The Instigator
JohnnyMonoxide
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
michaeltaffe3
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and logical circularises.

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 1 vote the winner is...
michaeltaffe3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 494 times Debate No: 38094
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

JohnnyMonoxide

Pro

Evolution theory is built on a set of supernatural doctrines and semantic, logical confusions. Here are five.

1) "survival of the gene"
Even supposing that they were like life-forms, genes do not survive. Nothing survives. If the claim is that the pattern of the gene survives then that is transmigration.

2) "survival of the fittest"
There can be no evidence that the "fittest" survive, because those that survive are deemed to be the fittest. As an empirical claim "survival of the fittest" is a logical circularity.

3) species evolve
Species do not evolve. They do not "advance". They die out and others take their place.

4) creatures become adapted to their environment
This is a circularity. Creatures become adapted to a geographical place. They do not become adapted to an environment because an environment is already defined by the needs and behaviours of the creature.

5) consciousness evolved as an aid to survival
This is a supernatural doctrine. Consciousness does not affect matter, unless science can directly measure awareness and show that mind over matter is a possibility.

These represent key ideas in evolution theory; variations on their nonsense permeate the entire evolutionary text.
michaeltaffe3

Con

I will use a similar format to yours as it is easier to read and compare:
  1. Genes obviously don't "survive," but they do get passed on through reproduction. Have you ever noticed that you look like your brother or sister or mom or dad? That is because some of their genes got passed on to you. Source: 7th Grade Biology
  2. When we say "survival of the fittest" it means that the organism that is best suited for the environment or that has the most useful traits will be the one to achieve higher through ecological competition, therefore surviving in the long term. Source: Common Sense
  3. Are you saying that it is just a coincidence that humans have similar everything to some monkey species? Or that a bunch of plants got together and just decided on the form of a tree? Species evolve or adapt depending on their ecosystem. The white rabbit is not white because of coincidence. It evolved to be white to blend in with its surroundings (snow). Source: 7th Grade Biology
  4. Environments change everyday. different species adapt to their environments. An environment is a place. So, yes, they can adapt. Source: 7th Grade Biology
  5. A bacterium cannot see or hear or feel or taste. Therefore it has little consciousness compared to humans. Consciousness is mainly based off of comparing organisms.

All of this is based off of scientific fact that has been proven throughout the years.
Debate Round No. 1
JohnnyMonoxide

Pro

Genes do not survive by changing their surroundings (being passed on). They decay and die. I have none of the genes of my ancestors.

The traits that survive are by definition, best suited, and the organisms that survive are, by definition, the fittest. By definition only.

Environment is not geography. Environment is defined by a creatures needs. Geography is not defined by a creatures needs.

Whether or not bacteria can see or taste, seeing and tasting do not affect matter and so cannot be involved in evolution.
michaeltaffe3

Con


  1. Well, yes but I thought it was obvious that I meant an exact copy of your ancestors genes. I thought that was clear and I am sorry if it was not.

  2. The definition is based off of scientific fact. Therefore, by definition is also, by extension, by science.

  3. This is the same conjecture as the old "A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square." It is just a more precise word. What should have been used is habitat.

  4. My example of bacteria was not about evolution but about consciousness. I thought that was clear but once again you have failed to realize that it was in context with your point about consciousness.


Good Luck in the third round.
Debate Round No. 2
JohnnyMonoxide

Pro

Genes do not survive whether they get passed on or not. That is an empirical fact. Cells and genes have a very limited life span. A twin does not survive because its other "copy" survives.

I know your bacteria example was about consciiousness. And again, I said that consciousness does not affect matter, so cannot be used as an evolutionary force.
michaeltaffe3

Con

    1. 1) Holy god! Come on man! It is painfully obvious that what I am saying is the the genes get copied and passed on. Nothing "survives" persay because every living thing dies. What I am trying to say is that the genes(DNA) are copied by proteins(usually RNA) and are eventually passed on to the offspring of the individual.
    2. 2) On the topic of consciousness, i stick to my previous arguments. However, consciousness is not an evolutionry force. The evolutionary forces are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. The latter is what I have been trying to explain to you.


Advice:

Buy a book on basic biology.
Do some research on the topic you are interested in.
Be open to my point of view.


Thanks for debating!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Well Johnny, Evolution doesn't state that Genes "Pass On", they are "Handed Down" to the next generation.
That's the difference.
Genetics are handed down.
Your parents have handed down to you their genetic defects and benefits.
Some you may hand down to your offspring.
We have a cocktail of ancestors handed down defects and improvements.
All my family has very high IQs, this was a good thing that t;hey handed down to me, though they handed down bad skin, so I suffer dermatitis and easily acquire skin cancers.
You must accept the good with the bad.
Posted by JohnnyMonoxide 3 years ago
JohnnyMonoxide
Genes don't get passed on, as you said. You are agreeing with me.

Now make the make next step. If genes don't get physically passed on then how can there be a "survival" of the gene?

You won't have an answer for that. You can try making a lot of noise, or you can privately recant, once the point sinks home. Either way, I think you have learned something.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Your 5 Points are Delusional, which is why nobody bothers with them.
The geological place is part of the ENVIRONMENT, Capiche!
Genetic Traits Do Get Passed On, ever studied MEIOSIS, and MITOSIS, these processes create the next generation, which is what passing on means.
It is not like there is another entity already existing to pass things onto, it simply means attributes appear in the next generation of individuals.
Such mutational processes as Chromosome Duplication, passes on extra genetic material to the offspring.
These are well studied and verified addition of extra genetics into the next generation and is likely the process that improved human intelligence and gave us the ability to communicate in complex language that allows us to pass on abstract concepts like religion.

Before you start debates about Evolution, please learn a little bit about it first.
Posted by JohnnyMonoxide 3 years ago
JohnnyMonoxide
No-one addressed the substance of my five points. Instead there was a regurgitation of the Con position. With that level of engagement a vote can only be a statement of people's favourite beliefs.

So I can only repeat,
- genes do not get passed on, (there is nothing to pass them on to) -
- creatures become adapted to a geographical place, they do not get adapted to an environment,
- survival of the fittest is an empty idea because those that survive are defined as the fittest anyway,
- species do not advance. They die out and new ones come along.

The list goes on. There is no statement of evolution theory that makes scientific or logical sense. Let someone provide me with one that does make sense.
Posted by JohnnyMonoxide 3 years ago
JohnnyMonoxide
No-one addressed the substance of my five points. Instead there was a regurgitation of the Con position. With that level of engagement a vote can only be a statement of people's favourite beliefs.

So I can only repeat,
- genes do not get passed on, (there is nothing to pass them on to) -
- creatures become adapted to a geographical place, they do not get adapted to an environment,
- survival of the fittest is an empty idea because those that survive are defined as the fittest anyway,
- species do not advance. They die out and new ones come along.

The list goes on. There is no statement of evolution theory that makes scientific or logical sense. Let someone provide me with one that does make sense.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL!
The list of 5 so called basis of Evolutionary Theory conjectures are nothing to do with the original concepts of Evolution. Firstly, genetics was not even known when Evolution Theory was developed 150+ years ago by Charles Darwin. In fact scientists all thought that they could get rid of Evolutionary Theory with the discovery of Genetics, they failed and were indeed Wrong, it only made Evolution a Stronger Theory.
Survival of the Fittest is still not a basis of the original theory, I have Charles Darwin's original text in my hand. Survival of the fittest does exist in some animal groups where only the fittest males will challenge the dominant leader for the right to propagate his genetics. Though it is not really considered as any general basis for Evolution. In some creatures it is the survival of the cleverest that is the key, this is also a likely basis for the Evolution of Intelligence and Consciousness, because to be clever and deceptive like some Fish demonstrate, requires a rudimentary knowledge of their opposition's consciousness.
The topic of this debate was drawn up by someone with no real knowledge of Evolutionary Theory.
The whole premise of the debate is complete Nonsense.
They should actually do some research before making such silly, naive, debate topics.
They should read "Origin Of The Species" which was Darwin's original explanation of where Evolutionary Theory originated, nothing to do with genetics at all. More to do with adaptation of finches to a changing Environment, where their prime food source (seeds) change in size and hardness, so do their beaks change to suit the seeds. Recent research has confirmed Darwin correct, in that a protein trigger exist that switch the beak shape of these finches from large to small. Darwin didn't know the reason, he just knew that the beaks changed according to the seed. Modern science is proving Darwin right, and explaining what he couldn't.
Posted by Biochemistry92 3 years ago
Biochemistry92
Con, please do a lot more justice for Evolution... your response should never and I mean never should (for lack of offending anyone)to another person's "communication style". With that in mind here are much more sufficient reasons then the argument at hand. Evolution is not founded on or with the theory of DNA, to use that as an example is a fallacy of chronology. For the second topic, how can you say with certainly this claim, have you not heard of endangered animals? Know that humans are not the only ones to erase species from the earth, predators can over hunt and ultimately run another species extinct. Third op. species do evolve, to claim that all species (or really any) die when they "evolve" (or whatever idea you mean to use to connect the next species) is less than a dumb idea. If you really wish look into the mirror and I would hope you could see the error of your ways through that and a steady mind on neanderthals or even your dog. Doing so would undoubtedly with prior knowledge on evolution destroy this point. Point 4 you even dismiss your own argument (geographical location or place as you say, is a rather non-biological way of saying environment and now could be corrected by any sensible writer). Point 5 in the thesis of your explanation proves the context of evolution through admitting that species evolve. Also, science has proven many things about awareness, most notably a way to measure brain activity through EEG scans. This reprimand from myself ultimately destroys the main structure of your Barbarish argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deathmonkey7 3 years ago
Deathmonkey7
JohnnyMonoxidemichaeltaffe3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall a pretty terrible debate.