The Instigator
HulkSmash
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Evolution shouldn't be widely accepted... yet

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 6 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 494 times Debate No: 47948
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

HulkSmash

Pro

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been around for less than 200 years.

Just because we share similar DNA with apes does not mean that we evolved from them.

I am opposed to evolution being taught in school because of its unproven nature.

Thanks!
xXCryptoXx

Con


Evolution is the most fact based theory and has logical premises and conclusions, which should therefore make it accepted. Just because something has not been proven fact does not mean it is not true nor logical.


Let’s use an example:


Say there are two fighters, Michael and Jordan.


Michael is stronger, faster, has had more training, and has a far better record than Jordan. Jordan is slow, weak, has had little training, and has been defeated by men that are worse fighters than Michael. Even though it is not a proven fact that Michael will defeat Jordan in a fight, it is logical from the factual information gathered that Michael will defeat Jordan.


Evolution unlike this fight is not as subjective of a matter. It does not rely on chance that it may be wrong unlike a fight where a lucky punch could win. Evolution is simply supported by factual evidence and is logical so it should therefore be accepted.


Fossil Record


A large amount of creatures that no longer exist today have existed in the past and have been found through fossilization. It can also be found that certain species existed later than others, but do not exist now.


For example, the Tyrannosaurus Rex lived in the Cretaceous Period but not before. Where then could the dinosaur have come from? If we do not accept evolution as true then the T. Rex must have always existed and then died out, but we know this to be untrue. Evolution provides a logical answer that certain genetics in creatures were dominant, allowing them to survive. As these genetics continued to be passed on because they increased the survival of a species, and the dinosaurs without the genetics were more likely to die off, an entire new species eventually evolved out of these passed down genetics.


So in order for a new species to exist a genetic mutation must occur and be dominant in an already existing species. Over time as this genetic mutation begins occurring frequently amongst a species, a new species is created.


Adaptation


Adaptation occurs when a species evolves to better survive in its environment. Birds are a primary example of this. Depending on the ecosystem a bird is in, their beaks may be different in order to better suit their needs. This is because genetic mutations which allowed a certain species to better survive became dominant eventually evolving the bird to better survive in its environment. Birds who live near rivers may have long beaks that are good for snatching fish out of the water. Birds that live in tropical forests may have long, thick curved beaks used for eating fruit.



I think both of these are good examples supporting evolution, which has solid premises and a logical conclusion. This being said, evolution should therefore be accepted in order to further scientific progress and knowledge.



Thank you.


Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
HulkSmashxXCryptoXxTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much to go on in terms of it been a 1 round debate, but Con wins clearly as real arguments were given. On the other hand, Pro gave an opinion. All other points are tied.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
HulkSmashxXCryptoXxTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made more arguments. This went without contest as this was a single round debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
HulkSmashxXCryptoXxTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to really make any arguments.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
HulkSmashxXCryptoXxTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a One round debate in which Pro was A. Unconvincing B. Likely just trying to get voting rights quickly
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
HulkSmashxXCryptoXxTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually made reasonable arguments with something to back them beyond opinion.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
HulkSmashxXCryptoXxTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were weak from the outset, and he never upheld a reasonable burden of proof here. He doesn't showcase how it's unproven, provide any actual arguments against it, nor does he provide any alternatives to what could be taught. He merely asserts that it's unproven, and for some reason, that our genetic similarities to apes should be disregarded. Con does a solid job explaining why it should be taught, so whatever could have been considered a case from Pro is easily defeated.