The Instigator
Nidhogg
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Evolution is unable to be proved

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 3 votes the winner is...
Nidhogg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,972 times Debate No: 26544
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

Nidhogg

Pro

In this Debate, I, Nidhogg, will attempt to prove that evolution, based on current data, is unable to be proved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Definition of Evolution- change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will not argue that evolution is totally untrue, simply prove that there is reasonable doubt of evolution's existence. The burden of proof thus lies on Con. Also, I would stress I am not going to argue for creationism in this debate (unless it is brought up by Con). I simply wish to prove that evolution is nothing more than a widely-held theory.

Rules:
No Trolling
No arguing the definition
No off-topic ranting

Sections:
Round 1- Accepting the debate
Rounds 2 & 3- Arguments
Round 4- Closing Arguments
emospongebob527

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Nidhogg

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

I would like to present two main points:
A: Evolution is a theory
B: Evolution, due to its own ideas, is unable to be proved

Point A:
A theory, according to dictionary.com, is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena".

Notice that evolution in science is always prefaced by "theory". This is because it is one.

Ex: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor (from: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...)

Point B: Evolution states that all life forms came from one common ancestor. (The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, From: evolution.berkeley.edu)

Due to the fact that we cannot look into the past, we can"t prove that evolution is true definitively.

Good luck :)
emospongebob527

Con

Evolution is a theory, that is true, but how does a theory become proven? It becomes a law, any theory can become if substansiated enough.

Arguments:

How Does A Theory Become A Law-

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.
  • Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
  • Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
  • Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
  • Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
  • Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
  • In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
Why evolution's well substansiated proofs could lead it to be a law?

  • Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.
  • DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.
  • Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.
  • Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.
  • Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.
  • Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.
  • Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.
Debate Round No. 2
Nidhogg

Pro

Your argument is well beyond my ability to look at and acurrately refute. Thus, I concede. My opinion has not changed, but my ability to comprehend has been used up.

Congrats Emospongebob, and I urge all to vote pro.
emospongebob527

Con

I accept Pro's concession but not his plea for votes.

His concession and inability to argue should be noticed as points deducted.
Debate Round No. 3
Nidhogg

Pro

I forfeit.
Sorry, I meant to say to vote Con. I mixed this up with one of my other debates.
emospongebob527

Con

Let's do this again soon.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
@Nur-Ab-Sal Oh, I see. Sorry I didn't read the whole page.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
jh1234l, please see the bottom of that site, and read the text in red.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Sorry, I did not mean to post two exact comments, it was a glitch.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Umm.. emospongebob's case is completely differently worded than http://wilstar.com....

The second part is from Rational Wiki, which is under Creative Commons.

Plagiarism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

It is credited, so the crediting part is closed. It is authorized because CC says that it can be freely shared as long as it is attributed, which it is. (the link)

So, this is not plagiarism, but he still completely copied it, which, in my opinion, should cause him to lose the conduct.
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Umm.. emospongebob's case is completely differently worded than http://wilstar.com....

The second part is from Rational Wiki, which is under Creative Commons.

Plagiarism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

It is credited, so the crediting part is closed. It is authorized because CC says that it can be freely shared as long as it is attributed, which it is. (the link)

So, this is not plagiarism, but he still completely copied it, which, in my opinion, should cause him to lose the conduct.
Posted by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
I meant Con! I meant Con!!!!!!
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I will be voting full 7 points for Pro because of the blatant plagiarism. Just letting you all know.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I'm pretty sure he meant Vote Con.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Concedes debate. Asks for votes. Wha?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Nidhoggemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly other voter theists, he forfeited!
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Nidhoggemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Nidhoggemospongebob527Tied
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: Conduct and arguments to Pro for Con's plagiarism. I said I'd vote this way, and I have. I don't think plagiarism should be tolerated, even in the case of a concession. In this situation, Con simply overwhelmed Pro with a cut and paste of a well-researched article instead of taking the time and effort to write an argument of his own.