The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,290 times Debate No: 66172
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




You get the first shot, I believe in evolution


Before starting the debate, I would request that the Pro presents a positive case for his/ her position. . I would then present my positive case and then we can go through the motions of rebuttals and finally closing statements. For starters, I would like to define the term evolution and check with my opponent whether he/ she accepts this as the definition for this debate.

Evolution is as what Darwin explained in that all life evolved from non-life to life and as a result one kind evolved into another kind.
Micro Evolution is not the issue for debate in that micro-evolution is what Darwin observed with the finches. They remained finches. So this would not be the point of contention.

Hopefully we can get consensus on the definition and the process. I await Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1


I would agree on the definition of evolution (maybe not the non life to life thing, that's the part that's hardest to explain and probably not as widely believed), and I would first like to focus on fossil records (which is a very common thing you hear) and point out that the fossil records show many similarities between many different species, and that certain species changed so much over time that they were very different from the fossil found from farther down on the fossil record. I would also like to point out some supporting evidence, that opposable thumbs are not exclusive to humans, they are found in apes, which actually share quite a bit of DNA with humans (which means that the DNA is similar if there was any confusion there).


Thanks again for your response. Once again, I am offering the definition of that evolution is as per Darwin's the natural selection process where one kind evolved into another kind. At this point, how you present your positive case is entirely up to you. So can we agree that rather than waste rounds, we agree on the following:
1. You present a positive case in round three and I present a negative case since you affirm the thesis of this debate.
2. We then use up round 4 to rebut each other.
3. Round 5 will be for closing remarks.

While I appreciate your offer with regards to me going first, It is proper for the affirmative position to go first.

I await your positive presentation.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to first direct you to the definition of evolution according to Wikipedia:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. "
i.e. change over time
I would also like to point out the things evolution has going for it from the knowledge of the theory:
1. It makes logical sense
2. It explains how one species can evolve into another, which can explain the diversity of life on earth
3. It is backed up by substantial scientific evidence that has been found in real scientific studies
Ok, so I have established that the theory fits (at least relitively well)

Now I will show, and try to explain the evidence the theory has on it's side.
The first piece of evidence I present to you is the fossil record (the most used piece of evidence to argue that evolution exists), scientists (paleontologists) have unearthed a massive amount of fossils over the years, and have used them to show that there are in fact things that have changed over time in certain organisms, making them change classification of their species if the change is noticeable enough. This change is brought about due to mutations in the DNA of a species, that either become more common in the genes of the species over time (hereditarily normally), or are found, but only in few fossils, and then the gene goes extinct due to it being detrimental to the survival of the organism. The process by which complementary genes usually become more prominent in a species as time goes by, while organisms with detrimental genes are likely to be killed is called natural selection, which is a process that is a part of the theory of evolution. I would also like to point out an obvious bit of proof for evolution, opposable thumbs! We are not the only species to have this magnificent adaptation, it goes without saying that we probably evolved from apes, who happen to share much in common when it comes to humans, both physically, and in their DNA.
That is all from me for now, here are my sources that provided me with confirmation on my definitions of things:
Look forward to hearing your side


The topic is "Evolution is real". I agree that theory exists and therefore the Theory of Evolution is real. However, the issue is "Does the hypothesis demonstrate that evolution is a real phenomenon?" If it does, then Pro wins but if I can demonstrate that it has conjecture, inconsistencies and contradictions then the affirmative position fails.
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
Richard Dawkins
Dawkins insist on observable evidence. Empirical evidence is what"s demanded. Reason alone is insufficient.
Pro believes that all living things evolved from a common ancestor and I believe that all living things were created originally in the kinds that exist. Kinds may have gone extinct but we have no evidence to show the transition of one kind to another. By making reference to kind, I mean a certain category from which reproduction is possible. An example of kind would be the canine kind. The reason is that two different kinds cannot reproduce due to the chromosome make up and meiosis.
With that clarified, evolution can only be declared real if Pro can provide observable evidence that shows one kind evolved into another kind.
Below is a definition of "Real" as per the Oxford Dictionary.
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed:
Therefore for Evolution to be real, it must be fully actually existing. Not a single part of it may be imaginary or supposed. If we find any evidence of anything imaginary and/ or supposed in Evolution that would immediately defeat the affirmative case.
Natural Selection states that all living things can be traced back to a common ancestor. This means that the burden of proof lies with Pro. Therefore, Pro must provide conclusive observable evidence to show that evolution is real. Pro must trace back the path to that common ancestor without appealing to any assumption. Despite its sophistry and its explanations, it fails the criteria of being real.
Evolution assumes that because microevolution is observed we can conclude that macroevolution is true. This lacks evidence and therefore renders it to be conjecture.
The Cambrian period shows a sudden burst of already complex organisms. Even the argument that there existed simple cells during the latter part of the pre-Cambrian period fails because from simple to diverse complexities in such a short span goes against natural selection.
Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism states that mutation occurs in a smooth transition from simple to complex. However, complex organisms existed before evolution could have brought them into existence. Punctuated Equilibrium states that special consequences led to mutations. However, there were already more complex organisms that would have existed prior to those "special consequences".
Haeckel showed that evolution could be noticed by observing similarities in all embryos. Although fraudulent, it still appear in textbooks.
Therefore, although laced with scientific language, evolution contains assumptions, contradictions and even fraud.
Debate Round No. 3


I don't think theory means what you think it means in terms of science:

Scientific Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Therefore, to be called a scientific theory, I would already have to be tested and retested, as I am certain it has been.

As for evolution from one "kind" to another (for future reference, you can use a word from this list ) , this article ( ) explains exactly that, I am not going to go through the whole process, it would take too long, but it is basically a process of mistake and error in the process of mistake and error by the part of your body that can happen causing one of the sides to have missing sections that are added on to another part of the DNA. If you need clarification on what I am talking about, the link is right there if you want to read it.

As for it being "real", I already addressed what a scientific theory is, and that it has been proven, and there is in fact sufficient evidence to prove that evolution is fact... That is unless a better scientific theory comes along and explains more than evolution does, proves evolution wrong, and has more supporting evidence than evolution has, and I would challenge you to find a scientific theory that fits the criteria. If you do manage to find said theory, then the debate is as good as over, and you have as good as won.

I would disagree, because I would not have to prove what the common ancestor is, I would only have to prove it exists.
(Here is some more evidence macro evolution exists that I found while searching for proof of a common ancestor )
Here is an article attempting to prove there is a common ancestor: this article basically says that having one common ancestor is 10^2,860 more likely to be what happened than the next most likely theory (the one you proposed in your last statement). Does this prove with complete certainty? No, but it is such a big likelyhood that it may as well be rounded to 100% and call it a day.

You are right, micro evolution does not prove macro evolution, but what I have stated above is how it would work AND a scientific study that proved with practically complete certainty that that is what happens.

I would lastly like to point out that your last claim (the one that could have had me serving you victory on a silver plater) lacked sources, and therefore lacked sufficient credibility and evidence to prove it, and therefore, I will have an easy time rebutting it by finding a source that says otherwise and has some proof. An here it is, thank you Wikipedia for making it so easy to find, the first life to be found in the fossil record, and the next few oldest fossils, were some of the simplest life forms to exist (this also might add to the proof of a common ancestor, but I am not going to say it directly does, as I don't really need more evidence for that) backing up that there were no complex life forms before evolution


Pro states that evolution makes logical sense but the fossil record reject Darwin"s tree of life ( Pro states that it explains how one species can evolve from another an which explains the diversity of life on earth but this explanation becomes harder to accept when we consider the a sudden burst of different species from the Cambrian period. Pro must explain how some complex organisms existed long before they should have.
Pro states that evolution is backed up by scientific evidence. However, we must find the best explanation for the evidence. We do not have evidence that all living organisms evolved from a single cell. We have already discovered bogus explanations for the evolution of man. Australopithecus (Lucy) was introduced an ape that walked upright like humans. It was celebrated as the holy grail of evolution. Later, the French Science Magazine waved bye-bye to Lucy. The stories are similar with regards to the Piltdown man.
I agree with Pro"s definition of a scientific theory but explaining what a scientific theory is does not make Evolution a scientific theory. Can he provide observable evidence? Can it be repeated in under Laboratory conditions? Science Daily states that scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation and experimentation. Does the methods used in evolution conform?
Pro cites TalkOrigins as evidence for Macro-evolution. However, they are explanations. It"s like going to a junkyard and seeing some Ford cars viz. Model T and the Mustang. When dated, the Model T was found to be the earlier of the two. It was also at the bottom of the junk pile. Both the Model T and The Mustang have almost all of the parts in common. However, the Mustang parts and design has shown advancements/ improvements. They Mustang evolved naturally from the Ford Model T Car. Hey they even have the same emblem. If I did make that claim, I would have been immediately reminded that yes and evolution of the Ford Model T car did take place but it required an agency for this to happen.
Pro"s argued that we share similarities with the ape. Saying that evolution is the best explanation for similarities within organisms is simply not interacting with other explanations out there. What about saying that we evolved from monkeys because we both have the 5th digit in our fingers. The Koala has the fifth digit too. I suggest that the explanation for common attributes among the organisms can be explained by a common designer - the Ford example again.
Citing internet sites as references is not the best way to do a good debate because we have millions of sites that refute each other. More importantly just stating sites as an argument is not enough. However Haeckel"s fraud is also mentioned in one of your referenced sites (
The topic is "Evolution is real". I stated that the theory exists but the phenomenon is riddled with contradictions, fraud and explanations. There is no observable evidence. Even Miller"s Experiment had to assume an atmosphere that he did not observe.
Pro did not respond to Gradualism vs Punctuated Equilibrium.
Even if what Pro has put forward is correct, when you consider the conjecture and the fraud and the reversed claims " clearly Evolution has lost its realness.
As the burden-bearer of proof, Pro has provided nothing. He cited an article attempting to prove that we evolved from a common ancestor. Notice Pro"s use of the word "attempt" and later Pro"s admittance that that it cannot prove certainty. The definition of Real has robbed evolution of its realness.
Debate Round No. 4


Darwin also had less of an understanding of evolution than I do, (and I don't trust that website, it looks like something some random person hosted, and not like something that has been corrected for mistakes). The main thing that does come from Darwin's theory of evolution is natural selection, which is a monumental discovery for evolution. And the so called "sudden burst of species" is no such thing, you have no way of knowing what happened. What's more, it is not as you were suggesting as instantaneous, but rather a thing that happened over millions of years ( ) and that is probably caused by certain changes that were brought about. (Here is Wikipedia, which states how it is unknown why this happened, but I thought I should put it here, ) I would also like to point out this does not contradict evolution, a lot can happen in millions of years. What caused all these mutations to happen quicker than before? We don't yet know, but it does not contradict evolution. I do not have to prove why complex life forms existed "before they should have", because that makes no sense, if you are still talking about 500 million years ago, life had existed for 3.2 billion-3.1 billion years already, there is no "before it should have" about it. There is also a likelihood some of the species had already evolved before the "Cambrian Explosion", and that they didn't die in the correct way to be fossilized before then.
I would like to point out that con has ignored my evidence I have provided about how all life evolved from one organism.
Con goes on to say that evolution isn't a scientific theory. I disagree it is, in fact, a scientific theory, which helps my case, as that means it has been proven. Yes, you can provide observable evidence, can it be repeated under laboratory conditions? Yes. The methods used in evolution do confirm... If I understand your question.
Yes, I can state we evolved from apes (I am not so sure about monkeys, maybe if monkeys evolved into apes, because monkeys have hands for feet). I do not deny that evolution could be caused by some sort of god, but if you have looked at my profile, I am an agnostic, which means I believe that god can not be proven or disproven (but I can discuss in terms of either, because that's just how I am). Yes, one of the sites I sighted might have been an unreliable one, but I am not certain you are right, but I sites multiple. I do agree that evolution is a theory that can be improved and perfected, but that is the beauty of science, it can be improved!
Evolution, in it's simplest definition, change over time, I can prove exists, and right here, with our human genome, thanks to a very recent and very recent mutation, purple eyes. (
May I also point out that I didn't respond to gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium for reasons I stated already.
Hope to see your response


Let me summarize the issues so that the reader can trace back the threads of the debate. The topic is "Evolution is real". Let"s refer to the definitions. We agreed that evolution we meant (a) every living thing evolved from a common ancestor (b) where one kind evolved into another kind through natural selection. I then copy/pasted the Oxford definition of "real". I quoted Dawkins with regards to faith vs evidence. I also quoted Science daily in terms of what is meant by scientific method.
Why did I do this? Firstly by quoting Dawkins, I showed what is meant by doing science. By quoting Science daily, I demonstrated what is meant by using the scientific method, by quoting the Oxford dictionary, I demonstrated what constitutes real.
Now if we follow the debate critically, we will see that Pro has not demonstrated the realness of evolution. He states that it is a scientific theory but that cannot be based on the definition given by the Science Daily. He stated that evolution is observable. All scientists including Dawkins confesses otherwise. Dawkins stated "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that"s too slow, too small a timescale to see evolution going on." This means that Evolution is unobservable. Even Pro agrees with this when he stated that I had no way of know about the Cambrian Explosion. SO Pro has contradicted his/ her statement that Evolution is observable. What about experimentation? Can we test evolution where one kind evolves naturally into another kind in the laboratory? No we cannot and that fails the scientific method test. This follows that evolution is not a scientific theory.
Pro asserts that we evolved from apes. There is no consensus on the matter. Some say that the chimp shares 98% of our DNA and some say 100%. What does that do for the study of genetics? Imagine if our ancestry was determined by common DNA structure. We should be behaving and living like the one we share common DNA with. Again, The Evolution hero (Dawkins) states that we are at bottom just dancing to our DNA. This means that our DNA decides our social conventions, our morality etc. The rational reader will immediately see that if we were dancing to our DNA and if our DNA is similar with chimpanzee and if the chimpanzee is dancing to its DNA, then we should be dancing the same dance. Reality differs.
Pro stated similarities of our fingers and that of the apes. I refuted that argument by stating that the Koala also has a 5th digit. This was untouched.
Pro asserts that Darwin had a lesser understanding of evolution as he does. Until Pro can show that he/she understands more (this debate demonstrates Pro does not), then Pro"s claim is incredible.
I raised the issue of Haeckel"s embryos and cited the site Pro cited. Pro then states that the site may be unreliable. Can we have a meaningful debate when Pro quotes sites and then doubt its reliability? Can we even post links as arguments and then claim that the matter is resolved? Well Pro thinks so and that"s sad.
In summary, I thank Pro and all readers for taking the time. I guess it is glaring that Pro (with respect) did not show that Evolution is real. We just saw contradictions, bizarre claims and in-coherence on Pro"s part. Therefore, my request is that we suspend any presupposition that we may have on evolution " be it pro, anti or agnostic and vote objectively. GOD bless you.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BobbyPandaram 3 years ago
you can actually use "Evolution is Real" as an indication when you come into facebook.
Posted by WillDC22 3 years ago
Posted by BobbyPandaram 3 years ago
is there someway we can communicate so that we can look at evidence and evaluate it
Posted by BobbyPandaram 3 years ago
you can invite me on facebook. my name is the same i used in the debate.
Posted by BobbyPandaram 3 years ago
is there someway we can communicate so that we can look at evidence and evaluate it
Posted by WillDC22 3 years ago
Any undeniable evidence
Posted by BobbyPandaram 3 years ago
WillDC22 - you say that you are an agnostic. I commend you for making that known to me. WIll you tell me what evdinece would you think that will make you change your mind either way.
Posted by WillDC22 3 years ago
First of all, abortion has nothing to do with this.
Second of all, I agree not all environmental changes are detrimental, and that adaptation to that environment is normal.
Thirdly, yes there is evidence we evolved from "lower" (you mean less complex) life forms.
And finally, I don't know what you mean by "we devolved from higher life forms", if you mean to say that today we, as a species, are getting more and more lazy, I agree, but I would like to point out that calling something devolution is the same as evolution, it's change over time, not all changes are good, and that (I think I already said it) devolution and evolution are the same thing
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
will...... Not all changes in environment are detrimental. My point is averything alive will adapt to some degree to any change in its environment. That does nothing to prove we evolved from lower life forms. In fact we devolved from the top.Now some have even gotten low enough to kill off their own offspring.
Posted by BobbyPandaram 3 years ago
@WillDC22 - Can I suggest that since we have three rounds to do this, we follow this format:

Round 3 - Opening Statements
Round 4 - Rebuttals
Round 5 - Closing Statements

If we agree with this, I will go back and use up my part of Round 2 just to be fair.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the pro postiton, but pro's arguments were flawed in my opinion. Conduct and spelling and grammar are tied.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Both sides presented compelling cases, but ultimately, it fell down to just one key line of argumentation that Con presented as a challenge against Pro. That was whether Evolution is actually real as a fact or just a theory. Since the term 'real' was used in the context of being a fact within this debate, this was key. As Con effectively showed, Evolution - while a scientific theory - is not something that can be repeated and observed. Even it if it, Pro failed to present any evidence of how that can be done. Due to this challenge from Con which essentially remained unproven on Pro's part, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both shared several sources, and each was subject to bias, thus these balanced out.