The Instigator
FMAlchemist
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Evolution is true

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 5 votes the winner is...
FMAlchemist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,772 times Debate No: 59521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (5)

 

FMAlchemist

Pro

First round is acceptance.I'm not debating the veracity of creationism or the existence of God,i'm debating the veracity of the theory of evolution.Also,i'm debating the theory of evolution like it is now,not from the book by Darwin "The Origin of Species".Good luck con.

Definitions:

Evolution:

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Theory:

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
Aerogant

Con

Evolution cannot be true or false. It's a theory based on evidence supporting that theory; lots, and lots, of evidence. A theory is not a position - it's a presupposition.
Debate Round No. 1
FMAlchemist

Pro

Agreed.So i will try to provide the maximum evidence possible.Good luck.


I think evolution is true because it is the most well substantiated theory,even more than gravity.Evolution matches correctly in every field of science.It nevers contradicts itself.As evidence i can mention:

Fossils

There are a number of fossils that complete themselves,from various species.Ancestor to the human species i can mention are Homo erectus,Homo habilis,Homo neanderthalensis,the Australopitecus rubustus,the Australopitecus afarensis and the Homo floresiensis.And these fossils are never found out of the place and the rock layer science predicts.Not a single fossil was founf in the wrong place.As an example i can give is the last one i mentioned,the Homo flosesiensis,it evolved in an isolated area,the island of Flores,in India,and they were never found anywhere else.They are completely different from the human species,apart from evolving from the same species.Researches have shown they stood at only 3.5 feet.Nine fossils were found,and all of them around the same area and in the same geological layer.[1]
Another example i can give are the mayflies.The example in the link [2] lived 100 years ago.It had an ovipositor and very long antennae compared to the ones we have today.It was pratically a completelly different species.It probably became extiguished because of the ovipositor,which is a big evidence showing a change in species,as they would probably not be able to mate,and showing natural selection.

Artificial and Natural Selection Today

Another evidence for natural selection is a thing a lot of people who do not believe in evolution seem to not accept,accept that species will change over time because of the enviroment they live.As an example i can show you how,by forcing only certain individuals of a certain species to reproduce and letting the others out,we can see how they will become different over the time.As an example i can give the micropigs[3],they were selective breeded in a way only the smallest ones reproduct,making they considerably small than other pigs.Another example i can mention are the viruses that evolve to be immune to drugs.When the drug is used,only the immune ones stay alive,making them the only one to reproduce,creating a generation of immune bacterias.That's essentially what evolution is,the only difference in that in the wild,only the ones with abilities that give them advantage of survival and reproduction stay.[4]

Genetics

It is really impressive that humans and modern apes share 99% of their DNA with humans.Another thing that really points is how the chromosomes of both species are arranged in a really similar way.Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes,and apes 24,that means that if they are really related,one of the chromosomes of the common ancestor should've divided,or 2 chromosomes joined together.And this is exactly what happens,when we arrange the two ape chromosomes equivalent to these ones,they fit perfectly[5].

That's what i have for now.I will provide more if needed.


[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]:http://oregonstate.edu...
[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]:http://en.wikipedia.org...(human)
Aerogant

Con

I am for Evolution - I am not for the idea that it can be proven true or false. It's a theory, not something that is inarguably true or false.
Debate Round No. 2
FMAlchemist

Pro

We agreed in the comments that this debate is meanigless,because of an error in the title.Sorry,i will be more careful later.
Aerogant

Con

Quick! Let's have a short debate on whether evolution and politicians should be contraries.

I pick whichever position you don't pick.

We have a whole round to do this. Do not ruin the fun.
Debate Round No. 3
FMAlchemist

Pro

I don't think i really understood what you meant by that,but i will try to debate it. Good luck.

I don't think evolution and politicians should be contraries because i don't think a creationist politician would be capable of ruling things without his faith affecting his decisions. I have not against Christian politicians if they don't let their faith rule over their reasoning,but a creationist who denies the most well-substantiated scientific theory because a book tells them a different instead of thinking about it would probably do the same with their decisions,making them completely biased. Examples i can give of creationists that aren't in their "right mind" while taking decisions are Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. They deny every evidence they are given and keep following a book no matter what. It means they would probably to that with other bible parts too,and we know how the bible is contradicting and is not really applicable to this time. I really don't want someone with this mindset ruling my country.
Aerogant

Con

I was making a monkey joke!
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Technically Evolution is not truly Random.

An environmental change occurs, suddenly ( meteorite/earthquake) and all organisms living in that location, that are not wiped out, will have to adjust to the new environmental pressures.

So the environment directs the evolution process, thus it is not really random.
But, compared to artificial selection, it is more random.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Evolution, in particular Biological Evolution is evident in laboratories and field studies around the globe.

We deliberately create mutations and engineer species for their own survival against diseases, such as in crops and livestock.
Artificial Evolution is the same as Natural Evolution, only humans speed the process up and change the rules slightly in our favor.

This is how Natural Selection came about.
Darwin observed Artificial Selection and how it made changes to species, and stated that he wondered if Nature works in the same way as humans do in artificial selection.

He discovered that Nature performs the same selection processes humans do in artificial selection.
Only Nature has no specific purpose nor prescribed techniques as humans do, it is much more random.
Thus, being random, evolution has no presupposition nor order in the changes that occur.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Sagey is an idiot beyond idiots, because they are intelligent on one hand, but completely naive on another. Again, the reason why it cannot be true or untrue (did you forget this latter half, or were you too busy wanking off your density points?), is because it's based on really good speculation - however, no matter how much evidence we have for it, it's still missing many crucial data to truly prove what we're interpreting as evolution, is indeed the very case that is so, rather than a distinction that is really just scratching the surface of a cosmic tapestry which may or may not have plot twists of its own.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Even the Christian painter and jack of all trades, Leonardo da Vinci, started thinking along the lines of Evolution, while examining fossils.
He knew that the Genesis Flood was wrong.
He stated that if there was such a flood, the fossils would not be separated in layers.
So Leonardo da Vinci is considered one of the founding fathers of Evolution.
So concepts about Evolution started centuries before Charles Darwin and often from Christian sources.
Think on this when you next look at Leonardo's painting of The Last Supper.
It was painted by a founding grandfather of Evolution.
Who considered Genesis and the Flood as False.
Leonardo was one of the greatest minds ever!
He was also wise!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Darwin and Wallace borrowed their Natural Selection/Evolution concepts from their observations of Artificial Selection (Selective Breeding) and decided to see if Nature performs such Selective Breeding itself.
There conclusion was, yes it does (Finches, Turtles, etc... as evidence).
From this, Natural Selection being confirmed, the Theory of Evolution arose.
So Evolution is based on the combination of Genetic Variation in a population and Natural Selection.

Without Natural Selection, we would not have Evolution and without Genetic Variation, Natural Selection will have nothing to select from.
So Evolution is both Genetic Variation combined with Natural Selection.

Hope that clears the contention.
BTW: The Biological Mechanisms for Macroevolution have been verified, they are the same Mechanisms that produce Punctuated Equilibrium.
Punctuated Equilibrium is now considered a major factor in Phenotype variation.
:-D~
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
Evolution is the concept of natural selection changing species over the time.You definition of evolution is completely wrong or you are probably just a troll.
Posted by denyyourmaker 2 years ago
denyyourmaker
Evolution is based on change from one species to another? natural selection is not? i can give examples of natural selection and selective breeding. can anyone give example of true evolution. maybe a butterfly from a caterpillar is that evolution or a metamorphoses
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
Poe's law all over that s**t!xD
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
I can't because i have no idea of what "Evelution" is.If you are talking about "Evolution",also,naturial selection is not evolution indeed,but natural selection is essentially the same as evolution and the only difference between macroevolution and microevolution is the time!
Posted by denyyourmaker 2 years ago
denyyourmaker
naturial seluction is not evelution
selective breading is not evelution
please give good example of evelution
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FMAlchemistAerogantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con did nothing
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
FMAlchemistAerogantTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Propositions are either true or not true. Pro provided ample evidence to support that evolution is true. Just because you can't "prove" a theory true in the scientific sense doesn't mean one cannot provide sufficient evidence to support a justifiable level of belief.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
FMAlchemistAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 has supplied sufficient evidence to support the BOP. Con is under the misconception that Evolution cannot be proven True, which is Wrong. Evolution is a Proven Theory, in Science a Theory if proven by Evidence is higher than a Fact. In fact, Evolution encompasses many Facts. To many Scientists, Evolution is considered as Factual, as there is No Competing Theory. Yes, A Theory if supported by evidence and no evidence can be shown against it, is considered Factual, thus True. Thus Evolution is definitely proven as True. Pro was also the only one who provided Sources to back the argument. In Science a Theory is the Hypothesis which currently contains the most Truth, Since in the Explanations for the Divergence of Life on Earth is a one horse race, with Evolution is the only Hypothesis surviving, it has to be the only Hypothesis containing Truth, thus again, it is True.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
Mr.Lincoln
FMAlchemistAerogantTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I wanted this one to be good. Con didn't make a good argument. My vote goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
FMAlchemistAerogantTied
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 did not understand the argument, and then asked for a quick debate in the last round, in which no attempt at any debate was made by Con.