The Instigator
JHL1234
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
ben671176
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

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...
JHL1234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 67984
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

JHL1234

Pro

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that both micro and marco evolution are well supported by scientific evidence.
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:
I have proven observed marco and micro evolution, as have shown transitional fossils proving that evolution has happened in the past, meaning 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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
ben671176

Con

First I give some links not as sources of my argument but to give some thought into what we are dealing with:

http://www.crisismagazine.com...

http://www.ucg.org...

http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Secondly you have not stated how evolution or life started. You state many facts of examples of adaptation but even you haven't come across the problem of Microevolution. Evolution is not one species evolving (or adapting) to make a better species. But to explain how life came on the earth, and how non-living things turned to cells to all the way to multi-celled organisms.
Debate Round No. 1
JHL1234

Pro


Secondly you have not stated how evolution or life started. You state many facts of examples of adaptation but even you haven't come across the problem of Microevolution. Evolution is not one species evolving (or adapting) to make a better species. But to explain how life came on the earth, and how non-living things turned to cells to all the way to multi-celled organisms.

However, I have shown many examples of transitional fossils in the last round (between dinosaurs and birds, ape and men, etc.), proving that evolution is responsible for life as seen today. Also, non-living things turning into cells is not evolution, but rather abiogenesis; that is a topic for another time.

The links are not arguments, as you have to make your own case.
ben671176

Con

ben671176 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JHL1234

Pro

All arguments extended, due to forfeiture.
ben671176

Con

ben671176 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ben671176 1 year ago
ben671176
Jeez I left for a while. . .
Posted by gruntel 1 year ago
gruntel
though there is evidence for the common ancestry aspect of evolution, there is little evidence if any that the mechanism of random mutations couple with natural selection is responsible for these huge change. this is really the core issue.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
I'm not sure anyone is going to respond to this post unless they are trolling. For instance since the resolution states that evolution is backed by scientific evidence, all you would have to do is cite 1 study which supports evolution and you would auto-win, because of this I'm not sure any good debaters will accept this challenge. Perhaps is you changed it to something like evolution should be officially accepted as true by the scientific community because data proves...or something like that, it would be much more debatable. Just my 2 cents
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
JHL1234ben671176Tied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
JHL1234ben671176Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff several times, so conduct to Pro.