The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
MUSA
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

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 3 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 51262
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

jh1234l

Pro

Resolution:Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Definitions:

Evolution:"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."[1]

Rules:
  1. Burden of proof on me.
  2. Con gets to start first, but cannot post any arguments at the last round to make the number of rounds even.
  3. No semantics, cheating, votebombing, or other dishonest tactics

Sources:

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...

MUSA

Con

OK, I am looking for your proof that we came from apes, nothing more. Our intelligence is so far superior than any ape on this planet, unless Bigfoot exist. Cause they sure are slippery to say the least. We are simply a hybrid species. The gods brought some of there genomes to this planet. It is written in Ancient Sumerian texts as well as the Bible. We are not a specific animal (Ape). We were created. What I would like to know, and don't, is whether Giants from long ago had different DNA from that of today. According to Ancient sources they were the first men of the gods and lived longer than most men. No proof, but I believe this is how the pyramids around the world were built. Why does science try to prove the bible wrong ?
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

Rebuttal: Evolution does not state that we came from apes. However, it does say that we have a common ancestor with apes, and that our common ancestor was ape-like. However, let's not argue about their differences, because there is little. A proof that we share a common ancestor with apes is the transitional fossils between an ape-like creature and humans. [Source: http://talkorigins.org...] A large amount of these fossils demonstrates that there is no missing link between them and us.

The argument about giants is hard to answer, because con has not specified which species it is, and whether or not there is any proof for their existance.

Next, I would add proof of evolution to meet my burden of proof. I will prove both micro and macro evolution.

Point 1: Fossil Evidence
The logic of my argument will be presented in this form:
Premise 1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see transitional fossils.
Premise 2: We see transitional fossils.
Conclusion: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for Premise 1: Evolution states that organisms can change over time. Those organisms can be, sometimes, fossilized. If species X has the ancestor species A and is the ancestor of species B, then X shares some traits of both species and a fossilized X can be considered a transitional fossil.

Justification for Premise 2: Transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates to humans have been found. [1] In fact, there are no known gaps between dinosaurs and birds. [1] This falls in line with the predictions of evolution. Also, if we assume evolution to be true, then every fossil is a transitional fossil, between two or more species. However, the transitional fossils do line up, even if we do not assume evolution to be true.

The conclusion follows from premises 1 and 2.

Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)

Definition of a species: "Related organisms capable of
interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

The logic goes like this:
P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.
P2: We see new species forming.
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for P1: Evolution predicts that new species can form.

Justification for P2: Two examples of new species will be listed.

1. Goatsbeards
Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced. They interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2]

2.Drosophila paulistorum
Drosophila paulistorum, a type of fruit fly, had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.

The Conclusion follows from the premises.

Point 3: Observed Microevolution


P1: If evolution is true, then microevolution should happen.
P2: Microevolution happens
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for Premise 2:

An experiment, done by professor Lenski over 20 years, found that a population of E.coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, despite the fact that E.coli were normally unable to do so.[3] A later study done in 2012 isolated the exact mutation that caused this, proving that no contamination has occured. [4] This is, by definition, microevolution, as no new species has been created.

Conclusion:
Observed Marco and Micro evolution, as well as fossils proving that evolution has happened in the past, means that the case for evolution being supported by scientific evidence is strong.

SOURCES
[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3]http://rationalwiki.org...
[4]http://rationalwiki.org...
MUSA

Con

Fruit Flies, Flowers, and E-Coli ? Are you kidding ? Just because they change in a small way, does not indicate reconstruction. Where is the science regarding apes ? Apes are still among us. Have the chimpanzees changed ? You mentioned that there were many similarities between us. Like what ? Give me specifics, no vague answers of Micro and Macro. You didn't prove anything to me, maybe others, but not me. Before you answer, I will tell you this, and it doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to me. You are very lucky to have people who believe that there is a life after death and that there is a penalty after we leave here to pay, if we are bad. If the scientists were able to convince enough people of your beliefs, than surely you and I would be dead men. If the majority of people don't believe in religion, and their is no God, there would be so much killing, as in the old day's that there would hardly be anyone alive. Only the physically superior would survive. There are more people here, than would be otherwise, making advances in science because of their intellectual prowess. Not, their physical abilities. And, giants exist today, just look at some of the players in the NBA today. Skeletons of giants (Over 7 Foot Tall) have been found in all the different ethnic groups. Nobody, however, wants to pay for DNA analysis of them. Why, because it's expensive for one thing. If that was your only proof, in my eyes there is none yet.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

"Fruit Flies, Flowers, and E-Coli ? Are you kidding ? Just because they change in a small way, does not indicate reconstruction."

While the changes to the E-Coli were rather minor, the changes to Fruit Flies and Flowers created new species.

"Where is the science regarding apes ? Apes are still among us. Have the chimpanzees changed ?"

This misunderstands evolution for a linear process, when it is actually branching. Evolution states that humans and apes had a common primate ancestor, not that apes got bored one day and decided to turn into humans. The existence of other primates does not disprove evolution.[1]

"You mentioned that there were many similarities between us. Like what ? "

Modern day apes were similar to the primate common ancestor between humans and other primates. We share 98% of our genome with gorillas. [2] Also, the human genome contains genetic material for organs that are no longer present.[4] However, the genome does not prove anything. What does is the vast collection of transitional fossils between humans and primates that show that evolution really happened, and that the genome similarities were not coincidences.[3]

"You are very lucky to have people who believe that there is a life after death and that there is a penalty after we leave here to pay, if we are bad. If the scientists were able to convince enough people of your beliefs, than surely you and I would be dead men. If the majority of people don't believe in religion, and their is no God, there would be so much killing, as in the old day's that there would hardly be anyone alive."

This is an argument from adverse consequence. Why? Because it boils down to this:

P1:If A is true, than B happens.
P2:B is unpleasant/bad
C:A is not true.

While a valid argument argues that B is not true, an invalid argument argues that B is not moral.

TL;DR: Just because the results of Evolution can be negative, does not make it untrue, it is a non-sequitur. Also, con has failed to prove that belief in evolution will suddenly make you want to kill everybody.

Con has failed to attack the validity of any of my original arguments yet.

[1]http://rationalwiki.org...
[2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4]www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5LzKupeHtw
MUSA

Con

I forfeit based on the fact that we agree to disagree. I think we need another reformation in our country.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

Monkeys do not just climb down a tree
And suddenly look just like me!
Dogs do not just give birth to cats,
just like how crocoduck is too fat!

Peanut butter is irrelevant,
banana is a lie!
The warehouse tornado is a strawman,
I gotta ask you why?

Evolution is a complex process,
that's hard to grasp!
From nonexistant "gaps"
in the fossils,
to the denial of new species of wasps!

Appearantly the second law of thermodynamics,
doesn't care about the sun.
Appearantly Einstein was wrong,
about how fast light can run!

Appearantly maple leafs,
is evidence of design.
Appearantly the cambrian explosion,
is not how real scientists find!

Why does everyone think,
that transitional fossils don't exist?
Why does everyone think,
the scientific method won't fit?

Why does everyone deny,
already established fact?
Using the same old argument,
about what the fossils lacked?

Why does everyone ignore,
observed evolution?
Why does everyone deny,
in persuit of creation?
MUSA

Con

MUSA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Really redly: Evidence please?????
Posted by redly333 2 years ago
redly333
If you follow both subjects without bias toward one or the other, you'll notice how science has been confirming the bible more and more with each new discovery. sometimes the evidence doesn't agree with the writtings but when the next piece of the puzzle is found it ties it all together nicely.
Posted by MrDelaney 2 years ago
MrDelaney
Agreed. You are making a claim, you have burden of proof, therefore you should open with your arguments.
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
I don't think it makes sense for your opponent to go first if you have the burden of proof.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
jh1234lMUSATied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, Pro had good points and sources.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
jh1234lMUSATied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro produced Evidence in support of Pro's argument, Con produced nothing else but Fallacy after Fallacy with no support by logic, reason, evidence, nor sources. Pro produced sources.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
jh1234lMUSATied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, points pro.