The Instigator
Jschmeic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
numberwang
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Evolution is not a viable origin model

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
numberwang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 55651
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Jschmeic

Pro

Evolution is not a viable origin model. It has been shown incorrect many times but no one seems to notice. An excellent example is salt in the ocean we all know the ocean is getting progressively saltier. So if the earth is billions of years old then how do you explain the fact that there is not enough salt for the ocean to be billions of years old. 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year.
numberwang

Con

I'll limit myself to acceptence and limited refutation for right now, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on the salt water thing. I will refute it quickly; the oceans in the last 50 years, as shown in a paper by Science, have been measured in parts to have increased salinity. In other parts, over the same period, salinity decreased. Salinity overall is not increasing, so that claim is simply untrue. I look forward to the rest of this debate anyhow, hopefully you source your claims more often.

I will also say that if evolution wasn't viable, the scientific community would have recognized that by now and done away with evolution or modified it to fix any problems. The reason it is viable is because there have not been any holes found in it, and the reason none of the creationist holes count as proof against evolution is that they are often not founded in sound science, like the salt claim. There simply is no real scientific disprove of evolution and no alternative. Evolution is a viable origin model.

Note: I think BOP is on pro to show that evolution is not a viable origin model, I simply have to refute him. I would rather not go through a whole proof of evolution because it would be time consuming (at least not an original proof, I may recycle an old proof from an old debate). Since Pro is trying to disprove it he should have the BOP. If he were Con and the resolution was "evolution is a viable origin model" then I'd have BOP, but I think in this case he has it. Cheers to pro anyway and good luck.

sources
1. http://thenaturalhistorian.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Jschmeic

Pro

Jschmeic forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

Nothing like the classic forfeit defense. I won't say anything for now, I'll wait and see if he comes back.
Debate Round No. 2
Jschmeic

Pro

That was not forfeit defense i did not see your argument until now i apologize. Getting right into it then, you said "I will refute it quickly; the oceans in the last 50 years, as shown in a paper by Science, have been measured in parts to have increased salinity. In other parts, over the same period, salinity decrease". As shown in paper by science? What is science? Who is science? Can i trust this science? I need more proof to accept that argument. Also your statement "I will also say that if evolution wasn't viable, the scientific community would have recognized that by now and done away with evolution or modified it to fix any problems. The reason it is viable is because there have not been any holes found in it, and the reason none of the creationist holes count as proof against evolution is that they are often not founded in sound science, like the salt claim. There simply is no real scientific disprove of evolution and no alternative." I would argue that the scientific community would not do away with it because there have been holes found in it i gave you one and technically you haven't dis-proven it yet because you gave me no solid evidence I'm wrong. Also you can't give me one piece of evidence showing an organism in between two species. Not ONE has been found (or will be) if you can give me one in evidence of an between species fossil or living organism you win.
numberwang

Con

My opponent misunderstands me. 'Science' is a peer reviewed science publication. I did not mean, as my opponent seems to think, that 'science' as an entity published the study.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(journal)

As for"more proof" I have explained the counter evidence and given him the source, but I'll give him a couple more just to be safe. I will note that peer review has shown my opponents claims to be false so his sources are therefore less credible, but that is besides the point. Our sources disagree, but that does not mean evolution is not viable. It just means my opponent's sources are wrong.

http://www.gate.net...
http://apps.usd.edu...


Transitional Fossils (partially recycled from a previous, relevant debate)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org......
2. http://www.transitionalfossils.com......
3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu......
4. http://www.transitionalfossils.com......
5. http://rationalwiki.org......

Transitional fossils are the 'links' between things we have seen in the fossil record and things we see today. They also show links between species we see very early in the fossil record and fossils we see later in the record. I don't know how better to explain transitional fossils besides to say examples that are present and link the sources, so I guess that's what I'll do. 1 specific link for a change from an older species and a current species is gray whales. There is a fossil which shows the transition from pakietus to gray whale. The transitional fossil shows which shows the nostril moving up the skull, which was a major change between the pakietus and the whale (3). This is just one of many examples of transitional fossils that have been found. There are also extensive fossils of fish in transition land (2), and more than a few fossils of our ape ancestors transitioning to humans. There are also examples of transitions of dinosaurs into birds (2,4) and reptiles to mammals (2,5). To say that there is no evidence of transition is simply untrue. I do not want to explain all of them, but if you are so inclined feel free to look at them, they certainly do exist and they certainly do prove evolution.


What's more is that we have seen species changing in nature. We have seen one species become another. That's about as evolution prove-y as it gets. Here a couple examples (also used in a previous debate, if that counts against me, which I doubt it does).

Fruit Flies (5.3.1 of above link)
http://www.talkorigins.org......

Two biologists, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, made a new strain of fruit fly by breeding Drosophila paulistorum flies in a lab. A new strain was born of a female of the old strain and after reproducing with hybrids the new Llanos strain was unable to have fertile offspring with the original Orinocan strain. From one species of fly came another, and then there were 2.


London Mosquito
http://phylointelligence.com......
http://knowledgenuts.com......

A new species of mosquito evolved when isolated in the London underground system. After becoming isolated in the underground the mosquito adapted to the new environment, which was much different than above ground. It was first reported in 1999 but may have existed much earlier without being documented. 2 completely different species of mosquito!


Some Scottish flowers
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com......

It's easier to see speciation in plants than in more complex organisms because they can reproduce independently, making it much easier to pass on mutations to offspring. In Scotland, mimulus has two forms, guttatus and luteus with 14 and 30 pairs of chromosomes respectively. A new strain peregrinus has appeared and is different than the hybrids of guttatus and luteus. When it self reproduces enough to have a large population it will be a new species.


Those are just a few of very many examples of speciation that confirms evolution, not to mention the loads of observed changes within species (commonly called microevolution) which even creationists acknowledge as having happened. So between the fossils and the observed speciation it is pretty clear that evolution is a viable model with lots of proof.



I'd like to add that as of now my opponent has done nothing to disprove evolution except make an unsubstantiated claim that has been disproved, and as he at least shares BOP he has yet to fulfill his responsibility of showing evolution not viable.
Debate Round No. 3
Jschmeic

Pro

Jschmeic forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

Sadness, carry argyments forward.
Debate Round No. 4
Jschmeic

Pro

Jschmeic forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

What a shame, almost a ff by pro. Please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: Darwin did want Evolution to be an origins model, that is for the "Origin Of Species", not for the origin of life.
Because Evolution is all about Descent, there is no descent in Abiogenesis or the first symptoms of life.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes it would depend on the definition of Origin Model.
Origin Model for formation of the first living organism, Pro would likely be able to argue this with some certainty, because that is not what Evolution covers and thus be somewhat Correct, because the science that covers such Origins Model is Abiogenesis, not Evolution.
Origin Model for diversity, would be a difficult job for Pro to argue and any Proof cited would most likely be contrived nonsense such as on Creationist websites like TruthInScience.org/uk/ which has no scientific truth.

If Pro decides to come back, the former would be what he should approach, the latter will sink his arguments.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I can foresee Con picking Pro's bones here, though the batman costume may slow Con down a little.
Posted by numberwang 3 years ago
numberwang
Well technically origin can mean origin of diversity instead of origin of life, he has not specified. It is the origin of something.
Posted by nonprophet 3 years ago
nonprophet
Of course evolution is not a viable origin model! Abiogenesis is!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
JschmeicnumberwangTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con's looks or argument scared Pro away. Though Evolution may not be an Origins model for life, that is the role of Abiogenesis, but Evolution is the best origins model for the "Origins Of Species", thus Darwin's incredible work of literature.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
JschmeicnumberwangTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
JschmeicnumberwangTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.