The Instigator
leandro.sanchez
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dragonfang
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Evolution is real

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 2 votes the winner is...
Dragonfang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,880 times Debate No: 36827
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

leandro.sanchez

Pro

first round acceptence only good luck-
Dragonfang

Con

I accept.

Pro is handed the burden of proof as I do not need to prove that evolution is false, but to undermine my opponent's argument. My opponent needs to prove that evolution is definetly real.


I thank my opponent for making this debate and wish him good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
leandro.sanchez

Pro

Evolution is a fact then:
-peopel are mostly attracted to peopel that have traits that would be ussefull for surviving.proving natural selection.
exampel:men are atrracted mostly to brests and wide hips good for giving birth and nurtering.
-dog enthusiast have breed new races of dog proving small scalle evolution.
Dragonfang

Con

http://science.yourdictionary.com...


theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

hypothesis
A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

evolution
The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and udergo change over time through natural selection.

natural selection
The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring.


My opponent's argument was shorter than expected. Can be argued to be too short, but an argument's an argument and I shall address them. Before that I shall present my counter arguments on why the resolution cannot be fulfilled.




Theories are supported, not proven

Sensing and acquiring Data is factual. Theories (explanations of data) are not.


There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable'. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable. (1)


So we have three possibilities for evolution assuming that it is not falsified:

1- It is a theory, meaning that it is fallible. Thus, not a fact.

2- It is an untestable hypothesis, thus pseudoscience and have no validity. Therefore, not a fact.

3- It is not science.



The Berkeley website states that the word "Fact" lacks meaning in science. It only reefers to the fact that X was observed/tested. And even so, it is established in philosophy that our sensory data cannot be trusted.



fact
Statement that is known to be true through direct observation. Since scientific ideas are inherently tentative, the term fact is more meaningful in everyday language than in the language of science. (2)


The Berkeley website also states that: "Scientific ideas cannot be absolutely proven"(3)


And that's that. Experiments are based on induction, which is repetition, which is based on probability. Calling something based on that method a fact would be a formal fallacy, hasty generalization, argument from ignorance, and possibly more.


Science is a way of understanding the world, not a mountain of facts. Before anyone can truly understand scientific information, they must know how science works. Science does not prove anything absolutely -- all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence. The process of science, therefore, involves making educated guesses (hypotheses) that are then rigorously and repeatedly tested. (4)




So, if evolution is not science what could it be? Well...

A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modifications in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at complete and final demonstration…Science thus encourages the abandonment of the search for absolute truth, and the substitution of what may be called ‘technical’ truth, which belongs to any theory that can be successfully employed in inventions or in predicting the future…’Knowledge’ ceases to be a mental mirror of the universe, and becomes merely a practical tool in the manipulation of matter.” - Bertrand Russell (5)


What it claims to avoid, a religion. Calling it fact is the same as making it a religion. I am not even going to address ancient attempts at forgeries or all the wishful evidence presented. Calling evolution a fact is hiding metaphysical and philosophical beliefs under the garb of science.

There is also the question if it is a theory at all. Richard Dawkins states:

"

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.

DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…

MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.

DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

" (6)

If that is the case, then it is a "Protoscience" at best since it is not observable, thus does not have scientifically empirical evidence. It is unlikely to be able to conduct controlled tests since laboratories can only "speed up" so much in case evolution was true.
Evolution is dependent on the past, is there any laboratory experiment that can disprove evolution? Perhaps we did not wait long enough. Species need to demonstrate the ability to evolve new organs or information before we make the claim with an acceptable degree of accuracy.


I am not saying that the status of evolution is a fact, but the existence of a possibility also means it is not a fact.



Rebuttal

I have already won the debate since science is changeable. Proving something is a fact scientifically is equivalent to being omniscient. No amount of experiments is enough to prove any idea in science, but only one experiment is enough to falsify an idea in science.




1- Natural selection

I need you to define me criteria for natural selection so we can determine if the claim is true. Is it surviving for a longer time than others of the same species? Is it producing more offspring? Is it something else?
The term by itself allows for some very vague interruptions and tautology. If it is just surviving then anything is natural selection. If a peacock have a long tail, hey it is for intimidating enemies and attracting females. if an animal have a short tail, then it is for hiding from enemies and stealth.
So kindly determine the criteria. if it can explain everything then it can't prove or disprove anything.

For example:

"It is curious that I remember well time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, & now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" -Charles Darwin (7)


Darwin thought of a peacock's tail as against natural selection. That is why sexual selection was introduced. The hypothesis is that species may have traits that allows them to reproduce better, even if they were disadvantageous. So that claim can be falsified if as seemingly disadvantageous trait was shown not to help in reproducing. (8)


As for your example, you assume that natural selection causes evolution. I have not encountered any evidence regarding that. It is plausible for it to contribute to evolution, but claiming that it causes evolution is just ridiculous and needs support from evidence.

This is your argument:


1- If NS exists, then E exists.
2- NS exists.
3- Therefore, E exists.

NS = Natural selection. - E = Evolution.

It is flawed because premise 1, "If NS exists, then E exists", is assumed to be true, while it must be demonstrated that is true. This is begging the question; the first premise needs as much proof as the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is flawed.



Lets do this natural selection experiment:

You are an investigator sent to a car factory. You need to inspect the cars and send the flawed ones to be recycled. So you test the body, the steering, the brakes, the wheels. etc...
You send a relatively high number of cars to be recycled.

Alright. Pop quiz:
How long will it take for the good cars to evolve into space ships?

It won't, or at least we have no basis for this prediction. Because we have no evidence to support that cars can evolve.
It is the same with evolution. We need evidence to support that animals can evolve first.



2- Small scale evolution

I don't see any evolution. From our understanding, unless evolution is proven dogs that don't have genes for feathers will not grow feather even after billions of years of breeding. The breeding is basic Mendelian genetics. "Mendelian Inheritance" or "Variations" may or may not appear in the next generation depending on the genes of the parents and the method these traits are inherited. (9)

This is the same as calling your eye color an evolution. Traits that come from breeding are not unlimited, this is excluding distortion that can rarely come from mutation. You must first prove that the trait in question was not existent in the genetics of previous generations.

Farmers and pet store owners don't have to worry about their bussiness. Their animals will still remain the same species.





Not evolution.



(1) http://physics.ucr.edu...
(2) http://undsci.berkeley.edu...
(3) http://undsci.berkeley.edu...
(4) http://www.pbs.org...
(5) http://lesekreis.wikispaces.com... P. 14
(6) http://www.pbs.org...
(7) http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk...
(8) http://www.newscientist.com...
(9) http://anthro.palomar.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
leandro.sanchez

Pro

Okay,nice argument Dragonfang(legit),its very true that my argument was in fact short so I will make it up to the readers of this debate.So I will expain my arguments better.
Things to get clear :
-The title of the debate is evolution is real not is evolution a fact.I have to prof that evolution is a real phenomenon happening now.
-Life has not been found in near out of space ,so alien life is not a thing we can prof.
So we only now life on earth.So if I prove that evolution is a real phenomen here on Earth,I win the debate.
As Dragonfang gentely pointed out alien life is a teory so it cant be proven so we (earthlings)could be the only life in the universe.
But there is life on Earth it"s a well nown fact (I hope).so Ionly have to prov evolution here on Earth.
Things on evolution:
-Natural selection is a phenomen proved in the natural selection of the white moths in London,seingn in natur or even artificial selection.
(Arteficial selection:selection that does not happens naturally by natural selection and sexual selection.arteficial selection is guided by smart beigns by they own criteria)
Natural selection has been proven in the video I will up-load on natural selection.
Artificial selction has been done by humans to farm animals that have been arteficialy selected to be of more us to the animal product industries cows have beenselected to produce more milk andchicken to produce more eggs.
Plants have been artificially inseminated to create new sorts of flours in Holland.
Sexual selection:has been proven in my first argument and you didn"t refused so I assume Dragonfang doesn"t oppose to Natural selection and Sexual selection.
But when do different varieties of a specis like dogs that have very big differences of dogs like pitbulls and rotweilers.
Evolution has been observed the creation of a new specis:http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
We are all related:Humans have 50% of the same genetical material as a fruit fly and 98% in common with chips.we all have almost the same genetical material.
Conclusion:evolution is proven it"s a real thing here on Earth if it is true on other planets but we don"t if alien life exist.
Mutacion are real proven by science over and over tryng to debate against that is follishness.
Mutacions add genetical material to be sorted out by natural or artificial selection.
Dragonfang

Con


-The title of the debate is evolution is real not is evolution a fact.I have to prof that evolution is a real phenomenon happening now.


If it is real then it is a fact. Are you saying that something can be real, and yet not an absolute truth? I was talking about scientific real. Claiming that it is real-real is just digging a bigger hole for yourself. The problem is, we can't prove that anything is real. You could be a brain in vat, having a long dream, be in a virtual world, etc... Granted, there is no reason to assume that any of these is the case, but we can't deny their possibility either. (1)


Definition of FACT (2)
1
: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
in fact
: in truth


Definition of REAL
(3)
1
: of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)
2
a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine <real gold>; also : being precisely what the name implies <a real professional>
b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality <saw a real live celebrity> <a story of real life> (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities <left school to live in the real world> (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard <a real gas> — compare ideal 3b
c : having objective independent existence <unable to believe that what he saw was real>
d : fundamental, essential e (1) : belonging to or having elements or components that belong to the set of real numbers <the real roots of an equation> <a real matrix> (2) : concerned with or containing real numbers <real analysis> (3) : real-valued <real variable>

f : measured by purchasing power <real income> <real dollars> g : complete, utter <a real fiasco>

3
of a particle : capable of being detected — compare virtual 3
re·al·ness noun
for real
1
: in earnest : seriously <fighting for real>
2
: genuine <couldn't believe the threats were for real>
3
: genuinely good or capable of success (as in competition) <not yet sure if this team is for real>




So as I said, it is impossible to prove something from an empirical data exists in reality. Science have the capability of ever changing, we can't call anything absolutely true in science.
However, for good sports I will interrupt the resolution as "The evidence for evolution is real". By real, I mean I mean a scientific fact; "Was observed".


It [The scientific method] is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. -Science Daily(4)



Do we really have to wait millions of years to do science? I will ignore the fallacies for a moment, but I am going to ask a question. Does the assumption of evolution have any logical alternatives? Are there any actual empirical evidence that complex organs like hearts and brains are caused by evolution? Is there any evidence that there is a mechanism that allows single-celled creatures to become multi-celled? How did biological systems form?
Of course, the burden of proof is ignored because we apparently have to wait for thousands of years. Think about it. If changes stack up after thousands if not millions of years, then a few tissues will randomly form for no benefit over generations until they gather together forming an organ, the same process repeats until a system is formed. There is no basis to that claim except imagination and wishful thinking.

There is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

1- If evolution is true, then we should see similarities.
2- We see similarities.
3- Therefore, evolution is true.

The same as this:

1- If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, we should see craters.
2- We see craters.
3- Therefore, the moon is made from Swiss cheese.



Things on evolution:
-Natural selection is a phenomen proved in the natural selection of the white moths in London,seingn in natur or even artificial selection.
(Arteficial selection:selection that does not happens naturally by natural selection and sexual selection.arteficial selection is guided by smart beigns by they own criteria)
Natural selection has been proven in the video I will up-load on natural selection.
Artificial selction has been done by humans to farm animals that have been arteficialy selected to be of more us to the animal product industries cows have beenselected to produce more milk andchicken to produce more eggs.
Plants have been artificially inseminated to create new sorts of flours in Holland.
Sexual selection:has been proven in my first argument and you didn"t refused so I assume Dragonfang doesn"t oppose to Natural selection and Sexual selection.


True, you have to demonstrate that natural selection causes evolution in order to use it as an argument. It is just like shooting black rabbits on snow, the rabbits are the same, but the number of black rabbits is different.
Sadly, I don't accept videos as arguments as I agreed to debate you, you can use them as sources though. Even if I did, the videos are informative on the hypotheses and all, but I see no argument showing evolution was observed. You are welcome to use any argument you find on a video.


But when do different varieties of a specis like dogs that have very big differences of dogs like pitbulls and rotweilers.
Evolution has been observed the creation of a new specis:http://evolution.berkeley.edu......

There are tall and short people. Are you saying that the next generations will continue to grow taller or shorter until a new specie is created? These are traits that can go back and forth. You need to show that we went from one-celled creatures to fish to mammals to monkeies (Chimps, apes, whatever) to us. Show for example that dolphins evolved from mammals who took a swim and never came back (I guess the sharks weren't bad after all).



We are all related:Humans have 50% of the same genetical material as a fruit fly and 98% in common with chips.we all have almost the same genetical material.

So what? Does this prove evolution happened? Again, the only way you can use this as a proof is if you ignore any other alternative explanation. That is only an observation, not an evidence.
Also, what are these suppose to mean? What is the percentage of differences needed to falsify evolution? The results are not conclusive. (5) Furthermore, it did not compare the whole genome.

More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome. (6)




Conclusion:evolution is proven it"s a real thing here on Earth if it is true on other planets but we don"t if alien life exist.
Mutacion are real proven by science over and over tryng to debate against that is follishness.
Mutacions add genetical material to be sorted out by natural or artificial selection.

However, you needed to prove it according to reality which is impossible. I only need you to prove it as observed by science.
Mutation is real. However, it does not account to evolution. The types of mutations are:


  • Translocation: The joining of a fragmented chromosome to a non-homologous chromosome is a translocation. The piece of chromosome detaches from one chromosome and moves to a new position on another chromosome.

  • Deletion: This mutation results from the breakage of a chromosome in which the genetic material becomes lost during cell division. The genetic material can break off from anywhere on the chromosome.

  • Duplication: Duplications are produced when extra copies of genes are generated on a chromosome.

  • Inversion: In an inversion, the broken chromosome segment is reversed and inserted back into the chromosome. If the inversion encompasses the centromere of the chromosome, it is called a pericentric inversion. If it involves the long or short arm of the chromosome and does not include the centromere, it is called a paracentric inversion.

  • Isochromosome: This type of chromosome is produced by the improper division of the centromere. Isochromosomes contain either two short arms or two long arms. A typical chromosome contains one short arm and one long arm.
(7)

Where is the added genetic material?




(1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(4) http://www.sciencedaily.com...
(5) http://sites.bio.indiana.edu...
(6) http://www.nature.com...
(7) http://biology.about.com...
Debate Round No. 3
leandro.sanchez

Pro

leandro.sanchez forfeited this round.
Dragonfang

Con

I extend my arguments and await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 4
leandro.sanchez

Pro

leandro.sanchez forfeited this round.
Dragonfang

Con

Extend my arguments.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Well: Evolution will remain the Dominant Theory Of All Life on Earth, so long as another more provable Theory that not only explains all the Thousands of Facts of Biology and Palaeontology that Evolution Adequately Explains.
So far there is no such Competing Scientific Theory.
So it looks as if Evolution has the entire fields to itself.

There is absolutely no Scientific Theory in existence to oppose it, so it must remain the only Theory Of All Life.
There is not one threat to it, so it must be deemed REAL!
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
I won't complain about grammar or spelling. As long as you are improving making mistakes is OK.
I await your argument. Good luck again.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
leandro.sanchez
well you have the advantage .lets see if you can kepp it
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
leandro.sanchez
finaly a contester!good luck.my emglish is not the best
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
leandro.sanchezDragonfangTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, so conduct goes to con. Pro had spelling mistakes. Pro made arguments that were not really convincing at all, while con did a good job of explaining his case.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
leandro.sanchezDragonfangTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is technically correct, you cannot prove anything absolutely. Also, Pro's grammar was terrible.