The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theoretician101
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Evolution is scientifically proven

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Theoretician101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 60405
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I argue that evolution is factual

First round acceptance
Theoretician101

Con

I accept your debate
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

Evolution is the theory that life gradually evolves from earlier life forms over time.

Scientists have discovered many human fossils varying in size, shape, body, etc. Humans thousands of years ago could walk upright (1).

We as humans also share the same genes with apes as well (2).

Evidence also shows we came from a common ancestor (3).

As we can see, this is just some of the evidence for evolution.

Sources:

1. http://humanorigins.si.edu...

2. http://humanorigins.si.edu...

3. http://evolutionfaq.com...
Theoretician101

Con

- I thank my opponent for his response, even though his argument isn't thorough enough to prove some of his point in this debate.

Argument
Point 1: Fossils

Before we begin this debate I think it is important to define evolution. Evolution is a "a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time." Evolution has generally occurred through natural selection and variation aka mutation. There are many evidences that disprove evolution. For example, let's take a look at fossils first. Many palaeontologists have collected trilobites and they have noticed that most of their textures differ with today's marine arthropods. For example, as we look at every marine arthropods today we could conclude that is obvious they didn't evolve from trilobites, trilobites had much harder and bigger shells, while crabs, lobsters and many other marine arthropods have shells that are much different. The source clarifies, "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of palaeontologists [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser (1)."

[1]:http://www.ucg.org...

Point 2: Evolution is not happening now

If the Evolution process was real it would've still been occurring, but it doesn't. We are gaining different varieties of animals and plants due to their sexual selections, not because they are evolving. Geneticists frequently had fruit and fly experiments. They tried to prove that these organisms would mutate, but sadly they have failed that objective. Jeffrey Schwartz a well-known evolutionist and a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh has stated, ". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed (2)."

Point 3: Evolution never happened in the past

Many evolutionists' evidence is based of the fossil records, but billions of fossils don't indicate that they have evolved through mutation or natural selection. According to Charles Darwin, ". . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved." Leslie Orgel, a leading researcher on the origin of life suggests that we have originated through chemicals, "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." Leslie admits that the RNA could have possible formed fist, "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best (2)."

[2]: http://www.icr.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Con claims that Trilobites disprove evolution by their shells, when in reality, leaves out other body parts such as the eyes, body structure, and ekoskeleton which confirm evolution (1)

I refute the claim that evolution is not happening by giving evidence. It's noted "there is a correlation between age at a woman's first menstrual cycle and age at first birth. That said, it's possible that the "inference" of the trend as a genetic trait was "contaminated" somewhat by "any element of culture " such as education, wealth or religion " that varied among families," It's noted "human populations are still evolving" (2).

Sources:

1. http://blog.theleagueofreason.co.uk...

2. http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com...
Theoretician101

Con

Rebuttals point 1: Dear opponent, I would just like to apologize for a considerably tardy response. I would right now like to clarify that not only trilobites have different textures, but many other animals too. Just to clarify, trilobites do seem very indifferent compared to many other marine anthropods, I don't see no point why you try to disprove my explanation because it was researched under experienced individuals for many years. Trilobites have much more dissimilarities than similarities with many other marine arthropods. First of all, it is not a fallacy that some fossil records give very thorough explanations for some of the concepts about this theory, but some don't seem to fit in. For instance, Darwin's theory mostly depends on something called "minute changes" meaning that organisms slowly transform into a new specimen. If his theory is factual as you say it is, then how come these fossil records don't show this change. Darwin says, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species) (1)"

Source:

[1]: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...

Rebuttals point 2: Species are not currently evolving. As I have mentioned before most plants and many other organisms change due to their natural sexual selections. As for humans this change could be very possible due to our current environmental and ecological issues; it doesn't necessarily mean we are evolving. If humans would have been evolving this process would've significantly shown that we have evolved, but it doesn't. The facts that your source shows are infactual, this is supposed to be a quite fast process according to Darwin: "minute changes" (2).

Sources:

[2]: http://www.newgeology.us...

Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Theoretician101

Con

My opponent has failed to respond. I maintain my position.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Theoretician101

Con

my opponent has failed to respond while I mainted my position.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
Logical Lunitic, that's isn't necessarily true. Evolution predicts Amy kind of species arising. It could be a bird-mammal as some dinosaurs were once taught to be (even mentioned in the movie Jurassic Park). I can't imagine a species that evolution predicts would not occur. One geneticist claimed there was multiple ancestry because of the gross inability to determine the correct phylogenetic tree using DNA sequencing. It is true they can do it, but there are multiple ways of doing it using different heuristics to resolve the vast number of "quirks" as they are called. If there was a real example of something evolution does not predict, it would be the duck billed platypus. Yes, evolutionists still call it a "mystery". There are several problems with that species, including the lack of expected variation. According to nested hierarchy, once bi-hemispheric sleep evolved, it would not be expected for it to reappear multiple species down as we see in aquatic mammals. Look up unihemispheric sleep. :) it is one of the many exceptions to nested hierarchy, even though nested hierarchy is touted as evidence for evolution. Evolution is a series of plausible explanations not based on proven, observable, testable phenomenon.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
After all, after several BILLION years, there'd be at least one non-carbon based life form which would form, no matter how simple.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
LogicalLunatic
If Evolution was true, there'd be non-carbon life forms.
Posted by ChristianPunk 3 years ago
ChristianPunk
Just keep in mind that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis makes the claim of how life began. And yes, they are different things.
Posted by Theoretician101 3 years ago
Theoretician101
I would rather not argue about this in the comment section.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
You pointed out that current marine arthropods can't be descendants of trilobites. Evolutionary theory AGREES with that statement, thus there is no point in bringing it up. It shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory on your part. Just do a google search for descendants of trilobites. You might find that there is exactly one.

The origin of life is a very hard problem for atheists, but not for evolutionists; it isn't part of the study of evolution. Again, I have a feeling you don't understand the topic you're discussing, and I'm encouraging you to read more.

I could easily respond to all of your other statements, but I don't want to give your opponent all the answers. :P
Posted by Theoretician101 3 years ago
Theoretician101
I actually read a whole book about evolution. This sounds all very familiar to me.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
I didn't say they aren't credible. I grew up a young earth creationist. I listened to the objections made by Christians to the earth being old. Then I started researching the answers to those objects and found out they are quite solid arguments for which young earth creationists had no response. That's why I encourage you to read both sides of the argument with an open mind, not just listen to Christian sources who only quote what they want you to hear.
proverbs tells us that a man may sound very convincing in court until he is cross examined by his opponents.
Posted by Theoretician101 3 years ago
Theoretician101
They are still considered as credible sources.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
I saw only two links. One to the Institute for Creation Research and the other was the website for the United Church of God. Did I miss one that wasn't dedicated to young earth position for religious grounds?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
Truth_seekerTheoretician101Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While I disagree with Con, Pro's arguments were very weak. Conduct goes to Con because of Pro's forfeit.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Truth_seekerTheoretician101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff