The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution is not supported with scientific evidence (2)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/10/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 78569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




I am a Young Earth Creationist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that God created everything about 6,000 years ago and that there was a massive, worldwide flood about 4,400 years ago.

I will be arguing that evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it is either flawed, irrelevant, or could be reasonably explained from a Creation viewpoint. Since the theory of evolution is taught in schools as science, and Creation is presented as religious, the burden of proof is on con to show beyond reasonable doubt that evolution can and did happen.

Science - Knowledge gained from observation, experimentation, and demonstration (Can be proven).

Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Can't be proven).

Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Round 1 - Acceptance, Con explains how evolution supposedly happens and provides evidence that it has happened in the past.

Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain Con's evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence (No new evidence added).

If Con has any problems or questions about the definitions or debate structure, he can say so in the comments.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. My contention is that evolution can’t happen and there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past.

Unfortunately, Con has violated the debate structure I set in round 1. He was supposed to explain the process of evolution and provide evidence for it happening. This has left me with nothing from Con to rebut. So instead of doing nothing with my argument, I shall show some problems with evolution. Con’s job, in his next argument, is to explain and provide evidence for evolution, as he was supposed to in round 1. In round 3, I will attack his evidence and he will defend it.

The way evolution supposedly occurs is that mutations add new, useful information to the genome, and by way of “survival of the fittest”, they are selected out of the population to reproduce.

“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations.”—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

This sounds simple, but the problem is that mutations are never overall beneficial and never add anything new. If they have any effect, mutations will only weaken or severely damage the organism.

Mutations are random mistakes or “typos” that occur during DNA replication. No one has ever observed a mutation add new, useful information to the genome. Genes and traits are carefully interlocked with each other, and they work together like one complex machine. Mutations, which are random, confused errors in this machine, are never overall helpful.

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”—Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]
In the 1900’s, many scientists spent years, some even their entire lives, irradiating fruit flies, simulating mutations that would only be seen from many millions of years of mammalian generations. The x-rays caused translocations, deletions, inversions, etc, (what would normally be seen in naturally occurring mutations) in the DNA code. The scientists observed hundreds of different mutations with hundreds of different effects on the poor flies. Not one mutation was beneficial. Flies that didn’t die from the mutations had all kinds of abnormal deformities and impairments. Here is a partial list of the results:

“Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations.”—Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

Similar experiments have been done with other plants and animals all showing that mutations are not unhelpful 99% of the time, they are unhelpful 100% of the time.

As we have seen, a mutation will never improve an organism. Yet Con wants to suggest that billions upon billions of beneficial mutations, all working together, could “evolve” a macromolecule into a human. I would like for Con, in the next round, to give an example of an unequivocally beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic information.

Commonly used to support evolution is the fossil record and the increase in complexity of organisms found from the bottom to the top of the strata. But the strata and fossils could also be explained by a worldwide flood and any ordering that occurred would be due to habitat, mobility, and intelligence. What I would like to discuss though is the problem of fossil gaps or missing links. This quote summarizes the issue quite well.

“If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.”—Duane T. Gish, “The Origin of Mammals” in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76.

If evolution were true and certain animals changed into different kinds of animals over millions of years (e.g. dinosaurs to birds), we would expect to find countless fossils of animals in the process of evolving. Yet we find none. No intermediate forms exist. All that is found in the fossil record are fixed kinds and extinct animals, none of which show a smooth evolutionary transformation. For example, the bat has remained the same ever since it first appeared in the fossil record. No transitional forms led up to it, and it didn’t change into anything else.

Dr. Colin Patterson, who was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History wrote a book several decades ago titled “Evolution”. Luther Sunderland, a Creationist, asked Dr. Patterson why he had not included any photos of a transitional fossils in his book. Patterson replied “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them… I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

I ask Con to, in the next round, give an example of a fossil that shows evolutionary transition from one kind of animal to another. Most of the commonly used “missing link” fossils are misinterpretations or fakes.

Sources: Listed throughout argument.


Evolution is no longer a contention among scientist. the reason is because there is an enormous amount of evidence for it.
There is so much evidence for evolution, that it is the foundation for different branches of science. for example, Biology, Medical science, anthropology, archeology.
Some examples for evolution are.
Organisms are similar to each other, but not exactly the same. Similar organisms have differences that help them adapt to their environments. The more similar the organisms the more genetic information they share.

Embryos of many different kinds of animals: mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, etc. look very similar and it is often difficult to tell them apart. Many traits of one type of animal appear in the embryo of another type of animal. For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth.

Another proof of evolution is evolutionary throwbacks. This is when some organisms are born with characteristics that only there ancestors had. One example of evolutionary an throwback is when some people are born with tails. Tail used to be a characters that our evolutionary ancestors had when they were still dwelling in trees millions of years ago. The scientific name for this is atavism.
Debate Round No. 2


My contention is that evolution can’t happen and there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past.

In Round 1, Con was supposed to explain and provide evidence for evolution. Since he has failed to do so, his opening argument has been shifted to Round 2. Because Con has not explained how evolution can happen and has only provided supposed proof that evolution has happened in the past, my no-beneficial-mutations argument still stands. Also, Con has not rebutted or provided a response to my fossil gaps argument. In his next argument, Con will defend the evidence he has brought up, and won’t add new evidence or arguments.

Refutation of Proof of Evolution Happening

Con has provided 3 alleged evidences for evolution: genetic similarities, embryological recapitulation, and evolutionary throwbacks.

Con argues that different animals share genetic and structural similarities, showing descent from a common ancestor. It is a fact that such similarities exist, but they in no way prove a common ancestor. Instead, similarities might be the result of a common designer. Two different Microsoft Programs would have thousands of similarities in their code, because of a common designer. It is a fact that similarities exist. Different people can interpret this fact in different ways. The evolutionary interpretation is that similarities are the results of common descent, whilst the Creation interpretation is that similarities are the results of a common intelligent designer. Con’s job is to provide strong evidence that could not be explained from a Creation viewpoint.

“If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.”—Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly (1923).

Is con suggesting that if Creation were true, all animals would absolutely have to have completely different amino acids, proteins, cells, tissues, organs, structures, and fluids? That would be pointless, silly, and wasteful. Additionally, the reason why two animals would have more genetic similarity than others is because the two animals have more similar bodies than others. It has nothing to do with ancestral similarity. Similarities would be expected from Creation. Similarities would also be expected from evolution. Thus similarities can’t directly prove either one.

The situation is the same with similarities in embryos of different organisms. It is true that embryos of humans and other different animals all look similar during the beginning of development. They all start as tiny balls and gradually grow and develop different parts. However, instead of these similarities proving common descent, they could reveal that the same intelligent designer planned and devised how these embryos would start out and how they would progress.


Next, Con explains that human embryos have gill slits which disappear before birth, proving that humans evolved from fish. This idea is called the “Biogenetic Law”, that human embryos go through different stages and recapitulate features from other animals in their evolutionary pasts. Human embryos develop gill slits from fish, yolk sacks from chickens, tails from lizards, etc. I am surprised that Con would use this as evidence, since the theory has been proven to be completely false and fraudulent. It was first contrived by Ernst Haeckel who faked drawings and charts of human and animal embryos to push his theory. In 1874 Haeckel’s hoax was exposed and shown to be a big lie by embryologist Wilhelm His, Sr. Yet despite the recapitulation theory being disproven, it is still pushed in public school textbooks today, supporting evolution.


“The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.”—Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University].

Later, Haeckel was even convicted with fraud at his own university.

“At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull.”—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112.

Since Con has only mentioned gill slits, that is the only recapitulated feature I will refute. The so-called “gill slits” are not gills at all, but are instead folds in the skin that later develop into ear canals, parathyroids, and the thymus gland.

Lastly, Con mentions that humans sometimes born with tails, proving that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Although caudal appendages have been observed in humans, it is misleading to call them tails, as in fully functioning tails without any anatomical drawbacks. This is because these supposed tails that humans are born with are never able to complete tasks that normal animals’ tails should be able to such as grasping or picking up objects.

“None of them—and none of the reports in the literature that I know of—are actual tails. A tail has vertebrae, is a continuation of the coccyx, has developed muscles, nerves and other soft tissues, etc.” —Michael Egnor, “The Myth of Human ‘Tails’: A Physician and Surgeon’s Perspective”, in Evolution News and Views (2014).

In fact, many of these “tails”, if not just lipomas, are due to birth defects such as dysraphism and meningocele. Nearly always, these caudal appendages come with seriously harmful side effects. Arshi Ali Khan, a teenager in India, is one of the most famous people known for his supposed tail. However, due to partial paralysis, Khan can not walk. Others who are born with these appendages also face major medical challenges. These “tails” are not “evolutionary throwbacks” but are instead due to improper development of the spinal cord and in no way resemble the perfectly functional tails of other mammals.


Con has brought up 3 supposed proofs for evolution: similarities (which don’t prove evolution at all), embryological recapitulation (which was simply disproven over a hundred years ago), and human “tails” (which aren’t real tails but are instead spinal malformations). I think I have thoroughly refuted or explained all three. Also, Con hasn’t addressed the problems concerning evolution that I have shown in the second round. In his next argument, Con will attempt to defend his 3 evidences and won’t be able to bring up new evidences, as was explained in Round 1.

Sources: Listed throughout argument.



elthagreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: NothingSpecial99// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: forfeit

[*Reason for removal*] As this is a select winner debate, the vote encompasses a variety of factors, most importantly arguments. While a forfeit may decide the debate for some voters, these voters are still required to explain why the arguments don't weigh into their decision. If this voter views the debate arguments as tied, he must still examine the debate to the point at which it is clear that he's read those arguments.
Posted by desertdawg 1 year ago
The Bible also says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day or literally God is not restricted by time. So to say that according to the Bible creation is 6,000 years old could be wrong. I think a big problem is that we are trying to understand something that is infinite with a finite mind. Just a thought.
Posted by Cook123 1 year ago

Lol dinosaurs lived with men before the flood, went on the ark, and died after the flood due to the new atmospheric conditions as well as people hunting them down.
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
I'll have to take your word it. I know this will probably sound really stupid but where do dinosaurs fall in the picture.
Posted by Cook123 1 year ago

If you add up the dates given in the bible you will always come to around 6,000 years. Definitely not millions or billions of years as the evolutionists believe.
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
I mean 6000 years but still pretty short imo
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
4400 years seems really short I'm pretty sure that even the bible has a timeline longer than that
Posted by Cook123 1 year ago

I believe in catastrophism compared to uniformitarianism if that's what you're asking
Posted by JesusFreak101 1 year ago
cook 123, would you be a catastrophist then? if you are, i am completely 100% agreeing with your argument.
Posted by Cook123 1 year ago

Uh you violated the debate structure again... You were supposed to post evidence for evolution
No votes have been placed for this debate.