The Instigator
nickrulercreator
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
JohnDWigingham
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
nickrulercreator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 328 times Debate No: 83973
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

nickrulercreator

Pro

I wish to argue on the fact that Evolution does, in fact, exist. It does also occur all the time, even within extremely short periods of time, even as little as 2 years. I give anyone who wishes to debate good luck.
JohnDWigingham

Con

I believe the theory of evolution and natural selection is false. Here's why: Darwin's theory of natural selection states; More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive. This would suggest that a member of the same species would change differently based on their environment. For example, an organism in a cold environment would develop fur, an animal where little vegetation grows but animals thrive would develop claws. If this is true, one would assume homosapiens in Alaska would be different than people in Brazil, but in reality, they are the same anatomy wise. Another thing to consider: Yes, you can cross two different dogs and get a new dog, but can you develop a completely new animal?
Debate Round No. 1
nickrulercreator

Pro

Your explanation of Darwinism (Darwin theory of evolution) is partly correct, while some of it is what most people assume while not checking facts. Lets take your first example "More individuals are produced each generation that can survive." This is a tricky one to answer because there are many, many species in the world, about two million we've identified as of December 2015. While in a few cases this is correct, there are also many other cases where it isn't. For example, and I am going to prove this one theory, lets say that you have a species of rats. If you have two rats who produce, lets say ten of their own in four months, that means there are 10 additional rats to have offspring. Now lets say the rat population is hit with a plague. The original two rats die off, and an additional eight of the ten offspring are killed too. Lets also say that one of the offspring have a genetic mutation, while the other doesn't but just got lucky. The two offspring that weren't killed go on to reproduce. The genetic mutation in the one rat's DNA allowed it to survive, and be able to pass this trait to its offspring. The mutation may have given the rat a better immune system, maybe more white blood cells, but that isn't the point. Now that the two survivors reproduce, the mutated gene gets mixed in with the non-mutated, "original" genes. This also means that there is now a chance of more offspring of the two survivors to be immune. Now, lets say again, that there are ten offspring produced by the two rats. The chances of the offspring having a genetic mutation is higher, which means more rats will be able to survive. Say the same plague comes and kills off, the rats again. Because there is a greater number of immune offspring, now only six of the ten die, rather then eight. This eventually repeats itself, with the number of immune increasing.

Now on to your second statement, about how "Homosapiens in Alaska would be different than people in Brazil, but in reality, they are the same anatomy wise." Yes, they are anatomically similar, but that is only if you look at how the body is made (bones, organs, etc). One prime example of the difference between people whose families have lived in Brazil and other tropic regions their entire lives. people who have lived in Alaska is skin color. This isn't to be racist whatsoever, but the skin color of a human can tell where the person has lived, and how their previous generation evolved to be best suited to that environment. The chemical in skin that changes the color is called Melanin. Melanin is what allows some humans to be very dark in skin, such as those living in central Africa, and some to be very light, such as those living in Alaska and Canada. One extreme difference you can tell when living in these two places is the intensity and duration of sunlight throughout the year and seasonal cycle. People living near the Equator, like people in Africa and Brazil, tend to have darker skin. The darker the skin of a human, the more melanin in their bodies. Now time for a little history lesson (trust me this ties into the debate). A long time ago, around 1.5-2.5 million years ago, all humans were only from one common ancestor. This ancestor lived in central Africa, we believe in Ethiopia along the central-eastern coast, around the Red Sea. The "humans" then had very thick hair, so their skin was light and needed little melanin. But as temperatures increased, we EVOLVED and lost our hair, exposing our skin. After many generations of the humans reproducing, the skin eventually turned darker. Then, when the first homosapiens appeared around 100-200 thousand years ago, we began to migrate out of Africa, into Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The migration brought us to different types of light intensity, so in order to survive we needed to evolve.

Now the evolution of skin color is important. The darker the skin, the more UV rays and Vitamin D is being absorbed into skin. People with fairer skin, usually those who live in places further from the Equator, have evolved to use less Vitamin D because there is less coming from the sun onto the Earth in those places (http://genetics.thetech.org... - source). They don't need too much because their environment doesn't have that much. People in the Equator did not evolve their levels of Melatonin in the skin as much as people in say Europe or Alaska because the sun was intense and there was much more Vitamin D. Darker colors, as we all know (hopefully) absorb more heat, faster. The same goes with Vitamin D. People with dark skin absorb more Vitamin D because where they come from has more Vitamin D in the environment, so they need more.

Lastly, new breeds of animals can be "made." It's called breeding. If a Lion and a tiger mate, they can create a Liger or Tion (depending on the gender of the Lion and Tiger that mate). A zebroid is made when a zebra and any kind of horse mate. This doesn't relate to evolution because there is no evolving involved in this process. It's just mating of two common species.

We also can trait our genes (DNA) back with many animals, such as apes, and find that we came from a common ancestor. In fact, every animal, reptile, fish, insect, or whatever came from a common ancestor. It is believed to be some kind of bacteria.
JohnDWigingham

Con

JohnDWigingham forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
nickrulercreator

Pro

Ok, so it seems my opponent has decided to forfeit. His lost. I guess I'll work on one other topic. So I will be using this article --http://phys.org... as my background. What I will be proving today is that evolution is observable in real time. In this case, the time is 26 years (yes it is a while) in work days. A professor named Richard Lenski for 26 years has been studying 59,000 generations of bacteria. He has observed changes in their shape, response to environment, and numerous other changes that adapt to best fit the way they survive. Of course, he has slightly disproved one of Darwin's main theories of evolution: evolution occurs so slowly it is unobservable. He placed samples of bacteria in a new environment, a solution which contains glucose. He has observed the bacteria have doubled in size, have begun to mutate much quicker, and have become more efficient in using the glucose in their environment. More importantly though, he believes one of the 12 different bacterial lines has evolved into a new species able to use a compound called citrate for food.

It has been observed that this change in the bacterial cells is caused by the glucose solution. The solution is measured so that it eventually runs out, causing a period of starvation before the bacteria is transferred to a new solution, now with glucose again.

The bacteria, of course, were genetically identical. But over time, and adjusting to the periods of starvation of glucose, they have evolved so they can grow 80% faster then the first batch. He observed the genes of the 12 bacterial lines after 20,000 generations. His observation found that 45 gene mutations had occurred in the DNA and this is what allowed them do adapt, and become better suited to their environment.

He also found the bacteria who could not adapt, or lacked the ability, failed to survive, and that group of bacteria died out. This is a prime example of natural selection, and how it works. The hardy, adapting bacteria survived to reproduce and pass their genes on.

When testing early generations, Lenski found no mutations that increased size and growth of the bacteria. But when testing bacteria from generation 20,000 and on, he found 19 "mutants" that learned and changed to be able to use citrate for energy. He believes the citrate mutation was not of one single generation, but rather over the period of the 20,000 generations before the first.
JohnDWigingham

Con

JohnDWigingham forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: AngryBlogger// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Due to con giving up, I will vote pro.

[*Reason for removal*] While Con did forfeit all but one of his rounds, the first round does contain actual arguments, and the voter has to assess those as part of their RFD.
************************************************************************
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 11 months ago
SirMaximus
nickrulercreatorJohnDWiginghamTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't forfeit any rounds, but Con forfeited 2 rounds, so Pro wins for conduct.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 11 months ago
Midnight1131
nickrulercreatorJohnDWiginghamTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
nickrulercreatorJohnDWiginghamTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.