The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
tjordan
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Evolution is scientific.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,074 times Debate No: 12884
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

Danielle

Pro

My opponent insists that macroevolution is not scientific.

Macroevolution refers to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species [1].

If my opponent accepts, he may clarify any relevant definitions or terms in R1. I will begin opening arguments in R2.

[1] http://atheism.about.com...
tjordan

Con

My opponent insists that macroevolution is scientific.

Macroevolution: "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)"[1]

For something to be scientific it has to follow the scientific method.

Scientific Method:

"The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."[2]

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Con claims that macroevolution does not adhere to the scientific method. I contend that macroevolution (referred to simply as "evolution" in this debate) does indeed adhere to the scientific method, as well as meets the criteria for a valid scientific theory. The scientific method is the process by which scientists endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory [1].

* CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY [2] *

- Consistent (internally & externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
- Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

== Evolution is Consistent ==

Evolution does not contradict the laws of chemistry or physics or other physical sciences. Additionally, there is essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute [3, 4, 5]. We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else. Questions about evolution do not verify creationism.

== Evolution is Parsimonious ==

Evolution is the genetic change over time. This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable.

== Evolution is Useful ==

Denial of evolution amounts to denial of the foundations of modern biology. Evolution explains anatomical and biochemical similarities between different living organisms, including the vestigial components; why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development; why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function; drug resistant bacteria; ring species; biography; the fossil record, etc. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the explanatory framework provided by the theory of evolution, the biological sciences would be disjointed and much within biology would not make sense [6].

== Evolution Can Be Empirically Tested ==

In order to test a theory, you must first make a prediction by utilizing information to infer or explain past events or physical states. You then devise a way to test the theory and see if it adds up. Not only is this possible with evolution, but it's been proven and explained to the point of being near universally accepted by scientists. Evolution is a theory just like gravity and relativity are theories. However we're able to prove gravity through explanation. We can do the same with evolution. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is simply how things happen in nature [7]. Evolution can and HAS been tested.

== Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and Correctable ==

The theory of evolution has evolved over time depending on the latest evidence to emerge. Today it is indeed a different theory than the one Darwin has described, and we can expect it to change and develop even further considering there are still gaps in our complete understanding of the theory. However, none of the observable facts stand contrary to the idea of genetic change over time. Additionally, there are innumerable tests and studies done to observe the effects of evolution which prove that this theory has been tested, reviewed and verified [8, 9, 10]. It is also possible to falsify evolution, meaning if it were actually done then evolution would succumb to intellectual defeat. However none of the presented evidence has been able to disprove evolution. Instead, creationists cite a "lack of evidence" which is a vehemently rejected notion by most scientists - 95% of them [11], and does not disprove the theory anyway but merely challenges it.

= Evolution is Progressive and Tentative ==

This is self-explanatory. Austin Cline best explains, "The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material — something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution" [2].

* CRITERIA OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD *

- Observation
- Hypothesis
- Testing
- Revising

== Observation ==

The idea of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent [2].

== Hypothesis ==

A hypothesis about observable changes in nature and its causes has been made regarding macroevolution.

== Testing ==

The test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. As you dig deeper into fossil beds, they tend to get simpler and simpler in form. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as progressionism and is consistent with the theory of evolution [7]. Also, even creationists accept microevolution - small changes within a species over time. This is observable fact. For instance, cockroaches have been seen to adapt over generations to become resistant to certain pesticides which acts as a survival advantage. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species?

== Revising a.k.a. More Testing of Hypothesis ==

The apparently systematic gaps in the fossil record between the higher levels of the biological classification scheme, especially when linked with the unusual biochemical spacing between various living things, present serious evidential challenges to gradualistic forms of evolution at the macroevolutionary level including the Punctuated Equilibria theory as usually presented [12]. Additionally, various experiments confirm the process of evolution in fish [8] and lizards [9].

* CONCLUSION *

Macroevolution easily meets the criteria for scientific theories. Furthermore it meets the criteria for the scientific method. The concept was derived scientifically by examining nature; this stands contrary to theories that rival evolution like creationism (for which there is no scientific evidence). I eagerly await Con's explanation of how evolution is not scientific and/or how the scientific method can be applied to creationism.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...
[11] http://tinyurl.com...
[12] http://tinyurl.com...
tjordan

Con

I would like to focus on one point in particular: observation. You state, "The idea of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent".

The scientific method does not say you must observe evidence that leads to a theory, or as you say, "led to the idea of common descent". It says you must observe the phenomenon! You cannot simply say, "Looking at existing species" because that is exactly what you are doing. Evolutionists look at present day organisms and get the "idea of common descent".

Idea: "a formulated thought or opinion"[1] Therefore, evolutionists are formulating an opinion based on how they THINK everything came to be.

My point remains you cannot directly observe evolution. You have the burden of proof. When has an organism been observed to have "large and complex changes (as in species formation)"[2]? Without any examples of this, your argument that evolution follows the scientific method falls flat.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

My opponent's lone contention is that evolution has not been observed at the macro level.

First of all, scientists have already observed the genetic mutation of species including in cockroaches, fish, lizards and other examples I mentioned in R1. This rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. As I said, after a significant number of genetic mutations (WHICH WE HAVE OBSERVED FIRST HAND), the new adaptation of the species would indeed be enough to be considered a separate species.

Additionally, evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes, and the concept of macorevolution itself makes that nearly impossible. Still, we are able to make inferences about things we have not observed first hand such as the existence of dinosaurs. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc. As I pointed out in the last round, consistency with the fossil record is paramount and the predictions regarding macroevolution have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming [1].

Moreover, we have indeed observed the origin of entire new species both in the laboratory and in the wild [2]. Evolution has been proven in this way which negates Con's entire case lol. For scientific evidence of observed instances of speciation, check here [3]. What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution [4].

But let's get back to speciation. Since speciation - the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise - has been proven (observed many times over), the evolutionist will concede to macorevolution being true. A creationist on the other hand will argue that the changes are limited to an organism's kind. However, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another is hands down not supported by the evidence, and Con hasn't introduced evidence to prove otherwise. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Anyone who understands genetics -- specifically the genetic scientists -- agree that genetics suggest no reason it should not be true on a large scale [4]. Con is not a geneticist or a scientist and therefore we have no reason to accept his implication that he is correct over the scientists who agree that this is not only possible but probable.

Evolution has actually been seen, documented and observed. Natural selection is evidenced and largely supported, even by creationists. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that to prevent extinction, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. This has been proven and observed many times over. Yet another example is the evolution of one species to another observed blatantly [5] which many scientists have noted completely NEGATES Con's ignorant misconception that evolution at the macro level has not been observed. Richard Lenski from MSU showed that an unselected mutation could fix in a population and then later combine with a second mutation to produce a new trait that can be selected for [6].

In short, I have completely negated Con's supposition that evolution has not been observed. I have given evidence indicating that evolution at the micro and macro level has been predicted, tested and observed. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of this noted by over 95% of the entire scientific community at large (including the religious ones). On the contrary you'll notice that Con has completely dodged and avoided any request to present one shred of evidence for creationism, or provide one iota of proof or indication that any aspect of the scientific method -- the method we use to understand reality -- can be applied to creationism. So again, we have seen source after source providing evidence in favor of hypothesized, tested, observed and predicted evolution accepted by virtually every scientist in the field... and absolutely zero evidence in favor of the theory of creationism. Hmm. This is a toughie.

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2] Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg. 1992. "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4] http://atheism.about.com...
[5] http://futurismic.com...
[6] http://scienceblogs.com...
tjordan

Con

First off, this debate is not about the validity of creationism, it is about whether or not macroevolution is scientific. That is why I have not attempted to give evidence for creation.

My opponent states the following to support his claim that macroevolution is observable:

1."scientists have already observed the genetic mutation of species including in cockroaches, fish, lizards and other examples I mentioned in R1" - These are perfect examples of microevolution, but not macroevolution.

2. "after a significant number of genetic mutations (WHICH WE HAVE OBSERVED FIRST HAND), the new adaptation of the species would indeed be enough to be considered a separate species." - This is untrue! These "mutations" would only make the cockroaches better suited for their environment. They would still be cockroaches. Therefore this is not observing macroevolution

3. "we have indeed observed the origin of entire new species both in the laboratory and in the wild" - You say this but provide no evidence that it is true. Just because you say that the origin of entire new species have been observed, does not mean it happened. Therefore this also provides no evidence that macroevolution has been observed.

4. "For scientific evidence of observed instances of speciation, check here." - I have "clicked here" and read the article. This article speaks about many examples of new species being created. Although a new species might have been created, they did not gain information. These examples are very similar to that of a Chihuahua. The Chihuahua was cross bread from two other dogs. IT IS A NEW SPECIES! Yet this is far from macroevolution. Some of your examples even died because of these mutations.

5. "the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution - Natural selection does not explain evolution. Natural selection: ": a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"[1] So the best suited qualities of an organism get passed on and on so that the organism eventually gets better and better. But this is just "selecting" the best qualities of the qualities that are already present. Therefore the animal will get better and better suited for its environment, but it will never gain information. Therefore natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You state, natural selection is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes, but as I have just shown, natural selection cannot be used to support evolution.

6. "Since speciation.....has been proven(observed many times), the evolutionist will concede to macroevolution being true. - But as I have shown, the Chihuahua fits in with the other examples your posted article, therefore this cannot be proof for evolution.

7. "It is logical and reasonable to conclude that to prevent extinction, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. - This is false. As the definition I posted above says, the organism will grow better suited for its environment, but will never gain information.

8. "In short, I have completely negated Con's supposition that evolution has not been observed" - This is also incorrect, as I have successfully shown all of your arguments to be false.

Pro still has the burden of proof. I have shown all of his arguments that macroevolution is observable to be false.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Pro

1. Con says macroevolution has not been observed, and ignores the reality that you need not witness macroevolution firsthand to prove it verifiable. I have explained why this is so, sourced scientific links confirming that this is so, and as such you have no reason to accept Con's implication that it's not so considering (a) he's not a scientist, (b) he's offered no evidence, and (c) even if he offered evidence in the next round, it would be bad conduct to present it -- and considered abusive -- since I won't have the opportunity to respond. Con has presented zero arguments that macroevolution is not possible, and has not adequately refuted my points proving how and why it is possible to observe macroevolution indirectly.

Moreover, the origin of *A NEW SPECIES* has in fact been observed [1] meaning Con is simply choosing to conveniently ignore this reality and state the opposite which is in fact not true, as evidenced by his lack of proof. Additionally, Con blatantly ignored these points from the last round so I'll just repeat them: Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes, and the concept of macorevolution itself makes that nearly impossible. Still, we are able to make inferences about things we have not observed first hand such as the existence of dinosaurs. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc. Consistency with the fossil record is paramount, and the predictions regarding macroevolution have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting macroevolution is overwhelming. This point is more than negated.

2. Con says that a mutated cockroach would still be a cockroach. Once again, I've explained in genetic terms how after innumerable mutations one can easily be categorized as a different species. For example, how would you differentiate between the species of monkeys and apes? Well, compared to monkeys apes are tailless, have very versatile shoulder joints, and have brains about twice as large. In other words, these genetic mutations are specifically what differentiates these two and makes them considered different species. In other words, it very perfectly logically follows that after a certain number of mutations, something can and would be considered a different species hence macroevolution being a logical (and observable) concept. Since we cannot observe macroevolution in most cases in our lifetimes, we must look to things like fossil records to confirm this theory. Once again, the theory of macroevolution is consistent with the fossil record. Point negated.

3. Con says I have not proven that we've observed the origin of entire new species both in the laboratory and in the wild. On the contrary, I gave a handful of reliable sources indicating otherwise. Con says, "Just because you say that the origin of entire new species have been observed, does not mean it happened." However, in the last round I presented a source proving that a new species (of bacteria) has in fact been created which has never been denied nor disputed by the scientific community, nor has Con given evidence that it was. There are other examples [2], but the scientifically accepted bacteria example from the last round already proves this contention false. Point negated.

4. Con's comparison of macroevolution to crossbreeding a chihuahua is ridiculous. Crossbreeding refers to an animal with purebred parents of two different breeds, varieties, or populations [3]. This is entirely different from the concept of macroevolution. Crossbreeding dogs does not even apply considering there you are crossbreeding TWO OF THE SAME SPECIES. Fail. Macroevolution refers to changes in organisms via natural selection which are significant enough so that they become considered an entirely new species. Once again, a dog that was crossbred is not a new species amongst many other prevalent differences. Point negated.

5. Con writes, "So the best suited qualities of an organism get passed on and on so that the organism eventually gets better and better. But this is just "selecting" the best qualities of the qualities that are already present. Therefore the animal will get better and better suited for its environment, but it will never gain information."

This couldn't be further from the truth. Macroevolution does not refer to utilizing qualities that were already present, but rather the evolution of new traits in order to allow one to adapt to their environment (and survive). Con simply manipulated the term but this description is not accurate or supported. Additionally, it is entirely non-sensical to say that after evolution one has not gained new information. For instance, even Con concedes to microevolution such as a cockroach adapting to be immune to certain pesticides. Right there we see that the cockroach has "gained information" insofar as their natural, biological ability to ward off pesticides that they couldn't before. As such, this completely negates Con's point and proves it to be absolutely false.

Additionally, Con says that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution when I have given a substantial amount of evidence proving the contrary. For instance, "the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a force on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read. The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments" [4]. In other words, natural selection very blatantly and obviously has direct ties to macroevolution, and in fact helps us validate it. Point negated.

6. Con insists his Chihuahua crossbreeding example negates evolution; please extend my argument from #4 to show how this is false.

7. Con says it's false to conclude that to prevent extinction, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc. As I said, geneticists and concepts of genetics itself completely shut down this argument. The only evidence Con offers against these genetic scientists who prove how/why Con is wrong is, "As the definition I posted above says, the organism will grow better suited for its environment, but will never gain information." However, I've already explained how this is a lie considering the cockroach example perfectly demonstrates an organism gaining new information -- and that's just at the micro level let alone at the macro level. Point negated.

8. Con simply states I haven't proven macroevolution. On the contrary, I have explained both the scientific method and the criteria necessary to be considered a valid scientific theory. Macroevolution meets every one of those standards, meaning it can and should be considered scientific. The only thing Con challenged was whether or not evolution has been observed. I have proven that it has via examples and explanations about what we do need to observe in order to be able to verify it (including a consistent fossil record). A consistent fossil record and other observable research has in fact been concluded to verify the theory of macroevolution. The resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2] http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://atheism.about.com...
tjordan

Con

As I have very little time to post this argument, I will keep it very short.

First I would like to point out that Pro changes his definition of "species" multiple times in his last argument. First Pro says that Monkeys and Apes are a different species ,but they are both primates. Later Pro says that a Chihuahua is not a new species as it is still a dog. Here you can easily see that Pro is changing his definition to argue his point.

On the topic of natural selection Pro completely ignores my definition of natural selection from a good source. This source is not for creationism. It is from a Webster's dictionary! Yet he defies the definition. The definition clearly states that natural selection is "a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success.....that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities". This is very clear! Natural selection is the survival of perpetual genes. How can this be "the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution"? So Pro is saying that natural selection, a process that I have shown to not support evolution in any way, is the cornerstone for evolution. Evolution has no cornerstone, and without one, the whole theory comes tumbling down. Pro then states that "Con simply manipulated the term but this description is not accurate or supported". I did no such thing! If you read the definition of natural selection you would see that I did not "manipulate the term" and I definitely "supported" it! I supported it with an accepted definition from a reliable source.

This debate has been mostly about whether or not macroevolution is observable. I will address this now. Pro admits that macroevolution requires the gaining of information: "Macroevolution does not refer to utilizing qualities that were already present, but rather the evolution of new traits in order" This has NEVER been observed! Pro says "scientists have already observed the genetic mutation of species including in cockroaches, fish, lizards and other examples I mentioned in R1. This rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor" Another quote from Pro's argument..."genetics suggest no reason it should not be true on a large scale" In both of these quotes Pro is basically saying that over a long period of micro evolution(adaptations) macroevolution will happen. This is not true. Microevolution has been observed. Macroevolution has not. Pro says "cockroach adapting to be immune to certain pesticides. Right there we see that the cockroach has gained information". Adapt: " to make fit (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modification"[1] They are using what they have for a "new use". This is NOT gaining information. The cockroaches are not gaining information in there DNA. Here is an example of what is happening: Imagine you put 100 people on a small island infested with a curtain kind of poisonous snake. They are everywhere, and there is no way to ovoid being bitten. Now, 2 of the 100 people, 1 man and 1 female are immune to this snakes venom. The other 98 will soon die, but the 2 that are immune to the poison will live and reproduce. In 200 years the island will be populated with many people, but all of them will be immune to this poison because they all came from the same parents who were immune. Now imagine these people are roaches that reproduce and die way quicker than humans, and instead of snakes you have pesticides. Fairly soon, you would end up with an entire population of immune roaches as the roaches that were not immune died out and were unable to reproduce. Therefore the only example Pro gave of the gaining of information clearly does not gain information.

My opponent has not shown any evidence of the gaining of information. And as he says "Macroevolution does not refer to utilizing qualities that were already present, but rather the evolution of new traits" Pro has not given any evidence that shows the gaining of "new traits". Without this evidence of observation, Pro has no case.

Thanks for the debate. Vote Con.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 4 years ago
m93samman
Ohhh ok lol I thought the barrel was full of water and the fish was swimming in it :P haha this could make it on failbook
Posted by mrsmooth27 4 years ago
mrsmooth27
Saying that someone is "shooting a fish in a barrel" means that they have decided to preform an unreasonably easy task, generally against someone, such as debating an obvious and accepted fact.
Posted by m93samman 4 years ago
m93samman
I don't get the analogy of the fish in the barrel, but I agree because I think it means something good about pro's debate
Posted by mrsmooth27 4 years ago
mrsmooth27
No. I am saying that organisms' going from single celled organisms weren't exclusively increases in biological or genome complexity, not that they didn't include them.

On the debate...there's a reason Evolution is accepted by the scientific community. Pro was shooting a fish in a barrel. With a minigun.
Posted by tjordan 4 years ago
tjordan
Mrsmooth, are you saying that organisms can go from a single celled organism to humans by "reduction of vestigial structures" or "deletion"? Because that's what you just siad.
Posted by mrsmooth27 4 years ago
mrsmooth27
No. In terms of information by genome size, evolutions can be mutations of any kind, including deletions.

The reduction of vestigial structures is also a large part of evolution, if you're talking about biological complexity.
Posted by tjordan 4 years ago
tjordan
If species never gained information, evolution is impossible.
Posted by mrsmooth27 4 years ago
mrsmooth27
Entire argument is no true Scotsman. The original accepted definition of Macroevolution was "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation.)" Later, when examples were presented that perfectly matched that definition, he added that the had to "gain information."

Con is using not valid arguments, but imaginary and shifting distinctions, to argue his points.
Posted by belle 4 years ago
belle
tjordan- is our theory of solar system formation unscientific too? how 'bout atomic theory? hell, theory of gravity? have you ever seeeeeen gravity? an atom? i KNOW you weren't around to watch the solar system form. this spate of anti-evolutionists around here is starting to depress me....
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Magnificent. You really do deserve the top spot on this site, L.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Shtookah 4 years ago
Shtookah
DanielletjordanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by vickynoh 4 years ago
vickynoh
DanielletjordanTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by theTroll 4 years ago
theTroll
DanielletjordanTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by generousgeorge 4 years ago
generousgeorge
DanielletjordanTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
DanielletjordanTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 4 years ago
Vi_Veri
DanielletjordanTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by mrsmooth27 4 years ago
mrsmooth27
DanielletjordanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
DanielletjordanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by tjordan 4 years ago
tjordan
DanielletjordanTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
DanielletjordanTied
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:50