The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points


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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 54589
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)




Basically, me and Sagey have been going back in forth in one of my debate's comment section about this.

I am formally challenging Sagey now so that we can get feedback from other people on their perspective's of our arguments.

This is the structure for the debate, if Sagey accepts:

Round 1 is only for acceptance.

Round 2 is only for opening statements.

Round 3 is for refutals and additional arguments.

Round 4 is for refutals, no more additional arguments will be counted.

Round 5 is for concluding statements.

I hope Sagey accepts this challenge, and may the LORD GOD bless you all.


Thanks CD: I accept:

I will be interested in seeing your case against the Facts of Evolution!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much for accepting this debate Sagey. I hope this ends our debate in that other debate's comment section (I think it's at around 100 comments now). Anyways, I will begin with my opening statement.

The first thing I'd like to address is that evolution is a theory. We cannot take it as factual. I'd like to just cite it as a theory, "Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection."(1). The reason I did this is because many assume it is a fact.

Now, to quickly define how evolution works since my main problem with evolution is how it apparently works, "Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place."(1).

So the whole theory of evolution can be summed as such:
1) There are too many beings for them all to survive.
2) Each being has different traits which changes their chance to reproduce or survive.
3) The traits from #2 above are heritable.
4) The beings with the best traits are the ones who survive (natural selection).

My entire argument will be based on proving all these things false. If I can prove that one of the steps within evolution are not possible, then evolution itself cannot be possible.

1) There are too many beings for them all to survive.

This is the main driving force for evolution. There has to be too many of whatever offspring that not all of them can survive, so they end up competing for food, etc. There are a few questions I have then;

If this is true, then why would there be any other species in the first place? If evolution is true and "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago."(1), then why would there be any other species? Basically, evolution states that the ones with the best traits survive. If there is a limited number of food, then wouldn't there be 1 top animal or offspring of some sort that dominated the rest? Basically what I am saying is, if back in the time of the "universal ancestor" there was a limited amount of food, etc. to survive, then wouldn't there be 1 specific offspring that dominated (basically, since there would be only 1 species at the time, and evolution happens, then wouldn't it have consistently created 1 species)? If not, does that mean evolution has an on and off switch? Sometimes when there is not enough food to survive and what not it happens, yet other times it doesn't?

How can people in places like Ethiopia, etc. haven't evolved? There is not much food in poor places as those, yet they seem to still be suffering and not developing a special trait that is hereditary that helps survival. Or can you prove that they have been?

I'll leave it at those basic arguments for #1 since we can go all over the place with #1.

2) Each being has different traits which changes their chance to reproduce or survive

So here's what I don't understand - does evolution have an on and off switch? According to the theory, it does. Evolution only happens, according to the theory, when there is a lack of something like food, etc. So what I want to know is, what are the limits? If there is a lack of sex, will we evolve beyond that?

Moreover, there has been studies to prove this does not happen, "...University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4"(2).

3) The traits from #2 above are heritable.

I have a question. If this is true, then how can short people can have tall children? Wouldn't they also be short because of evolution? Their height is a physical feature, right? So how can they have tall children?

4) The beings with the best traits are the ones who survive (natural selection).

Here is my problem with this one. Remember, it is the beings with the best traits are the ones who survive. Then explain to me, how can humans have been de-evolving so to speak? According to evolution, the opposite should happen yet it isn't, "'Even our most highly trained athletes pale in comparison to these ancestors of ours,' Dr Colin Shaw told Outside Magazine. 'We're certainly weaker than we used to be.'
The study looked at skeletons dating back to around 5,300 BC with the most recent to 850 AD - a time span of 6,150 years.
It then compared the bones to that of Cambridge University students, and found the leg bones of male farmers 5,300 BC were just as good as those of highly-trained cross-country runners."(3). One more quote in case that wasn't convincing enough, "An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.
Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
And if that's not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller.
The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development.
The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. They blame agriculture, with restricted diets and urbanisation compromising health and leading to the spread of disease."(3). So my question is, how are we surviving according to evolution? You can't say it's because of our intellect, etc. because not only have our brains shrunken, but that is not a hereditary feature anyways (I mean intellect/knowledge. If it was, we wouldn't have school).

I have presented my main argument which his, evolution itself is only a theory. Moreover, it is a theory that has yet to be proven. We can have the theory of gravity and see gravity, when you jump you fall down. However, where is the evidence of evolution being witnessed? You can cite fossils, bones, etc. all you want. If you can not cite one example of evolution being witnessed, then you can't call it science or factual, "In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied."(4). So I ask, if evolution is scientific, when has evolution ever been reliably applied?




Firstly I'd like the reader to ponder these statistics:

  • 99% of all species (kinds) of creatures that have ever lived on planet earth are now extinct, maybe we too will join them if we don't maintain our biological fitness.

  • Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for over 100 million years, humans have existed for less than 2 million years.

  • If The Existence of the Universe until now was compressed into a single year, humans have only existed for less than the final 60 seconds.


How Do We Define and Explain Evolution?

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”

[Source: #1]

Evolution encompasses many sub concepts and Theories:

I will cover some of these in this statement:

Though Con has already demonstrated a misconception of “Natural Selection” so I will not go into detail on this at first.

As to understand Natural Selection, there are a few concepts that need to be covered, concepts that Darwin utilised to build his concept of Natural Selection on in the first place.

Without Knowledge of these, Natural Selection is easily misunderstood.

This is where I believe Con has gone wrong.

Going straight for Natural Selection without properly understanding the underlying concepts behind it.

A Very Brief History Of Evolution:


Humans eventually started to notice that patterns concerning living creatures, geological formations and finally Fossils seemed to have noticeable patterns.

Some forefathers of Evolution, such as Leonardo da Vinci, noticed that fossils existed in distinct layers and started questioning the religious stories of a global flood and Leonardo thus considered the book of Genesis with it's great flood as wrong. He realised that if such a flood occurred then these fossils would not be in distinct layers but jumbled. So remember this next time you view the Mona Lisa or his “Last Supper” that Leonardo had already dismissed the Global Flood as mythical.

He can be considered as the great grandfather of Evolution.

Selection by Humans or Artificial Selection:

Humans were developing specialised crops and domestic animals by deliberately selecting only those that traits that were useful or plants that had better qualities or disease resistance.

This Unnatural Selection was in full swing prior to the birth of Charles Darwin.

By only selecting a specific plant or animals, due to some desired characteristic (size, color, length of tail, production of milk, etc..) the genetics of these selected species became dominant and thus an entire species of this creature/plant was artificially created by humans.

Darwin noted this Artificial selection process, and from it, realized that Nature performs its very own Selection Process, though Nature does not have any desires, it just provides the influences or Environment, that performs the selection and if the species cannot cope with the changes in their environment (poor fitness) they become Extinct.



“noun, singular or plural: species


(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

  1. An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.” [Source: #3 ]

1: Fitness: This is the Capability Of or Capacity For Both Survival and Reproducing:

Individual Fitness depends on several factors, some of these are:

  • Reproductive Health.

  • Availability of reproductive partners

  • Attractiveness to reproductive partners

  • Ability to compete against rivals in accessing reproductive partners.

  • Environmental Factors affecting Population and Reproduction Diseases, Predators, Climate and Changes to that environment, such as Global Warming.

Fitness of the Individual analogies greatly simplified as realistic fitness formulas are beyond the scope of this debate:

Fitness of a Species/Genotype/Phenotype depends on the mortality rate within that environment from climate influences (storms, etc.) predator and disease mortality rates.

If the mortality rate is greater than the reproduction rate, the species has zero fitness and the species is doomed to certain Extinction.

This is why most species try to reproduce to the maximum of their capabilities, so they can defeat the high mortality rate for that environment.

Essentially: If it cannot breed or reproduce with the previous form it is a new species.

Yet all the Galapagos Islands is where Darwin found many different varieties of finches, yet, some of these finches cannot breed or reproduce with any other finches on these islands.

This means that since they cannot reproduce with another of a similar type, they have become a different Species of finch. Even though they are still finches.

Darwin noticed this and came up with the concept from these observations, that if Humans can Artificially Select creatures for specific features and traits, why can't nature do it as well.

Thus the term Natural Selection.

Instead of humans artificially selecting characteristics, nature ( the environment) is making the selection.

Example: The famous Peppered Moths.

These moths were lucky that they had such Variation:

Had there only been light moths, they would have become extinct in that region as their fitness was very poor.

Which brings up the final subject for this introduction:


Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.

There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

  1. Mutations: are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.

  2. Gene flow: is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.

  3. Sex: can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.

[Source: #4]“

This is the reason why Populations need to be large, as a larger a population, the more variations will exist within that population and thus the greater chance that one of those variations will have a characteristic that assists the fitness of the species.

This is well known in searching for a disease resistant variety of plant.

A researcher may plant millions of seeds while exposing the young seedlings to the particular disease, eventually, a seedling may survive the disease and now exists a disease resistant plant to breed more disease resistant seeds and plants from. This is artificial selection which Darwin wrote about, but in nature similarities occur. This is why insects that produce millions of offspring, such as mosquitoes will eventually become resistant to a pesticide, because eventually one of the millions of genetic variations will survive the pesticide and thus maintain fitness and reproduce thousands more pesticide resistant mosquitoes.

Humans are the predator in this scenario of Natural Selection and eventually the rebounding fitness of the mosquitoes will defeat human attempts to eradicate them. Meaning humans will need to find another weapon. This demonstrates the power of Natural Selection, especially with creatures that produce such massive numbers of offspring and thus such a huge variation of traits in each generation.

This why having a massive population of offspring not only helps with biological fitness for a species, but it provides a large variation from which useful characteristics may become available for assisting the survival fitness of the species when that fitness is threatened by changes in the environment, such as introduction of new predators by humans, pesticides and antibiotics (bacteria uses the same Natural Selection process for developing resistance).

Another View Of Natural Selection:

“Several hundred million years ago, there were no vertebrate animals on land. The only vertebrate species in the world were fish, all of which lived underwater. Competition for foodwas intense. Some species of fish that lived near the coast developed a strange mutation: the ability to push themselves along in the mud and sand on the shore with their fins. This gave them access to food sources that no other fish could reach. The advantage gave them greater reproductive success, so the mutation was passed along. This is what we call natural selection. “ [Source: #2]

A Short Video on Evolution:





Debate Round No. 2


Sagey I'll give you the debate. I have to end all my debates and close my account. This is why:

Galatians 5:19-20;King James Version (KJV);19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,;20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

I forgot about that verse. I shouldn't be on here anyways. When it boils down to it, people will choose to disagree with me anyways. I have shown you things about evolution, if you disagree, that's your choice.

God bless you man, take it easy.


Thanks for your time Con:

Of course I disagree with you, as I have a lot of science and practical knowledge of reality on my side.

Just a few tips I will add here.

Evolution does not require overpopulation at all, though overpopulation does add pressure for a species to make changes.

Such as depleting their normal source of nutrition and forces them to find other means of getting nutrition.

A great example is that example in my opening statement, where the fish were overpopulated and their source of prey was being depleted, but more food was available in water too shallow for them to swim, which incouraged some brave and very intelligent fish to find a means to reach that food that other fish were desperate to get, but not brave enough to try.

Thus they found that by using their fins like legs they could move around in the shallows and get the food they required.
Thus they not only developed strength in their fins to even go further into much more shallow waters, they also developed intelligence and courage to try something different.
Eventually their swim bladder adapted to the extra free air/oxygen in the shallower water where sometimes they were exposed to air and their swim bladders were able to absorb the oxygen from air as well as water and their fins became very strong and could move around on land, to eventually form legs.
So they gradually evolved from fish to amphibians.

There are other forms of evolution that do not require the added pressures of overpopulation, such as mutation, genetic drift and adaptation to new environments when the old one changes, such as humans moving from Africa to snow covered lands.

Hopefully if you do decide to debate against Evolutionists again, this knowledge could be helpful.

Though thanks again for the debate and since you evidently deeply believe in God.

May your God bless you!

Adieu M8 & Take Care!!
Debate Round No. 3


Christian_Debater forfeited this round.


Though it was unfortunate for Con to take leave so early, I would like to keep this debate informative and interesting fpr those who wander onto it.

Firstly I'll give you a little information on Abiogenesis or Life from No Life.

Many think this is extremely difficult and extremely improbable.
Yet over 70 amino acids (monomers, the building blocks of life) have been discovered in meteorites and it has been demonstrated experimentally that peptides (larger and more complex polymers) can be formed by the impact of these meteorites onto the Earth's surface.
So the building blocks for life could have arrived from outer space.
Of the 70 amino acids discovered on meteorites, only around 24 of those are necessary for life to form.

The formation from life from chemicals is actually not as complex as first thought.
All you need is lipids (fatty acids) and Monomers (like amino acids) movement and a heat source, the rest is just simple chemistry.

Which is what Abiogenesis is: Chemistry.
Where Evolution is Biology.
They are essentially two different sciences, though once Abiogenesis takes place and forms the first self replicating or living cells, then Evolution takes over.

Dr. Jack Szostak has with his research, simplified greatly the Origin Of Life on planet Earth from Non-Living material.

Debate Round No. 4


Christian_Debater forfeited this round.


Thanks for the Debate CD!

All the best for your future endeavors!

Over & Out!

Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
I'm busy Sagey. I'll finish my argument in time.

Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Procrastination is my hobby!
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
I'll argue later Sagey btw. Im busy today and I got to go to Hamilton to visit family. I'll be back later tonight and will probably be training and going to bed (as well as Bible study of course - unless I procrastinate again which is bad).

So don't expect my argument too soon.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
I think I put it to the max characters (10,000) but I know how you feel.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Thanks for the debate, but I find the character limit hard to get around.
Had to delete a lot of my own typing and post a video instead as I ran out of characters.

I didn't even have room for the Thanks and over to you! statement.
Actually I wiped out stuff I shouldn't have, it's a little jumpy with the flow disrupted.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Thanks for the positive compliment, I appreciate it.

I'll respond to your comments when you bring them up in the debate (which I assume you will).
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Yes, contraception, or the ability to turn off the production of offspring has changed human evolution forever.
If it was not for contraception, Mick Jagger may possibly have had millions of children, instead of a dozen or so.
Most humans on the planet have some genetic connection to Genghis Khan, because contraception was not known in those times. Had contraception been as common as today, very few people would be carrying his genes.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Yes, it is about competition for survival, nutrition, sex, etc.. that drives natural selection.
We call these stresses on a population of a species, Evolutionary Pressures.
Even in humans today evolutionary pressure of some form exists.
The ability to adapt to technology is an evolutionary pressure.
Those who can adapt and use technology to their advantage in gaining recognition and mating rites will get to produce more offspring than those who fail to grasp technology and have limited access to potential sexual partners.
Rock Gods (Mick Jagger for example) get to spread their genetics far and wide.
He likely has more offspring than we'll ever know about,and potential for many more, except dampened by contraceptive technology. his reproductive success is mainly due to technology of the recording industry.
These are all aspects of Evolution and evolutionary pressure.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Great work CD:
Just a few misconceptions about evolution you have that I will have to clear up for you in my opening statement.
Though you've presented a great argument.
Hope I can match it with my own.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Actually I had a file already with my argument started, I just never finished it haha.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philosurfer 2 years ago
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: Its hard for people to break through to the other side. I guess what I mean is, it is very complicated; why people believe what they do and how they do. Christian _Debater even "instigated" this debate, but bounced out and cited Bible verses as his reason(s). But I wonder if the science or the faith in this case was what threw him off.. Which makes me wonder if having "the debate" with folks helps or is beneficial.. Is it a war of ideas or a war for peoples' minds? For them, it a war of ideas or a war for peoples' souls? Is there a truth that transcends this? Conduct: Although Con at least gave reasons for not continuing the debate, he "instigated" the debate. Points should go to Pro, but I will leave as tie. Grammar & Spelling: Pro. Arguments: Pro. Sources: Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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: Concession.