The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Evolution is true

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: 6/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 34630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)




There is a lot of evidence for evolution:
1. DNA exists and you get yours from your parents.
2. Mutations occur.
3. When an individual has a mutation that is beneficial for surviving in its current environment ( like giraffes having slightly longer necks so they can always reach for leaves that haven't been eaten by others.) the individual has a bigger chance to survive.
4. If you have a bigger chance to survive, you are more likely to have children.
5. Some of those children will inherit the beneficial mutation.
6. They will also have a bigger chance to survive and have children.
7. This will cause the population of individuals with the benefit ( longer neck ) to grow.
8. If this keeps happening with a lot of different kinds of mutations the species will eventually be totally different from the initial species, maybe so different they aren't able to have children with each other, what makes them a different species.

So basically: If you believe in DNA, DNA-transfer and mutation, there is no other way than evolution being true.

And to prove that two species can have a common ancestor:
If to groups of the same species get separated and live in a different environment they will not have the same mutations and different kinds of mutations will be naturally "selected".


I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, and allowing the opportunity to participate in it. Evolution is a contentious issue amongst many people, and I doubt there is anyone who doesn't have a firmly held opinion on the matter, and no amount of debating on here will change their mind. With that in mind, I'd ask those who are judging this debate to examine the argument with an objective and open mind, and make their decisions based solely on the arguments presented here.

Before I examine the argument Pro has made, I feel it is vitally important to establish what exactly we are discussing, by clarifying certain terms, such as 'Evolution' to avoid fallacies of equivocation.

Noted British zoologist and physiologist Dr G Kerkut defines and delineates two separate theories of evolution thus:

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." "Kerkut, G.A.

Secondly, we need to establish, who in this debate carries the burden of proof. I would submit that as Pro has affirmed that evolution, as a theory is true, he has the burden to prove it so. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Let me then examine the argument Pro has put forward.

We observe variation, mutation and natural selection in living things. Evolutionists call this "evolution", and this is why they claim that evolution is true. We see how the environment affects the survival of these different animals. We even see new species arising as a result of these processes. These phenomena are observed and documented scientifically.

I can't think of an opponent of evolution who wouldn't agree with all these observations.

In fact, these sorts of changes happen very quickly. Speciation can occur within a few generations. But, dogs remain dogs, frogs remain frogs, and horses remain horses.

We don"t see fish changing into frogs, or lizards into birds.

What we see is consistent with the biblical account of a recent creation. God created different kinds of animals at the beginning. These different kinds were capable of adapting to different environments.

Evolutionists will state that these changes are prime examples of evolution, although Dawkins goes on to contradict this when he states that 'We can observe evolution, just not while it's happening. Instead we should call these changes "adaptation".

It doesn't really matter what word you use, but it is important to know what you are talking about.

Evolution is a term reserved for something entirely different from what we see here, adaptation.

Con has argued for evolution, but has only provided evidence of adaptation, and uses the examples of Giraffes.
Con has provided no evidence to support his view that Giraffes have developed from any other species, and merely assumes this to be so, and then uses this assumption to prove his argument for evolution, which a belief in, is the very basis for said assumption.

If we are all descended from a common ancestor, as Darwinian Evolution postulates, we have increased in complexity and information since our alleged single celled ancestors.

What I would like to see from Con, if he wants me to take an argument for evolution seriously, is an example of a mutation resulting in increasing complexity and adding information.

I look forward to seeing Con's response.

References :
Kerkut, G.A. (1927"2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
Britton-Davidian, J. et al., Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice, Nature 403(6766):158, 2000
Debate Round No. 1


I am so sorry, something personal and urgent has come up, therefore I will not be able to continue this debate
I hope you understand, I was looking forward to debating with you since you seem very open minded and intelligent, and I totally agree with all the things you said in the beginning, ( before you started refuting my arguments)
I hope your future debates go well :)


No problem, I hope it's nothing too serious. If you like, we can restart this debate later, or would you prefer to concede?
Debate Round No. 2


Great idea, debate you soon I hope :)


Great, can't wait.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Luteraar 3 years ago
This isn't really fair, we didn't even really debate.
Posted by Praetor 3 years ago
@croft_meister - perhaps you can give an example of elf replicating structures becoming more complicated and gaining information?
Posted by Luteraar 3 years ago
Why vote??? we didn't even really debate.
Posted by the_croftmeister 3 years ago
Just my two cents, it has already been conclusively proved that simple self-replicating structures can become more complex over time thus the general theory of evolution is at least self-consistent. What has not been proved is that a self-replicating structure can arise on its own out of non-replicating structures.

I doubt very much that there will ever be proof that this is what occurred, only proof that it is what could have occurred. Also, has anybody else heard of any alternative good explanations for the origin of life other than creationism?
Posted by Luteraar 3 years ago
effimero89, how did you get the idea it is all about scientists
Posted by effimero89 3 years ago
@praetor - It is not really a bias if the theory has been proven and tested many times and with more and more discoveries it is only becoming more obvious in the theory. Keep in mind I am speaking generally when I say "theory of evolution". According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 97 percent of scientists believe that humans and other livings things have evolved over time. So there is not many many scientist that disagree with the theory. You are right in that there was a time in which majority of scientists were incorrect about the sun but its no reason to throw away everything we know now. Until there is real proof of something else we have no reason to accept anything else.
Posted by Praetor 3 years ago
@Luteraar - I think effimero was being humorous rather than intentionally insulting. I at least don't feel insulted.

@effimero - I'd tend to agree that there is a strong bias in the scientific community with regards to the acceptance of the general theory of evolution, but not to the extent you make out. However this is neither here nor there, science is not about democracy. There was a time when the majority of scientists thought the sun orbited the earth and so on.... Many, many very educated and well respected scientists from all disciplines also reject the theory of evolution.
Perhaps, as the instigator of this debate has pulled out, you'd like to have a debate?
Posted by Luteraar 3 years ago
You are comparing not believing in evolution to not believing in gravity, so basically you are saying you are stupid when you don't believe in it.

Many scientists accepting evolution doesn't make an difference.
Posted by effimero89 3 years ago
Many people, maybe, but not very many scientist.... An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Just because average people speak out against it doesn't make it false. Think along the lines of the moon landing.... Also you are falsely accusing me of insulting someone, which never occurred. Therefor you are reported.
Posted by Luteraar 3 years ago
effimer89 Nobody is denying gravity, many people are denying evolution. You are just insulting anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, therefor you are reported ( Smitereens as well
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by badbob 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 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not define evolution and con had to do so. He also had more convincing arguments and sources so points for those.conduct to con because pro quit. Con was articulate in his arguments and did a great job.
Vote Placed by jdog2016 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: h