The Instigator
Spartan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheBrorator
Pro (for)
Winning
13 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 4 votes the winner is...
TheBrorator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 889 times Debate No: 21885
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Spartan

Con

I am taking a side against evloution, and leaning toward Inteligent design. I am makeing this debate, because I need counter arguments to these points, given that they were given to me from a Christan prospective with the reasoning "you just can't explain that," So I request that each point is adressed in the rebuttle.

My opponent will have 24 hours to post a reply, and I wish him or her luck. Just for theeir sake, I have my facts in regular fonts, points in bold, and commentary in italics.


I. Law of biogenesis
- The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. [1]

-Gasses can't make Life


II. Pacific Golden Plover
- Migration from the breeding grounds of Arctic tundra (Alaska) to south pacific islands[2]. This is about a 5,000-13,000km journey, and make it by flying in formation nonstop[3]. there is large amounts energy usage in this process, and the bird only barely makes it though formation flight [3.1]

-How can an animal hatch in Alaska, and know to fly in formation to hit a tiny target hundreds of miles away? There would need to be a designer, For if this was all left to chance, you would have a bunch of dead birds. And dead things don't evolve.


III. The Dragonfly

- Despite the fact that dragonfly's wings are paper thin and transparent; they are also complex in mechanics. The front wing produces lift, and the back wing produces propulsion. Not to complex, until you observe a dragonfly's flight patterns. they can fly backwards, which would switch the wing's responsibility of lift an propulsion, and they also have the ability to bank on a turn, allowing one set of wings to beat faster than the other. [4]

- How would a newly evolved dragonfly learn to fly? If there was a part missing anywhere in the muscle system or a slight defect in the wings, you'd end up with a grounded dragonfly, and easy prey to birds.


- The dragonflies eat tadpoles. Tadpoles can change color and shape to avoid being eaten. [5]

-A brand new tadpole can't possibly know to change color and change form when a dragonfly approaches. there must be a creator who made these animals to do this.


IV. The Hippopotamus.

-The Hippopotamus while out of the water sweats a liquid that acts as sunscreen. This also prevents skin infections from, let's say an angry Hippopotamus fighting for his territory. [6]

-Without this skin protection, the Hippopotamus would suffer severe skin damage, and infection. It isn't logical if two Hippopotamuses got together and said to one another and said "Hey, its hecka hot out here. we should sweat sunscreen" and then they produce this liquid an pass it on to their children.


V. Bears

-Mother grizzlies are able to nurse in hibernation for 10 minutes every two to three hours while in hibernation, without drinking water, displacing feces or urinating. the liquid from the milk comes from the mother's fat that is broken down slowly over the winter. [7]

-How does that just "happen" though evolution? If one thing were missing, you would either end up with no babies, or a dead mother leading to dead babies. And Dead things don't evolve.


-If a human were to go into hibernation for five months, they would lose about 70% of their muscle strength. Bears prevent this by doing isometric exercises in their sleep several times a day. [8]

- There must be a creator who designed this to happen, for if it were left to evolution, a bear would stumble out of a cave in spring time and fall on its face, given its lack of muscle strength.


VI. Elephants

-Elephants' feet are padded to move silently, and actually it tiptoes. Even if a twig breaks under the elephant's foot, it is muffled. Also, The elephant has a way of decreasing the diameter of its' foot, allowing it to pull it out of deep mud with ease.[8]

-The decreasing diameter could not evolve, for the elephant would not know that was a problem, until it became stuck in the mud. And by then It's too late. this would suggest natural design
.

- The elephant's trunk is about 250 pounds, Yet it has the sensitivity to pick up food from a child's hand, and turn around a pick up a log. The muscle control to preformed these tasks is incredible. [9][10] [videos]

-A designer would need to find tune these mechanics.


VII. The peppered moth
-The peppered moth has been in the evolutionist's arsenal for years. The Idea is that this moth was white, but after the industrial revolution, all the trees were turned dark. so when the peppered moth would land on tree trunks, they would be eaten by birds. But here's the problem- Peppered moth's don't rest on tree trunks, they prefer the canopy where they blend in. [11]

VIII. Birds

-Birds' wings have the ability to manipulate their feather for evasive maneuvers though trees, as well as formation gliding. Also the way a bird digests quickly is important, given the less weight the easier it is to fly. A birds repertory system is so complex, given the amount of oxygen needed to use their wings. [12]

-As you can see by making paper airplanes, the ability to fly is incredibly delicate, And f or this to evolve, well it wouldn't evolve. because birds would be grounded, and then you would end up with dead birds. Dead birds go extinct. Like the dodo.


IIX. The earthworm

- The earthworm has little anchor itself to make moving possible. [13]

-Without these, the worm would kind of be stuck, and eventually eaten. and I think I may have mentioned that dead things don't evolve.


-The earthworm also has the unique ability to regenerate body parts[14]

-the ways this can go wrong is easy to see. Without a designer, the worm can't be hanging out underground, when a mole eats it head off, and say to itself "this whole being dead thing sucks, I should grow a new head"


IX Acquired characteristic

-this is when an organism acquires an characteristic. this is great accept it can't be passed on. Just like If I had gauges, and my wife had gauges, My baby wouldn't have gauges.


Sources:
1 http://www.biology-online.org...
2 http://www.state.hi.us...
3 http://naturalhistorywanderings.com...
3.1 http://www.icr.org...
4 http://jeb.biologists.org...
5 http://avesbiodiv.mncn.csic.es...
6 http://aliciac.hubpages.com...
7 http://www.grizzlybay.org...
8 http://nrs.wsu.edu...
9 [see video]
10 [see video]
11 http://www.arn.org...
12 http://www.evidencesofcreation.com...
13 http://earthwormsinfo.com...
14 http://www.futurity.org...
TheBrorator

Pro



I will bold my main points and italicize quotes from sources and underline any quotes from Con.

Introduction: I will crystallize my arguments in the order that Con presented them, and then make my own.

I. Law of bio genesis. I will concede to Con's definition of the law of bio genesis that life arises from pre-existing life and argue against it.
    • Black Smokers
Black Smokers are deep sea vents that are believed to have held the very first forms of life. Researchers from Oregon State University unexpectedly discovered whole ecosystems thriving around a hot vent on the Pacific seafloor. Such vents, where molten rock from inside the Earth's mantle heats seawater to as much as 660 degrees Fahrenheit, could have provided the energy and basic organic molecules needed to spark life. [1] Essentially, what this is saying is that life could have easily started in the deep sea vents that were formed when the Earth was created (because of the gases that Con mentions). This is just one example of a theory that has proved organic molecules and energy can create sufficient life, and they have been located in these areas.
    • Ice
Even the coldest ice contains seams of liquid. These watery pockets could have acted as test tubes for the earliest organic reactions. Experiments show that units of RNA—the genetic material that was probably the forerunner to better-known DNA—spontaneously string themselves together in ice, supporting this theory. [1] Ice is another theory that has been proven possible. When the Earth was created, so was ice when water molecules froze. RNA and DNA are not life, but structures that are now used to explain genetics. These structures found in ice prove that life could have come from these two meeting in the ice that acted as a test tube.
    • Summary
Looking at my three main points we can see that Con's claim that Gases can't make Life has been disproved. However, who wins on this point is void because it does not contribute to the debate. It contributes to the ideas of the origin of life, not whether or not evolution is real.

II. Pacific Golden Plover. Replying to Con's question of How can an animal hatch in Alaska, and know to fly in formation to hit a tiny target hundreds of miles away? I would like to point out a few facts. Birds communicate to:
    • impress and attract a mate
    • declare territorial boundaries
    • identify family members
    • announce the presence of a predator
    • convey information about food
    • etc.[3]
This, naturally includes the idea that birds communicate with one another to teach them. As we humans do, birds teach each other, parents to chicks. The parents teach their young where to fly by means of having them follow them. Birds are more intelligent than you think. They are more intelligent, as a class, than the reptiles, and that many species are just as intelligent as mammals of comparable size. [4] Essentially, birds can communicate and work off of instincts to know where to go. The birds do not hatch in Alaska, and know to fly in formation to hit a tiny target hundreds of miles away, they are taught what to do. A bird, instinctively, learns how to fly, and is taught to follow it's parents and other birds. Like humans, birds obviously had to experiment too in the early stages. Of course, there is no scientific evidence of what bird first realized that it should fly one way or the other, it is a logically sound argument that simply enough, when a bird figured out the right path, it taught others. Obviously, there were other birds when the first few found the path, thereby, they were able to learn and thereby evolve with the next generations.

III. The Dragonfly.
Cross apply my argument that says birds can teach their chicks to this. All animals have a way to communication, even Dragonfly. Without communication, no living organism (except for some plants) would be alive. Dragon-flies are taught how to fly, and can use natural instincts that birds and humans, and all other animals have. (I can elaborate in further rounds upon request). On the point about tadpoles, again, I cross-apply my previous argument in that they are able to learn. Besides, most animal species are protected by their parent until they are able to fend for themselves, this, being for tadpoles, being able to change color and change form because it is how they fend for themselves.

IV. The Hippopotamus.
No where in con's source does it say that the Hippo chooses to sweat this sunscreen. Hippo skin is virtually hairless and would soon burn when exposed to intense sunlight, but the skin secretes an oily liquid that acts as a sunscreen. [5 (Con's (6))] We can see in this point that the hippo does not chose to have this sweat, but it is a part of it's biological being. The sweat is produced. We humans might have the same like-features on our own body that we know nothing about. The fact is, there is no evidence the the hippo produces the sweat purposefully, it is part of it's biological system.

V. Bears
Con's argument here is too vague in that he questions how mother bears produce milk from broken down fat just happens through evolution. The point that a bear would stumble out of a cave in spring time and fall on its face, given its lack of muscle strength can be overlooked because this point is about the fat breaking down, not the muscle. Human bodies are not built to hibernate and we do not, so comparing us to the bear is not a logical argument and will be thrown out because we have different biological systems. Black bears can go for as long as 100 days without eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, or exercising. [6] A bear evolves to survive through hibernation because the animal's body temperature drops, and its heartbeat and breathing slow down. It uses very little energy. In the fall, these animals get ready for winter by eating extra food and storing it as body fat. They use this fat for energy while hibernating. [7]

VI. Elephants
The argument can be thrown out that the decreasing diameter could not evolve, for the elephant would not know that was a problem, until it became stuck in the mud because of my point that animals can teach one another. The first elephants to get their feet stuck realized it was an issue and adapted. They then taught the other elephants. On that argument that A designer would need to find tune the mechanics of an elephants trunk can be thrown out, because even though the tasks the elephants can do with their massive trunks are incredible, that does not make them only the product of a creator. Just because my ability to access the internet and debate with you is incredible, it was not due to a creator.

VII. The peppered moth
Con overlooks the actual argument on the peppered moth, here. Around the middle of the 19th century, however, a new form of the moth began to appear. The first report of a dark-colored peppered moth was made in 1848 [8] This moth is the evolved form of the first peppered moth. It could rest on the trunks, unseen. This is natural selection at it's finest (I will explain in future rounds upon request).

VIII. Birds
Con argues that they are able to survive not whether or not they were from a creator. The birds do survive. [9]

IIX. The earthworm
The setae are small spines which are projected from the body wall to act as anchors in the surface that the worm is moving along. [9 (Con's (13))]
Yes, without the setae, the worm would be stuck, but the point is that they have them. This source proves this and Con's argument that dead things don't evolve can be thrown out here, as the worms are living, and there is no shortage of worms. Also, Aziz Aboobaker shows that a gene called ‘Smed-prep’ is essential for correctly regenerating a head and brain in planarian worms. [10(Con's(14))] No where does this say that the worm says I should grow a new head as Con argues against. Smed-prep does the work.

IX Acquired characteristic
I will argue this point if Con explains.

Vote Pro!

[Sources in comments (character limit)]
I will present a case next round.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheBrorator 2 years ago
TheBrorator
Note: Spelling and Grammar is a voter, please review and vote Pro. :)
Posted by TheBrorator 2 years ago
TheBrorator
I did not realize this was a one round debate, I apologize for references to future rounds.

Thank you for the debate, however I ran out of characters, so voting will have to be based off of my rebuttals and Con's case.

Sources:
[1] http://www.usnews.com...
[2] http://www.astrobio.net...
[3] http://www.birds.cornell.edu...
[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[5] http://aliciac.hubpages.com...
[6] http://www.pbs.org...
[7] http://www.sciencemadesimple.com...
[8] http://www.millerandlevine.com...
[9] http://earthwormsinfo.com...
[10] http://www.futurity.org...

Vote Pro!
Posted by Spartan 2 years ago
Spartan
aw dang, 12 hours? Must have miss clicked, its all good.
Posted by TheBrorator 2 years ago
TheBrorator
I accept the challenge, but you set it to 12 hours to response, not 24. Just wanted to make sure you knew that. Looking forward to an informative debate, but I must say, I will group arguments, so you may not get the number of arguments you want.
Posted by frappe 2 years ago
frappe
ID Engineer #1 : "Tony, can I ask why you positioned the larynx of the human so high up? This greatly increases their chances of choking while eating."
Tony: "Ahh Bill, I couldn't get the speaking mechanism to work any other way. I can put it lower in Chimps, but they can't produce the same range of sounds humans can."
Bill: "That's a major screw-up. I think we have to send it back to the drawing boards."
Tony: "And risk pissing off the big boss? Listen, I kept mum on your little appendix fiasco and on your using the X-200 series cerebral cortex that might require years of parental care before maturity. I'm bucking for a promotion and I don't need you screwing it up."
Bill: " Okay, okay, I'll keep quiet on it. Sheesh, you accidentally invent Spina Bifida and everyone jumps down your throat the minute you say anything!"
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 2 years ago
mariahjane
SpartanTheBroratorTied
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: Evolution has been proven.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
SpartanTheBroratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for asking and asking questions instead of building a case not relying upon the source (i.e. based on reasoning). TheBrorator provided plausible explanations for each scenario, disproving some of the misconceptions--noting that bodily mechanism help provide explanations for the ability of bears to hibernate and so forth as well as the factor of communication. In essence, Pro wins.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
SpartanTheBroratorTied
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 refuted and answered cons arguments fulfilled the bop and had better arguments.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
SpartanTheBroratorTied
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: Pro had BOP to provide an answer to con's assertions. Pro provided answers, however flawed, to con's assertions. Thus pro met their BOP. Easy win.