The Instigator
kip.mock
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

Evolution

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 7 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,224 times Debate No: 25534
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

kip.mock

Con

99.85% of earth and life scientists in the US today believe in the theory of Evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org...) there are many arguments against Evolution (and they are all sufficient to disprove its validity), but in this debate round, I would like to confine it to one main point: Nothing will change unless something outside it acts upon it. a.k.a., the law of Inertia) Thus, the theory that the big bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago does not bear any weight. Who lit the fuse? Who planted the dynamite? The law of inertia states that an object will not shift unless acted upon by an outside force. Thus, an inanimate object would not spontaneously blow up. But let's just say that it did. Then what is the likelihood that the an entire universe erupted from...an impersonal explosion??? There are trillions and trillions of stars in the Milky Way. There are more in Andromeda. And in a long exposure photograph taken by the Hubble Telescope several years ago, billions of such galaxies were recegonized. What is the probability that trillions of galxies would evolve out of...nothing? The answer is absoutely none. The only explanation for the existence of the universe is a being, bigger and more powerful than any other person. A being that existed forever and ever and created EVERYTHING, including the law of inertia. Trying to prove evolution through science does not work. An explosion cannot live outside the closed system that was created by a being who lives outside this closed system. An explosion is not a God. God, however, is an explosion. A universe. Something much bigger and wilder than an explosion. Something much more dangerous than an explosion. But also an explosion that lives outside the closed system and has the power to create one. He has. We are in it. We try to explain it with things inside this system but things inside this system have no power to create a system they are contained in.
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank kip.mock for presenting his arguments.

I. The Law of Inertia-Refutation

My opponent is assuming that there is nothing driving evolution, therefore it must not exist. However, there are many things, mainly environmental changes, "One of the key mechanisms of evolution, natural selection, causes organisms to evolve in response to a changing environment."[1] Environmental changes force living things to adapt to the environment, "Some individuals will have characteristics that make them well adapted to their environment whereas others will have characteristics that make them less adapted to their environment. The better adapted individuals are the ones that are more likely to survive and produce offspring while the less adapted ones are more likely to die."[2] So, why is it that more adaptive creatures survive?

There are a myriad of examples to support this,

"Canadian squirrels are evolving to take advantage of an earlier spring and are breeding sooner, which allows them to hoard more pinecones for winter survival and next year's reproduction. Squirrels with genes for earlier breeding are more successful than squirrels with genes for later breeding."[1]

"The Peppered Moth is another example of evolution in response to environmental change. There are two types of these moths, one species has a light colour while the other one is darker. When Britain begun industrialising, the soot from the factories would land on trees and so the darker moths then had an advantage over the light ones as they could easily hide from predators. Before the soot, both types of moths were eaten by predators however now that the darker ones were able to hide the lighter ones got eaten more often.The population of the darker moths rapidly increased while that of the lighter ones rapidly decreased until only the dark moths were left. All the lighter moths were less adapted to the environmental change and so they could no longer survive in that new environment."[2]

"One North American mosquito species has evolved to take advantage of longer summers to gather resources while the weather is good. Mosquitoes with genes that allow them to wait longer before going dormant for the winter are more successful than mosquitoes that go dormant earlier."[1]

So, evolution exists in many ways.

II. The Fact of Evolution-Presentation

Evolution is a fact. "This fact is based on the recorded and published observations of thousands of scientist over the past 200+ years. It is evidence that is clearly written in the geological and biological record..."The "theory" that evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so overwhelmingly documented that it is as close to a fact as you can get in science. Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution."[3]

Sources:

[1]:"http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2]:"http://www.ibguides.com...
[3]:"http://chem.tufts.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
kip.mock

Con

I would thank my opponent for his reply. However, I believe that my opponent misunderstood the intent of the debate. My opponent is debating an entirely different facet of Evolution which I am not opposed to. This is called "micro evolution" Here is an example of micro evolution: "House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of micro evolution — evolution on a small scale." (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) This type of "evolution" exists and is unarguable. Things change. Ants build new nests. Animals become acclimated to their current situation. This is the way of the world. The argument I presented was arguing against the theory of macro evolution: "Macro evolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction." (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) Macro evolution is the evolution that claims that the universe came from one gigantic explosion, and macro evolution is the evolution that is not true. For a full explanation of this, please visit my first argument. If my opponent would like to debate the real topic of this round, he may do so in the last argument of the round, or we may begin another round on even footing. As it stands now, my arguments are unrefuted.

Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank kip.mock for this debate. However, he did not define the resolution in detail in either the resolution or his original arguments-he simply said evolution in general did hot exist. All my opponent has done is assert that God created the Universe, and give no proof or even arguments that evolution does not exist. However, I will be nice to my opponent by presenting final arguments.

I. Macroevolution Is Basically the Same Thing

My opponent claims that microevolution exists, but not macroevolution. I would like to ask one thing: what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

"You can find them [the two different evolutions] in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don"t pay attention to them. Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them... Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution."[1]

II. Evidence

In Species

"While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."[2]

Out of Species

"Goldschmidt has suggested that the adaptive radiation of the cichlids of Lake Victoria has been driven by a combination of adaptation to a myriad of trophic niches, combined with sexual selection resulting from female choice (Goldschmidt, 1998)."[2]

I encourage my opponent to read source 2 for more evidence.

Conclusion

My opponent has made no proven-or even relevant-arguments arguing against evolution. He has made only irrelevant arguments. He has made contradictions (believing in Micro, but not Macro Evolution and citing two different definitions of Macroevolution (his fake and the real one he sourced)).

The resolution is affirmed."

Sources:

[1]:"http://atheism.about.com...
[2]:"http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
badbob, you are a troll.
Posted by anonymous27 4 years ago
anonymous27
I can see your logic in substantiating darwinisim or evolution with science, but when you implement the creator, then you are shifting the debate away from science and into a discussion which is more philosophical than scientific
Posted by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Con didn't know what evolution is let alone provide an argument against it. He seems to confuse cosmological theories of the origins of the Universe with biological evolution and did not understand the basic principles of the theory. Apparently, he tries to provide the law of inertia as evidence against Big Bang Theory, but doesn't even develop this. Next time, Con would do well to have a clearly defined resolution and make sure he argues about that topic. For instance, learn the difference between BBT, abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution.
Sources: Pro had relevant references to support his claims that evolution has been observed to bring about new species, etc.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
You make a great point.
Posted by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
YECs and people who deny evolution are an embarrassment to Christianity.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
i think Con was unjustified on stateing what can or cannot be said in relation to microevolution when there is no resolution... microevolution is evolution and thus legitimate in this debate.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Lol at the two comments below. Arguments should be easy.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
LOL! Con, what you just said is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard in my entire life. If you can't tell the difference between biology and astrophsyics, then I truly feel for ya
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
"Macro evolution is the evolution that claims that the universe came from one gigantic explosion"

*facepalm*
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with PRO that CON did not sufficiently define "evolution" when starting the debate. And even with this handicap, PRO still acted politely and finished the debate. kip.mock, you must be much more clear on your resolution if you want to win over anyone.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case is built on multiple misapprehensions... Pro correctly identifies that environmental changes are major triggers for changes that easily elicits the efficiency of variable traits in a population and builds on a far more relevant definition. Con's subsequent (and false) demarcation is easily rebutted by a note of its relative nonexistence by Pro. Moreover, Con's failure to rebut any of the evidence only serves to undermine his evidently-weak case against evolution.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: OK, maybe askbob isn't so great. Countering.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shows that he has no understanding of evolution. Pro succesfully gave evidence for evolution and demolished con's case
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was arguing micro evolution which is not the debate and does not prove macro evolution anyway.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
kip.mockRon-PaulTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by pro, Sources go to pro because he has more of them and better ones at that.