particularly people who want to weaken your position on evolution at the gate. Some will want you to specify if when you refer to evolution you're talking about evolution by natural selection or Lamarckism or some other form (they know you're talking about the former, they're taking you for a ride), others will ask you if you're talking about micro or macro evolution as though there was a quintessential difference (apart from time and the fact that the distinction allows ID proponents to pretend that their idea is compatible with change that happens within a human's lifetime [i.e. The harder stuff to pretend ain't so]) .

I would ignore all of it. You're particularly entitled to ignore it if no person who accepts the theory of evolution would themselves ask you to make that distinction ever.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 2 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
Evolution.
Posted by Nathan.apologetics 2 years ago
Nathan.apologetics
also is this debate about macro evolution or micro evolution
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MyWoodenHeartBecauseCheetahsTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture