The Instigator
Konflikt208
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Konflikt208
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,291 times Debate No: 28944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Konflikt208

Pro

Evolution is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth than creationism.
The evidence for evolution is extensive: DNA, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, and to the average person like me the most convincing and easiest piece of evidence is the vestigial organ.
Creationism on the other hand only points out unexplained phenomena or certain features of animals that evolution has not explained yet, or has explained and ingnores the claim entirely to proof their case.
jh1234l

Con

I am con and the Burden Of Proof was never stated; therefore Burden Of Proof (BOP) is on pro.

"Evolution is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth than creationism.
The evidence for evolution is extensive: DNA, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, and to the average person like me the most convincing and easiest piece of evidence is the vestigial organ."

This does not have any proof as no source (the place where your information came from) is given. For us to know that your claims are true, it must be backed with a source or logic, however, no source as given.

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an informational molecule encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.[1]

Pro claims that this proves evolution, but he has never said anything about how and why it proved evolution, therefore Pro's DNA argument does not work until he backs it up further.

However, in most cases the recovery of DNA from fossils is impossible[2], therefore there is no direct proof of ancient genetic systems, how they worked, etc. Thus, DNA cannot completely explain or prove evolution.

Fossils

Pro claims that the fossil record has proven evolution. However, the dating method (method to know the age of the fossil) used by most evolutionists is radiometric dating, which has a problem:

While large changes to the decay rate (the basis of the system) has not been observed, some changes WERE reported by Emery (1972). [3]

I rest my case.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
Debate Round No. 1
Konflikt208

Pro

We can compare DNA sequences since DNA collects mutations over time. By doing so geneticists can infer an evolutionary history of an organism. Now, DNA may be impossible to retrieve from fossils, however we can still look at living organisms and compare differences and similarities on species. DNA is also very strong evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor if you look at the fusion of two separate ancestral chromosomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...



Fossils provide strong evidence for evolution because long before we had dating tecniques, earlier paleontologists that dug up fossils from different stratas found that simpler organisms were on the bottom and more recent organsims were on top. It proves what evolution predicts in that more complex life was begotten from simpler life. If there were to be say human fossils in say the proterozoic period, we would have a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Also see Coyne, Jerry(2009) Why Evolution Is True.

As for the dating of fossils, there are many different types of dating
(1) Uranium-lead
(2) Samarium-neodymium
(3) Potassium-argon
(4) Rubidium-strontium
(5) Uranium-thorium
(6) Radiocarbon
(7) Fission track
(8) Chlorine-36

to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have not seen any compeling evidence from the creationists side of the argument. The main argument that does get thrown out is that of Irreducible Complexity which states that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

This theory of Irreducible Complexity was destroyed in the court case Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District .
where a public school district policy tried to make it a requirement to teach intelligent design.[1
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will rest my case for this round.


jh1234l

Con

"We can compare DNA sequences since DNA collects mutations over time. By doing so geneticists can infer an evolutionary history of an organism. Now, DNA may be impossible to retrieve from fossils, however we can still look at living organisms and compare differences and similarities on species. DNA is also very strong evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor if you look at the fusion of two separate ancestral chromosomes."

The human and mouse genomes are really similar in their chromosomes and the level of DNA sequence. [1] Therefore there is a problem. Did humans evolve from rats or chimps? Plus, if we just compare current species, how do we know which came first? The DNA record does not say anything about time. Therefore, we will have to use radiometric dating to date fossils, which I already proved to have an error margin in the last round.

"Fossils provide strong evidence for evolution because long before we had dating tecniques, earlier paleontologists that dug up fossils from different stratas found that simpler organisms were on the bottom and more recent organsims were on top. It proves what evolution predicts in that more complex life was begotten from simpler life. If there were to be say human fossils in say the proterozoic period, we would have a problem. "

We need to know that the time DOES have a correlation with the altitude the fossil is found in first for this to be true.

"I have not seen any compeling evidence from the creationists side of the argument. The main argument that does get thrown out is that of Irreducible Complexity which states that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations."

This is an argument made by creationists, not creationism itself.

I rest my case.

[1]http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Konflikt208

Pro

"We need to know that the time DOES have a correlation with the altitude the fossil is found in first for this to be true."

But within the geological record is a definite ordering of fossils and rocks that is consistent, predictable, and useful to an understanding of change over time. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric by I Want This" href="#">dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

Radiometric dating is very reliable. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not allobjects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.

How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.


Exerpts from TalkOrigins.org

"The human and mouse genomes are really similar in their chromosomes and the level of DNA sequence. [1] Therefore there is a problem. Did humans evolve from rats or chimps? Plus, if we just compare current species, how do we know which came first? The DNA record does not say anything about time. Therefore, we will have to use radiometric dating to date fossils, which I already proved to have an error margin in the last round."

Yes humans and mouse genomes are similiar, but the thing is humans did not evolve from chimps or rats, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Mammals (humans, rats, chimps) have similar evolved from a common ancestor. My third piece of evidence was the endogenus retroviruses. These viruses can make copies of their genome and insert them into the DNA of species they infect. HIV is a retrovirus. If the viruses infect the cells of eggs and sperm, they can be passed to the next generation. The human genome has lots of such retroviruses, but they are all nearly rendered harmless by mutations.

Now, where this fits with human and chimp common ancestory is the fact that these viruses sit on the exact location on the human and chimp chromosomes. So these viruses infected our ancestor and passed it on to both decendants.

again Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True.


I rest my case.





jh1234l

Con

But within the geological record is a definite ordering of fossils and rocks that is consistent, predictable, and useful to an understanding of change over time. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric by I Want This" href="#">dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy. Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

However, you need to give examples of index fossils and sources to support your claims, or else your claim is baseless and therefore unreliable.


Yes humans and mouse genomes are similiar, but the thing is humans did not evolve from chimps or rats, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Mammals (humans, rats, chimps) have similar evolved from a common ancestor. My third piece of evidence was the endogenus retroviruses. These viruses can make copies of their genome and insert them into the DNA of species they infect. HIV is a retrovirus. If the viruses infect the cells of eggs and sperm, they can be passed to the next generation. The human genome has lots of such retroviruses, but they are all nearly rendered harmless by mutations.

I don't see how that prves your claim.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
Konflikt208

Pro

Ammonites, corals, graptolites, brachiopods, and trilobites are index fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I don't see how that prves your claim."
I was pointing out that your question "Did humans evolve from rats or chimps?" is not valid; that it is a common ancestor that we evolved from which the theory of evolution states.
The chimpanzee-human by I Want This" href="#">last common ancestor is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.

In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the bonobos and the chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.



jh1234l

Con

Sorry, but I will have to concede this debate. All votes should go to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
Konflikt208

Pro

My opponent has conceded. I would like to thank my opponent, since this was my first debate, con has shown some errors in my arguements, which need some improvement. I hope to have another debate with my opponent in the future.
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to my opponent for debating with me, and once again, all votes should go to him because I conceded.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by auramon 3 years ago
auramon
The number of scientific research papers that directly and indirectly confirm and support theory of evolution is approaching a million, but there is no scientific paper that negates theory of evolution or support creation myth. Theory of evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology, and it is 100% right. It is as much true as the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is more than a theory. It is s fact. Evolution is the most rigorously proven scientific fact, while creation is a myth created by the ancient mind that didn't even know what rainbow is, what fire is, what stars are, or why people get sick.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Cumulative genetic change over generations, happens, just like gravity does. Google it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Cumulative Evolution is triumphantly a theory!

Allowing the poison of religious text to atrophy intellect, is the ball and chain mankind drags on its way to a higher standard and a more advanced and virtuous societ
Posted by Albert 3 years ago
Albert
I would have liked to see more interesting areas of this debate talked about. Such as, science vs science, and chance for events to occur, or how everything in each theory needs to occur.

Some very biologists talk about these issues which ive found interesting. Also logically explaining the advancement of creatures.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Konflikt208jh1234lTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Konflikt208jh1234lTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF