The Instigator
mrkkid17
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
atheistman
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 11 votes the winner is...
atheistman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,528 times Debate No: 9990
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (11)

 

mrkkid17

Con

-Argument is wether or not evolution has occured or not.
-Must use scientific facts to support you arguments.
atheistman

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. Since he has not provided definitions, I will set definitions that I assume my opponent will agree to.

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I will be arguing that evolution has occurred and is the cause of the diversity of life on Earth. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support it, including evidence in DNA, vestigial structures, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, transitional fossils, among many others.
Microevolution can be observed when bacteria mutates to resist antibiotics, when animal offspring gain advantages through mutation of the DNA survive and the less fit die out, and when humans are observed to have slightly different traits (such as free earlobes, widow's peaks, hair on fingers etc) Even macroevolution has been observed, there is a link at the bottom about macroevolution observed in a laboratory. If small changes over a short scale of time are observed, then how are large changes over a large scale of time - millions of years - impossible? Now I'll let my opponent present his arguments.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.dbskeptic.com...
http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mrkkid17

Con

I thank my opponet for accepting my argument.

Evolution is not a theory evolution is a religion. Evolution can not be proven nor backed up by scientific facts. Now let's start with genes and there complexity. Scientist haven't yet decoded genes, they have however mapped DNA. Now genes are so complex that 550 million years, which is the amount of time earth has existed (according to evolutionists') hasn't even touched the surface of randomness. Lets say for instance the human genome is 300,000,000,000 combinations long that's about 57,000,000 card decks. Now lets say I just need to get 14 of the same suit in order from spades to hearts. Now the chances of that occurring 57,000,000 times is statistically impossible to happen within the time frame of 550 million years. Now scientist say you can date the earth using the method radiometric dating "Radioisotope dating (also referred to as radiometric dating) is the process of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements. There are certain kinds of atoms in nature that are unstable and spontaneously change (decay) into other kinds of atoms. For example, uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element lead. Likewise, potassium decays into the element argon. The original element is referred to as the parent element (in these cases uranium and potassium), and the end result is called the daughter element (lead and argon)"(Riddle). Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can't directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
1.The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2.The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3.The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices. Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years. A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helen's was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon was present when the rock solidified. So you see this method of dating is not accurate. Then scientist say there is a "missing link". Have we ever found a half mutated organism in fossil form? No of course not, nor have we seen any mutation since humans have had records. Now what is the very definition of mutation? Mutation is an error code within the DNA. there is a 1000-1 chance that mutations are beneficial to an organism. Mutations occur about every 10 million duplications. That's 10^7. For 2 mutations to occur would be 10^14 that's 100 trillion. Now 3 to occur in a row would be 10^21 and four would be 10^28. Now there isn't even that many organisms that exist on earth, and turning a microbe into a human would a lot more than just four mutations. Please, do not get mutations confused with adaptations. The common example would be Africans and Caucasians. Africans being darker can stay out in the sun longer because of the region they have to live in. Now there are minor variations within a species that allows that species to still be part of that species, because an African is still considered human as well as a Caucasian. Different dogs breeds for example a golden retriever and a pit bull, two totally different breed but the same species. The oldest feather is dated 100 million years old and guess what, that feather is still a feather its not a half feather half scale is just a plain feather. Knowledgeable people know that if mutations accrued over time(just like evolutionists say they have) then there would be plenty of finding of half mutated beings or beings in a mutated state. Now lets not forget Neanderthals may have been primitive humans but they are still HUMANS. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
atheistman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his speedy response.

'Evolution is not a theory evolution is a religion.'

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. What you believe - creationism- is part of a religion, what I believe - evolution - is scientific facts and evidence.

'Evolution can not be proven nor backed up by scientific facts.'

Another ridiculous statement. A scientific theory, like gravity, is a theory with enough evidence to be considered a proven fact. Do you think scientists just decided one day 'I think we'll make up an explanation based off of nothing that says all species on Earth are related,' no, scientists base their theories off of hard evidence and observation.

'Now genes are so complex that 550 million years, which is the amount of time earth has existed (according to evolutionists') hasn't even touched the surface of randomness.'

Wrong. According to scientists the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

'Lets say for instance the human genome is 300,000,000,000 combinations long that's about 57,000,000 card decks. Now lets say I just need to get 14 of the same suit in order from spades to hearts. Now the chances of that occurring 57,000,000 times is statistically impossible to happen within the time frame of 550 million years.'

Ah, the bogus creationist chance argument.
First: this has nothing to do with evolution, you're referring to the abiogenesis theory; the origin of life. We're debating on whether or not organisms have evolved over time, not on how life originated.
Second: Abiogenesis actually wasn't improbable, I embedded a video at the top explaining how abiogenesis happened.
Third: Even if abiogenesis was improbable, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is no such thing as an impossible chance, statistics don't govern the universe. If I tile a large section of the Earth with one billion tiles and drop a ball onto the grid, each of those tiles has a one in a billion chance of the ball dropping on it. Does that mean it's impossible for the ball to drop on any of the tiles? No, chance is simply a label for the probability of something happening, it doesn't necessarily disprove something.

'Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
1.The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2.The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3.The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.'

Parent isotopes decay to daughter isotopes at a predictable rate. The age is simple calculated by the ratio of daughter to parent. But scientists measure the age of more than just the daughter and parent isotopes, they check the age calculation with the ages of isotopes from the same element and other minerals from the same pool of materials.

'In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices. Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years'

The Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens was incorrectly dated. The potassium-argon method was used to date it when that method cannot be used to date young samples.

'So you see this method of dating is not accurate. Then scientist say there is a "missing link". Have we ever found a half mutated organism in fossil form? No of course not, nor have we seen any mutation since humans have had records.'

Obviously, my opponent didn't take the time to look at my sources in the previous round. I posted a link of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and I'll post a link of the 'missing link' between apes and humans that was found less than two months ago. mrkkid17, please look at my sources from now on before you post your arguments. Macroevolution has been observed, I posted a link of it observed in a laboratory in the previous round. Also, humans haven't been around long enough to observe macroevolution in nature.

'Mutation is an error code within the DNA. there is a 1000-1 chance that mutations are beneficial to an organism. Mutations occur about every 10 million duplications. That's 10^7. For 2 mutations to occur would be 10^14 that's 100 trillion. Now 3 to occur in a row would be 10^21 and four would be 10^28. Now there isn't even that many organisms that exist on earth, and turning a microbe into a human would a lot more than just four mutations'

False. There are typically .1-1 mutations per virus genome replications, .003 mutations per microbe genome replications, and 64 mutations per human genome replications. The numbers are most likely higher since smaller mutations are harder to detect.

'The common example would be Africans and Caucasians. Africans being darker can stay out in the sun longer because of the region they have to live in. Now there are minor variations within a species that allows that species to still be part of that species, because an African is still considered human as well as a Caucasian. Different dogs breeds for example a golden retriever and a pit bull, two totally different breed but the same species. The oldest feather is dated 100 million years old and guess what, that feather is still a feather its not a half feather half scale is just a plain feather.'

In this section, my opponent simply goes on to prove microevolution.

'Knowledgeable people know that if mutations accrued over time(just like evolutionists say they have) then there would be plenty of finding of half mutated beings or beings in a mutated state. Now lets not forget Neanderthals may have been primitive humans but they are still HUMANS.'

Again, I've already showed you that transitional fossils exist. You proving microevolution doesn't rule out macroevolution. Small mutations over a short period of time accumulate to large mutations over a long period of time, until the mutated species can no longer breed with the former species.

Now I'll let my opponent present his arguments.

Scientists' support for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Age of the Earth: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Radiometric Dating: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Mt. St. Helens: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

Missing Link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Mutations: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mrkkid17

Con

I thank my opponent for responding to this debate.

'I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. What you believe - creationism- is part of a religion, what I believe - evolution - is scientific facts and evidence.'

Evolution is not based on fact for the reason that evolution is a theory. Your response is negated.

-'Another ridiculous statement. A scientific theory, like gravity, is a theory with enough evidence to be considered a proven fact. Do you think scientists just decided one day 'I think we'll make up an explanation based off of nothing that says all species on Earth are related,' no, scientists base their theories off of hard evidence and observation.'

The reason why it is referred to as the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. Greek philosophers came up with the theory of evolution but Charles Darwin made evolution famous about 100 years before the discovery of DNA so he did infact make a theory based on no hard evidence.

-Wrong. According to scientists the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

If you know the time frame of evolution you would realize that I was talking about the time life started to exist on the planet according to evolution which is about 550 million years ago.

-Ah, the bogus creationist chance argument.
First: this has nothing to do with evolution, you're referring to the abiogenesis theory; the origin of life. We're debating on whether or not organisms have evolved over time, not on how life originated.
Second: Abiogenesis actually wasn't improbable, I embedded a video at the top explaining how abiogenesis happened.
Third: Even if abiogenesis was improbable, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is no such thing as an impossible chance, statistics don't govern the universe. If I tile a large section of the Earth with one billion tiles and drop a ball onto the grid, each of those tiles has a one in a billion chance of the ball dropping on it. Does that mean it's impossible for the ball to drop on any of the tiles? No, chance is simply a label for the probability of something happening, it doesn't necessarily disprove something.

You can't argue math. It be right if you were to say if you dropped a ball over 1000000000000000000000000000000000 titles and you had to land it on Florida then the chances would be so extreme it would be impossible, because even if that many people did do it that way the ball could land in the same spot multiple times.

-Parent isotopes decay to daughter isotopes at a predictable rate. The age is simple calculated by the ratio of daughter to parent. But scientists measure the age of more than just the daughter and parent isotopes, they check the age calculation with the ages of isotopes from the same element and other minerals from the same pool of materials.

The RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years.6 Two conclusions drawn by the RATE group include:
1.The single-sample potassium-argon dates showed a wide variation.
2.A marked variation in ages was found in the isochron method using different parent-daughter analyses.
If different methods yield different ages and there are variations with the same method, how can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth?
In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks! Are the dates given in textbooks and journals accurate and objective? When assumptions are taken into consideration and discordant dates are not omitted, radioisotope dating often gives inconsistent and inflated ages.

-Obviously, my opponent didn't take the time to look at my sources in the previous round. I posted a link of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and I'll post a link of the 'missing link' between apes and humans that was found less than two months ago. mrkkid17, please look at my sources from now on before you post your arguments. Macroevolution has been observed, I posted a link of it observed in a laboratory in the previous round. Also, humans haven't been around long enough to observe macroevolution in nature.

Using youtube as a credible source is pointless, because anyone can post a youtube video. Missing links have never been found because there are no findings of transitional species. You have negated evolution by proving that it takes intelligent life forms to decode DNA and manipulate organisms. You also just said that humans have never oberserved macroevolution nor have we ever observed any form of evolution.

-False. There are typically .1-1 mutations per virus genome replications, .003 mutations per microbe genome replications, and 64 mutations per human genome replications. The numbers are most likely higher since smaller mutations are harder to detect

False, http://www.answersingenesis.org...

-Again, I've already showed you that transitional fossils exist. You proving microevolution doesn't rule out macroevolution. Small mutations over a short period of time accumulate to large mutations over a long period of time, until the mutated species can no longer breed with the former species.

This is not a fact for the reason it has never been proven.

-Again, I've already showed you that transitional fossils exist. You proving microevolution doesn't rule out macroevolution. Small mutations over a short period of time accumulate to large mutations over a long period of time, until the mutated species can no longer breed with the former species.

Transitional fossils do not exist. Scientists can make assumptions from what came from what but since genetics have not been decoded you can not compare anything to anything because you don't know there genetic make up.

My opponent has failed to prove that there is even the smallest chance that evolution has occurred.
atheistman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his quick response.

"Evolution is not based on fact for the reason that evolution is a theory. Your response is negated."

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Facts are the world's data, scientific theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

"The reason why it is referred to as the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. Greek philosophers came up with the theory of evolution but Charles Darwin made evolution famous about 100 years before the discovery of DNA so he did infact make a theory based on no hard evidence."

Actually gravity is not referred to as the law of gravity, it is referred to as the Gravitational Theory. There are laws within the theory, such as if an object is dropped on Earth, then it must fall to the ground. When Darwin discovered that the diversity of life on Earth is due to evolution, there was not an incredible amount evidence to support his theory, and there were some holes in it. But as time progressed, more and more evidence was found and the holes were filled in. One of the most irrefutable pieces of evidence that was found was found by biologist Craig Venter, when he mapped out the genome and analyzed DNA. I embedded a video at the top explaining this.

"If you know the time frame of evolution you would realize that I was talking about the time life started to exist on the planet according to evolution which is about 550 million years ago."

Wrong again, whether you were referring to the age of the Earth or the amount of time life has existed on Earth. Life has been on earth for 4 billion years. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"You can't argue math. It be right if you were to say if you dropped a ball over 1000000000000000000000000000000000 titles and you had to land it on Florida then the chances would be so extreme it would be impossible, because even if that many people did do it that way the ball could land in the same spot multiple times."

This argument has no relevance to this debate since we're debating EVOLUTION, not the origin of life. But by the way, improbability does not mean impossibility and abiogenesis wasn't even improbable, as explained by my video in Round 2.

"The RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years."

As I explained in Round 2, the wrong methods of dating were used by the RATE group, as a way to fool people into thinking dating methods are inaccurate. Many creationists try to find evidence against evolution to try to find reasons to hold on to their supernatural explanations.

"Using youtube as a credible source is pointless, because anyone can post a youtube video. Missing links have never been found because there are no findings of transitional species. You have negated evolution by proving that it takes intelligent life forms to decode DNA and manipulate organisms. You also just said that humans have never oberserved macroevolution nor have we ever observed any form of evolution."

The youtube video was simply to show you what the explanation for the origin of life is, which is an entirely different argument than evolution anyway. The video's info contains the reliable sources to where creator of the video got his information. This paragraph is further proof that you haven't looked at my sources, since I posted sources which show evidence of transitional fossils and missing links. I didn't say evolution has never been observed, while researching for this debate I actually came across a lot proof of macroevolution, such as:

The islands in Croatia that show rapid evolutionary changes between their respective lizard populations.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;

The pacific oceanic island with both Kentia and Howea palms, which show sympatric speciation
http://www.sciencemag.org...;
http://www.nature.com...;

Dr Lenski's lab at Michigan State where he has documented bacterial speciation in E coli.
http://www.newscientist.com...;

The Pacific Northwest lake bottoms with stickleback fish.
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca...;
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com...;

Lake Victoria/ a lake in Africa where Cichlid fish have speciated based on water clarity.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
http://www.the-scientist.com...;
New Hampshire shores where mussels are evolving in response to introduced crab species.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;

Maryland is the physical home NIH but the internet is the best place to view the Human Genome Project's various research projects to analyze and compare the genetic changes that underlie all anatomical and physiological changes between species
http://www.genome.gov...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;

UCRiverside California has studies looking at guppy placentas to show the rapid appearance of complex organs in an organism.
http://www.gate.net...;

The Solomon Islands show White Eyes of the Zosteropidae birds.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;
http://www.gate.net...;

The Congo River Africa shows fish diversity. Perhaps the greatest variation of depth in any river has driven this tropical rivers adaptive radiation by providing an unusual range of habitats.
http://evolvingwithdarwin.blogspot.com...;

Damier River Trinidad guppies show evolutionary changes in behavior and fertility in 8 years
http://news.mongabay.com...;

"False, http://www.answersingenesis.org...;

You trust a website that bases its information off of a 2,000-year-old fairy tale written by sheep herders, over a website that bases its information off of the countless hours of hard work, research, testing, and re-testing, of scientific methods by scientists to find the answers? http://www.talkorigins.org... is the real information on mutations.

"This is not a fact for the reason it has never been proven."

My opponent still denies the evidence of transitional fossils, and doesn't understand that macroevolution is simply the extended process of microevolution.

"Transitional fossils do not exist. Scientists can make assumptions from what came from what but since genetics have not been decoded you can not compare anything to anything because you don't know there genetic make up.
My opponent has failed to prove that there is even the smallest chance that evolution has occurred."

Transitional fossil do exist, as I have shown with sources. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Genetics have been decoded - as you can see in the embedded video - the DNA contains irrefutable proof that evolution has occurred in species on Earth. My opponent has failed to prove that even the smallest bit of the Theory of Evolution has been disproved, and I have presented overwhelming evidence in favor of it.

Thank you, and VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ryalaway79 5 years ago
ryalaway79
WOW back off people he gave it a good shot. He said he is new and learning you do not have to kick someone why they are down. I completely believe in evolution and that is the side I am on. But if someone says they are still learning do not rub there face in it. That is just my opinion.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
The question is how could 4sextillion stars, come from nothing???
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Just a quick comment to mrkkid17... You picked a challenging debate for your first one here. I don't know if I'm going to be that brave when I get back from vacation and start my first debate. :-)
Posted by Jargon 7 years ago
Jargon
@mrkkid17: Thank you for having the courage to take your views to a debate site & debate them, most people don't and instead prefer the shelter of places fostering group-think & or if they aren't really your views on the matter & or this is purely a matter of you wanting to hone your debating skills I applaud your enthusiasm for doing so.

One of the comment sections purposes is for those that cast their votes to let the debaters as well those watching the debate know why it is a group of votes were cast in a certain manner. The idea of voluntary voter disclosure puts a damper on presumptive vote casting. For those who participate in the art of critical expression, explaining why they cast a vote to this or that debater is a chance to learn more. The point of criticism is to correct or point out flaws & pass an informed judgment or discernment, as it is with most critical theories, so that we may learn more not so that we may hurt or disparage.

Many of the mistakes you've possibly tripped over are made ad nauseam by others long before being concisely refuted enough such that they realize wherein they went wrong in their thinking. Which stands as a testament to their flaws and non-growth as a debater, one who doesn't understand what he wishes to debate before he debates it is either wishing to hone in on and champion their ability at being a better rhetorician purely, making a better argument despite the available facts. Or as it is with debating a well founded science you're asking in a long mannered way someone else to explain to you the science itself & why what you're espousing doesn't represent it but some unrecognizable misconception of it.

Ergo it takes a good sophist to champion the cause that the world is flat, it's possible for them to win that debate, so long as the other person debating is both a bad rhetorician, debater and incompetent in the areas of geometry and lacks other general knowledge. The biological evolution debate isn't much differ
Posted by mrkkid17 7 years ago
mrkkid17
wow everyones a critic isnt the object of this website is to get better at debating thats all im doing is practicing geez lol
Posted by Jargon 7 years ago
Jargon
I left out # 5. mrkkid17 not only ignores several of atheistman links that outright belie his claims but also seems totally unaware of the information contained in them that counter one of his main objections. Macro evolution has been observed, but needless to say I think I've already made my point. Congratulations atheistman, though some of your rebuttals weren't as concise as I'd like, you non-the-less refuted his, well, what could only be described as a heap of mishmashed misunderstandings and parroted falsehoods.
Posted by Jargon 7 years ago
Jargon
Very typical creationist arguments.
1. Confuses the truth value of abiogenesis with that of evolution.
-------Shows that mrkkid17 doesn't have a firm grasp on how scientific theories work or how scientific facts and theories, which are higher than law, relate those facts. Furthermore mrkkid17 doesn't seem to understand how statistics is implemented as he has created a really embarrassing GIGO scenario and doesn't seem aware of it. Stochastic processes describing natural phenomena aren't describing equally random chance events.
2. Barely asserts that evolution is a religion (Freudian projection, just a bit).
-------Shows that mrkkid17 definitely doesn't have a firm grasp of either the philosophy that science is grounded in and how that differs from theology and metaphysics or that biological evolution as a science is the description intertwining facts dealing with the change in life across generations as described with only natural processes.
3. Scientist haven't yet decoded [all] genes . . .
-------Shows that mrkkid17 doesn't have a good grasp for population genetics, or genetics, otherwise would understand why this in no way weighs in on the truth value of biological evolution.
4. mrkkid17 makes an incoherent argument against radioactive dating and then confuses historical science as non-empirical despite that it is empirical and based on observation and known stochastic processes yielding levels of confidence which are in agreement with observation in chemistry and geology. Framing historical science as "is or not" reliable is a false dichotomy, once again, letting us know you don't understand statistics either.
6. mrkkid17 gets his sources not from the educational institutions or papers from the research but well known explicitly biased propaganda mills. mrkkid17's sources are incredulous, exposed as lies, and worse the web body promoting them have been long known for their spreading misinformation and disinformation.

mrkkid17 please study more n
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Something for the future atheistman, http://en.wikipedia.org...(human)

Chromosome 2 in humans is perfectly explained by the theory of evolution. Neither creationism, nor intelligent design (both being essentially the same idea) can explain it.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Thank you RoyLatham
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Nice job by Pro. Creationists tend to be all over the map, confusing the age of the earth and abiogenesis with evolution. That was the case here, and Pro did well untangling it.

A couple of notes on things that frequently arise in these debates:

1. Argon/argon dating is now often preferred to potassium/argon dating because it doesn't require knowing how much potassium was in the sample originally. The ratio of the two isotope by-products provides the dating.

2. There are more than a dozen isotope pairs used for radiometric dating, so that multiple independent methods cross-check the dating.

3. Mutation rates are probably much higher than Con supposes. In humans, there is an observable birth defect in about one in thirty births.

4. Most DNA seems to be "junk," which is to say it doesn't lead to production of structure (proteins). The "junk" could contain information like instinct patterns. Still, it's not the case that a particular sequence is strictly required. Many alterations produce no observable change.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mrkkid17 7 years ago
mrkkid17
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by godly1001 7 years ago
godly1001
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DanteCloud 7 years ago
DanteCloud
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jargon 7 years ago
Jargon
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Shingure 7 years ago
Shingure
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
mrkkid17atheistmanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06