The Instigator
AWSM0055
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Maccabee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution theory 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 1 vote the winner is...
AWSM0055
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 84726
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

AWSM0055

Pro

Resolution: Evolution theory is true

Pro: Evolution theory is true
Con: Evolution theory is false

Definitions

Evolution theory: "change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

Scientific theory/Theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

True/truth: "In accordance with fact or reality"

False: "Not in accordance with face or reality"

Rules:

1. No use of the bible as evidence
2. No Kritiks (changing debate to something related yet off-topic)
3. No trolling
4. Comprehensible and to-the-point arguments.
5. Burden of proof is shared.
6. Pro and Con will assume the earth is 4.5 billion years old for this debate, so everything does get convoluted and off-topic.

Debate structure:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Counter rebuttal and new arguments
Round 4: Counter rebuttals and conclusion*

*Conclusion is basically a brief summary of the debate.

That's it. I hope this will be a good formal debate.
Maccabee

Con

I accept this debate. Though just for clarity I believe that the earth is around six thousand years old. But I'll stick to my opponents guidelines.
Debate Round No. 1
AWSM0055

Pro

I want to thank Maccabee for accepting this debate.

Firstly, I want to add two more definitions that I forgot to mention in the acceptance round.

Microevolution: "evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period."

Macroevolution: "major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time."

Now remember, both of the words above describe the exact same process of evolution, the only difference being time. (macroevolutionary changes are made up of many microevolutionary changes).

For this debate, I will attempt to prove:

a. The evolution theory is true in regards to microevolution

b. Microevolution over long periods of time can produce macroevolutionary changes.

Argument 1: There is plenty of evidence that evolutionary processes (mutation, natural selection etc) works and leads to small changes (microevolution).

As I said before, microevolution and macroevolution describe exactly the same processes. This means that microevolution involves random gene mutation and natural selection, as macroevolution likewise does. I'm fairely certain that Con can agree that genes mutate and that natural selection presses organisms to adapt to their environments (like the finches on the Galapagos Islands) and that the combination of the two can produce organisms to change and adapt to their environment.

An example of microevolution are the Elephants in Africa whom are slowly losing tusks due to genetic mutation and natural selection (in other words, poachers looking for Ivory). The frequency of tuskless females, for instance, has risen from 10% to over 30%. Even Asian elephants are beginning to lose their tusks more frequently too.[1]

So I pretty sure that microevolution has been well covered.

Argument 2. Microevolutionary change can lead to macroevolutionary change.

There is also plenty of evidence for that too. But firstly, I want to ask a question to Con (Con can answer this in round 3):

What is the mechanism that prevents a species from continuing to change genetically and over time into what we could consider a different species? In other words, what stops an organism from changing genetically enough to be different from the species it branches from?

It is a common myth that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, particularly macro evolution, but this is, well, a myth. There are hundreds of transitional fossils which all give credence to the evolutionary theory, but I will be discussing the evolution of the whale, as this is the best example of evolution. There is enormous amount of evidence that I will never be able to get through in a 10,000 character long argument, but I will showcase the best evidence currently found.

We will start with the Sinonyx, a wolf-sized mammal that probably lived in/near water 60 million years ago. It's is also a relative of the hippo. This mammal eventually evolved into Pakicetus, who's skeleton looks similar to the Sinonyx, though more aquatic. This mammal likewise evolved into Ambulocetus, a mammal that is better adapted to an aquatic life like that of a seal. Finally, this mammal evolved into the Dorudon, which is believed to be the ancestor of all modern Baleen whales (such as humback whale and Toothed whales (such as dolphins) and now fully aquatic.[2]

As you can see in the source below, all the skeletons of each of the mammals I mentioned above look remarkably similar, yet are able to differ greatly given enough time. Another remarkable thing about this is the fact that these fossil remains are in geological order from oldest to newest, and not found randomly in the ground.

Argument 3. Evolution theory predictions have come true.

A common argument against evolution is that it is unscientific because it does not use the scientific method. This is true and false. True, in the fact that you cannot produce macroevolutionary changes in a lab because it takes loooooooong periods of time. But it is also false, because Darwin has made predictions that have later been found to be true, such as:

a. Transitional whale fossil that had both baleen and teeth was later found to exist (Aetiocetus).

b. Different species will appear in different geological layers, but will never overlap (for example, trilobite fossils will never be found with dinosaur fossils, as their geological timeline don't overlap. This has been proven true many many time.

c. Archaeopteryx was predicted to have teeth, and it did.

etc[3]

Argument 4. Yes, before you even say anything, you CAN produce something new with gene mutations *looks at you judgingly*[4]

I think that will do for now. I don't want to overload you on round 3.

[1] http://goodnature.nathab.com...

[2] http://whalevolution.tumblr.com...

[3] http://chem.tufts.edu...

[4] http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
Maccabee

Con

First of all I like to thank my opponent for inviting me to this debate. It's the first time anyone done this. Here is my argument:

I believe in micro evolution which is genetic changes within a family. We do not see anything beyond this point. We don't observe one family evolving into another which would be called macro evolution. I believe fossils cannot be used as evidence for macro evolution (for the rest of the debate I'll refer macro evolution as just evolution) because one cannot prove the fossil had different offspring. My evidence against evolution is mainly two for simplicity:

1. Convergent evolution
2. The second law of thermodynamics

Convergent evolution

This is saying that animals that are completely not related have similar body structures. The reason I think this is evidence against evolution is because the chance of the body structure to evolve by chance and mutation (pretty much the same thing) is very slim. The chance of it evolving two or more separate times is as likely as rolling "12" on a pair of dice a million times in a row. Here are three examples.

Flight

Flight is a very complicated mechanism especially organic flight (flight by living creatures). There must be a specific ratio on many thousands of things like bone mass, muscle mass, heart rate, blood flow, etc. this mechanism to evolve by chance or mutation is very slim on its own. But according to the theory of evolution, not only did it evolved once, but four separate times. Insects, reptiles, birds, and mammals all have flight. We all seen insects fly and most birds, but bats, which are mammals, also fly and so does the pterosaur, which is a reptile. How can we believe that flight, which is by itself very complicated, can evolve four separate times?

Fish with antifreeze

The fish at the north and South Pole have a natural antifreeze that is very similar to each other. Yet the gene to create the antifreeze is completely different from the two fish. Are we to believe that evolution created fish with antifreeze which the antifreeze itself is very similar but come from very different gene sequences?

Human and squid eyes

Humans and squid share a very similar eye, but yet the theory of evolution says that these two families evolved from completly different branches of the evolution tree. Are we to believe that by chance and mutation the eye evolved twice?

Then there's the second law of thermodynamics

The law states that things tend towards disorder and become more simple. This is a law which we see everyday (your messy room for example). Nothing can perminemtely overcome it. Those who promote evolution will say that the law can be overcome by adding energy. Using the messy room analogy one can put energy into it and clean it up. There are however two major problems to it.

1. Raw energy is destructive. It needs either a complicated machine to recieve the energy or it needs a intelligent plan and order to place the right amount of energy to a specific area. I can add energy to Clemente my room by fixing my bed, putting the socks in the drawer, pick up the dirty dishes on the nightstand. However would the same result would happen if I pulled the pin on a grenade and threw it in my room?

2. Nothing can overcome the law forever. The room, even if I left it alone, would gather dust and get musty and moldy. Any wood in my room would eventually rot. Any plastic would eventually break down and so on.

So this applies to the theory of evolution. Evolution states that a single simple cell evolved into what we see today but that violates the second law of thermodynamics. When a theory conflicts with a law who wins out, the theory or the law?
Debate Round No. 2
AWSM0055

Pro

"First of all I like to thank my opponent for inviting me to this debate. It's the first time anyone done this. Here is my argument:

I believe in micro evolution which is genetic changes within a family. We do not see anything beyond this point. We don't observe one family evolving into another which would be called macro evolution."

Well of course not, but we don't need to. I'll use an analogy: Say you found a dead body with a knife in it, tied up and gagged. Is it unreasonable to infer that someone murdered the body? Same with evolution. We don't need to directly observe it happening to conclude what happened. I'll ask you the question again:

What is the mechanism that prevents a species from continuing to change genetically and over time into what we could consider a different species? In other words, what stops an organism from changing genetically enough to be different from the species it branches from?

"I believe fossils cannot be used as evidence for macro evolution (for the rest of the debate I'll refer macro evolution as just evolution) because one cannot prove the fossil had different offspring. My evidence against evolution is mainly two for simplicity:"

No, and evolutionists aren't trying to prove that. Macroevolution is made up of micro evolutionary results, so the "different" offspring would probably be still extremely similar to its parents. Nonetheless, what you say about fossils having offspring is irrelevant because we can find other fossils further up the geological chain which are directly related to the previous fossils, meaning that at some point, some offspring with the mutated gene had to have had offspring and spread the beneficial gene. If it didn't, we wouldn't have any evidence of the change.

Anyway, onto your argument:

Convergent evolution

Sure, but if the feature (such as flight) are,extremely useful, it will definitely pop up (figure of speech) more in organisms.

But regardless, you analogy of rolling a dice the same a million times fails because your ignoring natural selection. Natural selection is like rolling a dice on number 12, so 12 pops up more after the first instance of it showing up. Once an organism evolves a feature that's useful and has offspring to pass on that gene, the whole population (eventually) will have that gene too (and any who don't, die).

Flight

"Flight is a very complicated mechanism especially organic flight (flight by living creatures). There must be a specific ratio on many thousands of things like bone mass, muscle mass, heart rate, blood flow, etc. this mechanism to evolve by chance or mutation is very slim on its own."

That's right, because it didn't. Wings probably weren't originally used for flight at first, but eventually became useful for flight in later generations, which would mean that it didn't all evolve for a sole reason (flight) at once. Also remember that new evolutionary traits in populations are often rudimentary, and may only help an organism with the gene only a small bit, but enough for it to eventually become dominant.

I'll use an analogy: Say I had to bang a nail into a wall, but all I had was a spanner. What do I do? Use the spanner! Though it's very rudimentary, it's better than nothing. Same with evolution. You don't need a hammer to hammer a nail, just use what you have!

So what I'm basically saying is that birds for instance didn't evolve all your above factors all at once but gradually and perhaps for different purposes evolved one step and a time.

I don't want to waste characters, so I found a interesting and detailed article about flight in birds if your interested: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Fish with antifreeze

"Are we to believe that evolution created fish with antifreeze which the antifreeze itself is very similar but come from very different gene sequences?"

...yes? I don't seem to see the problem here.

Human and squid eyes

"Are we to believe that by chance and mutation the eye evolved twice?"

Like I said before, if a feature is extremely useful, it will be in high demand (so to speak) for organisms. Furthermore, the process to gaining sight is fairly simple (all you need are light sensitive cells and nerves).

Besides, again, your ignoring the natural selection part. Evolution isn't random.

Here's some good articles on it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Second law of thermodynamics dynamics

"The law states that things tend towards disorder and become more simple. This is a law which we see everyday (your messy room for example)."

Damnit...

"Nothing can perminemtely overcome it. Those who promote evolution will say that the law can be overcome by adding energy. Using the messy room analogy one can put energy into it and clean it up. There are however two major problems to it."

1. Raw energy is destructive

I agree, which is why organisms must direct energy in a particular way. When you eat, you consume "energy" and then you release that energy by doing activities. If you fail to do this, you die. Other organisms also use the sun for energy.

Nonetheless, if you shot yourself in the face, that's a lot of energy but it's misplaced, and your also dead.

However, organisms direct energy in a particular way, so there is no threat of:

a. Descending into disorder
b. Blowing up

"2. Nothing can overcome the law forever. The room, even if I left it alone, would gather dust and get musty and moldy. Any wood in my room would eventually rot. Any plastic would eventually break down and so on."

https://m.youtube.com...

Wood rots, but trees don't...because one is alive resisting entropy and one isn't.

"So this applies to the theory of evolution. Evolution states that a single simple cell evolved into what we see today but that violates the second law of thermodynamics. When a theory conflicts with a law who wins out, the theory or the law?"

Second law of thermodynamics is not violated because the energy organisms use is directed in a particular way to resist entropy. That's why you can grow from a child to an adult without rotting in the process.

And besides, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which earth isn't one.
Maccabee

Con

Maccabee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AWSM0055

Pro

As it seems, Con has forfeited round 3, due to troubles with the site. Therefore, I ask for potential voters to ignore this as it seemed to be out of Con's control.

Nonetheless, as Con failed to give counter rebuttals for my previous rebuttals, I shall likewise forfeit this round to keep it fair.

Due to these difficulties, round 4 will be restructured to only have the conclusions, no rebuttals from Pro or Con.
Maccabee

Con

Maccabee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maccabee 1 year ago
Maccabee
So I just post my conclusion? I don't its fair because you used up your round in explaining why I accidentally forfeit (thanks for that) and you didn't give your conclusion.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Actually, on second thought, just post your conclusion in round 4, no rebuttals.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
That's ok. If you want, you can post your rebuttals in comment section.
Posted by Maccabee 1 year ago
Maccabee
I didnt mean to forfeit. I had other things to do and the site wasn't working.
Posted by Maccabee 1 year ago
Maccabee
Oops, I made a spelling error in round two under my first point in the second law of thermodynamics. It's supposed to be "cleaning".
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Ironically, your definition of "macroecolution" would actually disprove the theory of evolution. Your argument is so beyond ignorant it's hard to believe.

Maybe do some research on evolution (and no, not Kent Hovind videos or Answers in Genesis crap) so you can produce a somewhat more intellectual argument against evolution.

No one, and I repeat NO ONE has ever said that chimps come from lions etc etc etc

And you seem to willingly ignore my evidence for macroecolution given in my argument (like a true creationist) in regards to the whale.

So you ask for evidence, and then you ignore it. How typical.

I'm actually legitimately pissed off now.
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
Macro evolution has never and will never happen you have never seen or observed and dogs turn into a cat or a chimpanzee turn into a lion sometimes you see some changes for example; you get get a big dog or a little dog or a dog with long hair or a short hair dogs w
but dogs will remain dogs and cats will remain cats there are no other exceptions.
By the way whenever you think of anything that has to do with evolution think, just think has this ever occurred recently or been 100% proven.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
That's cool
Posted by Maccabee 1 year ago
Maccabee
Oh, just so you know I won't be able to respond today. I'll either respond tomorrow or Monday for sure.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Where'd you get that definition? AnswersInGenesis dictionary?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 1 year ago
Ramshutu
AWSM0055MaccabeeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Second FF. Pro's arguments were better than Con's initially, though some of the rebuttals weren't as cogent as they could have been. Second FF means the argument stood with no refutation.