The Instigator
Leugen9001
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
moss
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is well 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 604 times Debate No: 71560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Leugen9001

Pro

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific evidence. In order to do so, I need to first prove that macroevolution is possible and is happening; then, I need to prove that evolution is indeed responsible, at least partially, for the life we see today. I will do so by presenting evidence such as transitional fossils and speciation.

Point 1: Fossil Evidence


Evolution states that the genetic composition of a population changes over time. As organisms change, they leave transitional fossils behind.

Premise 1: Transitional fossils can be found only if evolution is true.
Premise 2: A lot of transitional fossils have been discovered.
Conclusion: Evolution is supported by scientific evidence.

Justifying premise 2: There are many transitional fossils which have already been found. There are many transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates and humans; this confirms that evolution is true. [1]

The conclusion follows logically from premises 1 and 2.

Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)

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

P1: Speciation should only happen if evolution were to be true.
P2: Speciation has been observed.
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a

1. Goatsbeards

Goatsbeards, which are wild flowers that have been introduced to America from Europe, have speciated. Initially, three species were introduced from Europe; these three species could not produce fertile offspring when interbreeding, only infertile hybrids, showing that they are separate species. Two new species of goatsbeards later appeared from speciation; they were fertile and produced offspring, even though they appeared like the hybrids.[2]

2.Drosophila paulistorum

Drosophila paulistorum, which is a type of fruit fly, speciated sometime during the late 50's and the early 60's. Its hybrids with other strains were sterile, showing that it was a new species.

Conclusion:
Observed macroevolution, as well as transitional fossils, show that the evidence for evolution is strong.

SOURCES
[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
moss

Con

I already disagree with you. Duuuuuuh! I disagree with premise one, here's why: Transitional fossils can be found because of micro-evolution, like a animal adabting to its surroundings. I also have a problem with premise two, here's why: Transitional fossils that support MACRO-evolution have not been found. Sure, transitional fossils have been found in the context of micro-evolution, but not macro. I can only assume that you have been misled, or you have set the argument to your favor, or you are just holding back your real evidence.

Premise one bothered me. It REALLY bothered me. Speciation can happen without evolution being true unless your saying that only a very small number of living beings have experienced evolution. And again, speciation is only true up to a point. Studies have shown that two different animals will not produce offspring together if they are different, as in a bird and a lizard. Also, I really need to ask you this. Your justification for P2 is incomplete. it reads as follows.

Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a----

Please fill in the blank. Also, I will note that although I am a Christian, I am not supposed to make an argument for religiosity in this debate because I am making a case for the unreliability of evolution. That's all I am going to put here because that's all I have to, or want to. This is about evolution, not religion.

Debate Round No. 1
Leugen9001

Pro

Transitional fossils can be found because of micro-evolution, like a animal adabting to its surroundings.

Microevolution is still evolution. Macroevolution is microevolution over time. (http://atheism.about.com...)

also have a problem with premise two, here's why: Transitional fossils that support MACRO-evolution have not been found.

This is untrue. There have been many transitional fossils documenting the evolution of reptiles into birds; in fact, there are so many transitional fossils between reptiles and birds that there are no "gaps" between them. Also, there is a fairly complete set of Reptile-Mammal transitional fossils, as well as fossils documenting how the reptile jaw evolved into the mammalian jaw. There is a large set of primate-human fossils, too. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

I already presented the evidence above in the last round.


Speciation can happen without evolution being true unless your saying that only a very small number of living beings have experienced evolution. And again, speciation is only true up to a point. Studies have shown that two different animals will not produce offspring together if they are different, as in a bird and a lizard.

This misrepresents my point: the new species which I showed became different and lost the ability to interbreed with the original species, or at least the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with the original species.


Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a----


I accidentally copied something over from somewhere else, I think.
moss

Con

Okay, I guess I stepped into this argument without knowing what you meant by evolution. I was thinking I was debating against macro-evolution. Also, the dictionary definition of macro-evolution is as follows: Major changes in a living being produced by evolution. I guess that in your view that is micro over time. Your pictures on that site do not contain anything that is really solid pictorial evidence, I want to see the fossils. Sorry if I misinterpreted your argument, but if it is unable to produce offspring with the original species, wouldn't that make macro either relatively fast or make the species eventually die out? Thanks for the good debate so far!
Debate Round No. 2
Leugen9001

Pro

Thanks to Con for trying his/her best on this debate!

I have provided sufficient evidence to prove that macroevolution is supported by scientific evidence in the previous points. I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate.
moss

Con

I thank you for the compliment, and honestly, you were more prepared. I (male) tried my best, and I won't be surprised if you win because the majority on this website are on your side, and you were more prepared. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported: erossucks123 // REMOVED<

7 points to Pro. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: I thought that pro was the superior debater}

[*Reason for removal*] This is an obvious vote bomb. It fails to explain every single point category that it awarded.
=====================================================================
Posted by really12 2 years ago
really12
If there is an abundance of "scientific evidence" then what preceded the big bang?
Posted by StalinIncarnate 2 years ago
StalinIncarnate
Wut. Isn't Evolution BASED on scientific evidence and empirical observation?
No votes have been placed for this debate.