The Instigator
Dr_Obvious
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
LogicalLunatic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is not a proven fact.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Dr_Obvious
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 59543
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Dr_Obvious

Pro

I see a lot of people, on this site, claiming that evolution is a scientific fact.

I disagree.

Con must provide scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolution. Evolution, for this debate, will be defined as descent with modification.

To clarify, con must provide proof that life can add chromosomes to it's DNA, through mutations, thus evolving into another kind of life.

Kind, for this debate, will be defined as felines, canines, birds...etc.

For this debate, adaptation is not considered evolution. Adaptation is the expression of genetic traits that already exist in DNA, and is not relevant to this debate.

Con has the burden of proof, and will present his opening argument, along with his acceptance. I will add my closing argument at the beginning of round four, which will conclude the debate; with a total of three rounds. The second half of round four will not be used by con.

Do not accept this debate, then try to change any of the ground rules. Doing so will be a automatic forfeit by con. If you wish to discuss changes to the debate format, do so BEFORE you accept.
LogicalLunatic

Con

Eh. Why not? I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate. This may sound strange to my opponent, but I feel that most Creationists do not quite understand the Theory of Evolution and thus they underestimate it. Hopefully through this debate I can show you what you are up against, so that you can get smarter with your arguments and learn to build a stronger case for Creation. Then again, perhaps I'll be the one who gets taught a lesson.
So, shall we begin?

Explanation of the Theory of Evolution:
Long ago (according to Evolution Scientists) there was an amoeba. That amoeba reproduced a ton. Eventually, an amoeba was born that had a gene that was different. Now, this took quite some time, as such mutations are likely to be harmful or even deadly. But nonetheless such an amoeba appeared, and it had one good gene. This one amoeba did multiply and pass on its mutant gene to its offspring. Now, the original kind amoeba which did not have the mutation was still around, and this species coexisted with the mutant species of amoeba. Then, one of the mutant amoebae was born with yet another beneficial mutation. And so it passed on its genes to its own offspring. The amoebae with no mutations, the amoebae with one mutation, and the amoebae with two mutations all existed at once.
This cycle continued, with new complex forms arising. Finally, an amoeba was born which had so many passed on mutations that it was no longer an amoeba. It was an entirely different organism. And so it went. After billions of years this cycle caused increasingly complex species of animal life to emerge. Eventually humans came onto the scene.

According to the Theory of Evolution, that is how all life on Earth came to be (though I admit that my explanation was still quite simplified). Now, allow me to explain what a mutation is.

When a lifeform reproduces, it passes on its genes to its offspring. In asexual reproduction it pretty much makes a copy of itself. But let's take a computer. A computer copies a bunch of letters onto a piece of paper. After copying the same paper enough times, eventually one will be made that is accidentally not quite right. It looks a little different than the others. You copy more papers from this slightly flawed copy, and eventually you will end up with a copy that is also not quite the same as the flawed copy. This is what a mutation is. Mutations have the potential to be beneficial or unbeneficial. It was the beneficial mutations that ultimately ended up as increasingly complex life forms. The harmful mutations caused inferior offspring, a line of species that would be too weak to survive in the long term.

Evidence of mutation happens all around us; people with Albinism and Down Syndrome are mutants, in a sense. Whatever deviates from the Genes that you're supposed to have is a mutation.

Think about it: mutations happen. Mutations are the key ingredient to evolution. There are also countless forms of animals, which are further evidence of the process of countless mutations, beneficial and unbeneficial.

I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Dr_Obvious

Pro

I specifically asked for SCIENTIFIC evidence for evolution. My opponent has offered none. He didn't even provide any sources.

Well. Here's my evidence.

(1) "Darwin experimented with birds, and lots of scientists today have spent decades doing observational science by breeding fruit flies, and other kinds of animals. Yet all the results have shown that it is not possible to break the DNA code barrier and create a new kind of animal.

After breading fruit flies for over 100 years:

Some get larger,

Some get smaller,

Some get weaker,

Some get stronger,

Some change color,

But all are still fruit flies.

The typical size of a fruit fly is 1/8 inch and you may get a fly as large as 1/4 inch but you will never get one that is the size of a horse. This is because the DNA code barrier prevents anything more than superficial changes. Even if you did get a 1/4 inch fruit fly and left it in its natural environment the population will revert back to its normal size within a few generations. Un-natural selection (human intervention) can accentuate many different characteristics, but that selection is limited to the genetic information that already exists.

If your container full of DNA does not contain the information to create feathers, then you and all of your descendants will never have feathers. No amount of selection can create new genetic information."

After all the decades of breeding by scientists, there has never been a new kind of life created. So, if scientists can't breed new kinds of life, what makes anyone thing that it can happen naturally?

(2) "The Myth of Beneficial Mutations

Mutation occurs at a rate of one for every ten million cell duplications. This is an insignificant number when compared to 100 trillion cells in a human body. Thus, the chance of having a couple of cells with a mutated form for every gene is possible without any noticeable effect. The reproduction system is a simple and powerful information system within the DNA molecule and it is a very stable system for transmitting that information. Mutations are very rare.

Researchers have by means of genetic breeding, changed a two-wing fruit fly into a four-wing fruit fly. The four-wing fruit fly consistently reproduces four-winged fruit flies. But although a new species has been produced, it is not a new "kind." The mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. As a matter of fact, the four-winged fruit fly is a weakened form. The second set of wings do not help the fruit fly; they actually get in the way. Its ability to take flight is dangerously hindered. Having been selectively bred in the laboratory, this species will also not survive without the caring assistance of researchers. This is a poor example of evolution by mutation. The bottom line is that mutations always weaken an organism and never change it into something else. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly.

Beneficial Mutations

Sickle Cell Anemia is often presented as an example of a favorable mutation. This is because red blood cells carry a sickle cell hemoglobin mutation that resists malaria. Although it resists malaria, 25 percent of those who have this mutant gene can still get the disease. Many have a hard time calling this a beneficial mutation when it brings with it a 25 percent chance of death. Sickle cell anemia causes a sickle shape hemoglobin molecule that bonds to another producing an enlarged molecular structure that cannot pass through the capillary walls. This condition occurs when the oxygen supply is low. How can a diseased hemoglobin molecule that was processed with incorrect information in the DNA be called a benefit to any body? This defect itself can kill a person.

No New Information
A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase. The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes. Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.
- See more at: http://www.creationstudies.org... "

There are two things you must realize about mutations. There are few, if any beneficial mutations, and mutations do not add new information. These are observable scientific facts, and directly contradict the theory of evolution.

(1) http://sixdays.org...
(2) http://www.creationstudies.org...
LogicalLunatic

Con

Honestly, I was kind of hoping that my opponent would win this one. His arguments have been quite compelling for a newer and less experienced member. I concede victory to my opponent and I thank him for this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr_Obvious

Pro

I know exactly what you're going through. It was a rude awakening, for me, when I first tried structured debates. You need to do some research and include links to your sources. There are many websites that give advice on how to debate. I hope to see you improve, so we can debate on more equal footing. Let's just finish the rounds out, so we can close this debate down. Just use some random jibberish then hit enter.
LogicalLunatic

Con

Within the Spreading Darkness I pledged a vow to the Revolution
Debate Round No. 3
Dr_Obvious

Pro

Your vow means nothing. Your pitiful rebellion will fail. MUAHAHAHAHA!
LogicalLunatic

Con

Jouberthjsjwjjjdnsh in nauseous saga hejdgsbxgdbxyr Dr x bhai uh gfj ssh see hdj Dr dndg
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Dr_Obvious 2 years ago
Dr_Obvious
@Sfaulkner

You do realize that there is no evidence that one kind of life can evolve into another kind of life, right? Everything we know about genetics and biology point to the conclusion that such a thing is unlikely, if not impossible.
Posted by Sfaulkner 2 years ago
Sfaulkner
Dr_obvious, I hope you realize that 100 years is nothing. Big changes occur over millions of years.
Posted by Dr_Obvious 2 years ago
Dr_Obvious
@Codedlogic The classification system is not exact. Many scientists actually disagree with each other on how to classify certain lifeforms. What I mean by kinds, is lifeforms that belong to the same immediate family, and are usually cross-fertile. For instance, man has been breeding dogs for a long time. Hundreds, if not thousands of years. There are many types of dogs, in many different sizes, yet they can all breed with each other. That's because they are the same kind. No matter how much they are bred, they are still canines. Nothing will ever change that. It is impossible for random mutations to add new information to it's DNA. Mutations actually DESTROY information. This is because of the law of entropy. Something evolutionists try their best to ignore. They claim that it doesn't apply because Earth is an open system. It receives heat energy from the Sun. This is not the case. There is heat energy being added, but with out a mechanism to direct that energy to a useful end, it's meaningless heat energy. nothing more. There are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics.
Posted by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
How are you defining "kind"? For example, which "kind" would a hyena belong to? And would the fossa belong to the cat "kind" or the dog "kind"?
Posted by Dr_Obvious 2 years ago
Dr_Obvious
When you type something, does it sometimes underline words in red? Those are typos. The last word in that sentence is the only one that was underlined. Weird.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
I don't get what you mean.
Posted by Dr_Obvious 2 years ago
Dr_Obvious
"Jouberthjsjwjjjdnsh in nauseous saga hejdgsbxgdbxyr Dr x bhai uh gfj ssh see hdj Dr dndg"

What's really funny, is that the last word is the only one, in that sentence, that my spell checker flagged.
Posted by glookershnoffe 2 years ago
glookershnoffe
i will have to disagree with you because i would be ignorant not to evolution by natural selection, a process through which more favorable traits are passively passed on to offspring, organisms optimally change to fit the niche of humans is false and they have disproved that of course but evolution is change that is it and i am not talking about pocket change i am talking about evolving something changing like how certain bugs are becoming immune to pesticides or bacteria becoming immune to types of antibiotics or even just our way of life has evolved (changed) from say 1900 everything is evolving evolution is expansion growth. there is no other types of evolution so my concluding statement would be evolution is life
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Dr_ObviousLogicalLunaticTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Dr_ObviousLogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con pretty much conceded
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
Dr_ObviousLogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely failed in their BoP. Leaving conduct points neutral as Con acknowledged their inability to advance the debate.
Vote Placed by badbob 2 years ago
badbob
Dr_ObviousLogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded the debate.