The Instigator
Loveshismom
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
mabrewer
Pro (for)
Losing
10 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 5 votes the winner is...
Loveshismom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 937 times Debate No: 56648
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

Loveshismom

Con

I will argue against evolution.

Debate structure:

R1: Opening premises only
R2: Rebuttals/new arguments
R3-5: Rebuttals and conclusions,

Opening Premise 1: The Biogenesis argument (redone)

Many Young Earth Creationists will argue against Darwinian evolution by claiming that an ancestor came from non-life, and therefore directly violates Biogenesis, the law that life can only come from life. Although not in direct violation of Biogenesis, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, but simply claims that all organisms alive today come from a common ancestor. Not trying to explain how life came to be on planet Earth leaves it in indirect conflict with Biogenesis. Since life can only come from preexisting life, then how did even the simplest life form come to life if there was not already life on earth? Because of this, the law of Biogenesis remains in the question, despite the evolutionist rebuttal that "it states no such thing."

Opening Premise 2: The Silver Fox Experiment: Why it Does Not Support Evolution

In the Silver Fox experiment, DNA was injected into animals to show evolution, which means that the "evolution" witnessed was a man-caused evolution, not a naturally occurring evolution, which means that it does not give us the most accurate results as it was witnessed as evolution is supposed to be a slow process. The same logic is applicable to any case in which evolution was observed.
mabrewer

Pro

Counter to Premise 1:

The evolutionist rebuttal still stands. Theories of biogenesis are theories of biogenesis. The theory of evolution is a theory of evolution. They are two different concepts entirely.

Also, even if biogenesis was an important part of evolution, it's ok to not know the answer yet. There is no more evidence for intelligent design than there is for abiogenesis.

Counter to Premise 2:

The silver fox experiment (and other artificial selection processes) presents a good artificial example of natural processes.

Yes, evolution is generally slow. However, there are examples of evolution that we have witnessed naturally in the wild. Examples are the peppered moth, cane toads, Darwin's finches, and Italian wall lizards.

Neither of your premises are related to the theory of evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Loveshismom

Con

Rebuttal 1: Pro argued:

"The evolutionist rebuttal still stands. Theories of biogenesis are theories of biogenesis. The theory of evolution is a theory of evolution. They are two different concepts entirely.

Also, even if biogenesis was an important part of evolution, it's ok to not know the answer yet. There is no more evidence for intelligent design than there is for abiogenesis."


My opponent has evidently failed to understand the following:

1. If something points to a creator, it points away from evolution.
2. If something points away from evolution, it points to a creator.

Biogenesis, by stating that life can only come from other life, points to a creator. By pointing to a creator, Biogenesis points away from evolution.

"There is no more evidence for intelligent design then there is for abiogenesis."

Pro basically concedes because of this statement unless he refutes what he failed to understand in round 1.

Rebuttal 2: Pro argued:

"The silver fox experiment (and other artificial selection processes) presents a good artificial example of natural processes.

Yes, evolution is generally slow. However, there are examples of evolution that we have witnessed naturally in the wild. Examples are the peppered moth, cane toads, Darwin's finches, and Italian wall lizards."


Let us define the word "artificial:"

: not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural

: not happening or existing naturally : created or caused by people

: not sincere
[1]

By calling the silver fox experiment "artificial," you negate the first half of your second response.

Because evolution is generally slow, it should not happen fast enough, even in the wild. Plus, the "evolution" witnessed there could be merely a stronger will than that of others to survive mixing with the animals' psychology and/or brain chemistry so the brain would command all the DNA to simply evolve much sooner. This would, therefore, not be intentional evolution, which would disqualify it from counting as evolution.


"Neither of your premises are related to the theory of evolution."


Yes they are. Such a statement is analogous to saying that a single letter in a cryptogram is not related to the rest of the cryptogram. It is not the whole cryptogram, but it still helps solve the cryptogram.

New Argument #1: The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution.

The fossils do not show any change at all in each species. They show near-perfect matches, indicating that they did not evolve at all.[2]

New Argument #2: No Vestigial Organs.

Vestigial:

2.(of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake[3]

Using new technology, researchers have actually found organs that were once believed to be useless and disposable were seen at hard work. Tonsils, spleens (in mice,) and yes, even kidneys[4][5]. Such structures have also been proven to serve a variety of purposes, such as fighting infection and making it possible to sit comfortably [6]. This points away from evolution by pointing to a creator, which debunks my opponent's statement:

"there is no more evidence for intelligent design than there is for abiogenesis."

Sources:

[1]-http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]-http://m.youtube.com...
^ I would like to be able to display the actual video in my argument, but I am using an iPad and it will not display the video.
[3]-http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[5]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[6]-http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...
mabrewer

Pro

My opponent has evidently failed to understand the following:

1. If something points to a creator, it points away from evolution.
2. If something points away from evolution, it points to a creator.


My opponent has made two statements that have no support whatsoever. Creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive, and NOT the only two options. This is a false dichotomy.

Pro does not concede.

By calling the silver fox experiment "artificial," you negate the first half of your second response.

I am well aware that the silver fox experiment is artificial, that is why I said it. My point was that it's a good illustration of a natural process. The second half of my response points out that there are NON-ARTIFICIAL examples of evolution in the wild. The silver foxes are irrelevant to your argument.

Because evolution is generally slow, it should not happen fast enough, even in the wild.

GENERALLY slow means that there can be SPECIFIC instances that it occurs quickly. And this has happened. I gave four examples.

Plus, the "evolution" witnessed there could be merely a stronger will than that of others to survive mixing with the animals' psychology and/or brain chemistry so the brain would command all the DNA to simply evolve much sooner.

Is there any known biological process that allows the brain to exercise command over DNA? Is there any known substance called "will" that can mix with neurotransmitters? I believe the answer is no.

This would, therefore, not be intentional evolution, which would disqualify it from counting as evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean by intentional evolution. "Intention" does not exist in evolutionary theory, because it doesn't need to.

Yes they are. Such a statement is analogous to saying that a single letter in a cryptogram is not related to the rest of the cryptogram. It is not the whole cryptogram, but it still helps solve the cryptogram

It is not analogous because your arguments are not letters in the cryptogram. They are letters that are somewhere else entirely. Artificial selection and biogenesis/abiogenesis do not exist in the theory of evolution.

The fossils do not show any change at all in each species. They show near-perfect matches, indicating that they did not evolve at all.[2]

Obviously fossils of the same species match. They're from the same species.

Using new technology, researchers have actually found organs that were once believed to be useless and disposable were seen at hard work

That doesn't debunk evolution. It debunks the view that tonsils are vestigial. There are very many examples of vestigial organs in the wild, like whale fingers.

Darwinism Refuted is not a credible source.
Debate Round No. 2
Loveshismom

Con

Loveshismom forfeited this round.
mabrewer

Pro

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Loveshismom

Con

Rebuttal 1: Pro argued: "My opponent has made two statements that have no support whatsoever. Creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive, and NOT the only two options. This is a false dichotomy."

Yet another misunderstanding from my opponent. Evolution and creationism need not be mutually exclusive for my claims to stand as this debate is about evolution, not theistic evolution.

Rebuttal 2: Pro argued: "My point was that [the silver fox experiment] is a good illustration of a natural process."

Because of the definition of "artificial," calling it artificial means that you contradict yourself on how good of a demonstration it is as it means you call it false and/or man-made.

Rebuttal 3: Pro argued: "The silver foxes are irrelevant to your argument."

Then they are irrelevant to yours, too. From this statement, you also seem to concede on the silver fox experiment not being a good example of evolution.

Rebuttal 4: Pro argued: ">Is there any known biological process that allows the brain to exercise command over DNA?"

Perhaps not, but Biology is the study of life, not the mind.

Rebuttal 5: Pro argued: "Is there any known substance called 'will' that can mix with neurotransmitters? I believe the answer is no."

Perhaps not, but then again, observably evolving species' brains have not been studied by psychologists to look for it when they should be about to evolve.

Rebuttal 6: Pro argued: "I'm not sure what you mean by intentional evolution. 'Intention' does not exist in evolutionary theory, because it doesn't need to."

By "intentional evolution," I meant that the DNA was mutating with no command from the brain.

Rebuttal 7: Pro argued: "It is not analogous because your arguments are not letters in the cryptogram. They are letters that are somewhere else entirely."

I did not mean that literally, and Yes they are. Such a statement is analogous to saying that a single letter in a cryptogram is not related to the rest of the cryptogram. It is not the whole cryptogram, but it still helps solve the cryptogram

Rebuttal 8: Pro argued: "Artificial selection and biogenesis/abiogenesis do not exist in the theory of evolution."

Then since my first two premises are irrelevant to this debate, that makes pro's rebuttals from round 2 irrelevant.

Rebuttal 9: Pro argued: "Obviously fossils of the same species match. They're from the same species."

I would like to apologize for not being more clear. I meant that the fossilized organisms are identical to species that still exist today. That is what my YouTube video in the sources demonstrated.

Rebuttal 10: Pro argued: "That doesn't debunk evolution. It debunks the view that tonsils are vestigial. There are very many examples of vestigial organs in the wild, like whale fingers."

I did not claim that it debunked evolution, simply that it pointed to a creator and debunked your statement from round 1:

"There is no more evidence for intelligent design than here is for abiogenesis."

Scientists will also not know whether or not these structures are really vestigial until they do an experiment where they take two animals of each exact same species and remove their vestigial structures, then see how their performances are affected.

Rebuttal 11: Pro argued: "Darwinism Refuted is not a credible source."

Perhaps not, but it uses credible sources.

Here are two videos: one of evolutionists debunking evolution and another of a creationist debunking evolution.
-http://m.youtube.com...
-http://m.youtube.com...
mabrewer

Pro

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Loveshismom

Con

A lack of vestigial organs is a good sign that we did not evolve.
mabrewer

Pro

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
:oD....?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes you are correct: LDL, thanks 4 the correction.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Thx Sagey. BTW, what's LDL?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Hey Loveshismom, best debate of yours I've seen so far.
You are definitely getting better!
:-D~
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Lol
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I'll skip the fries, too many trans-fats.
I need to keep my LDL levels low and fallacy soup is high in LDL, as it clogs the arteries in the brain and causes hemorrhages/strokes.
:-D~
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
If you want
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Sounds tasty Loveshismom, does it get served with fries?
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
I'll serve up the "fallacy soup" with urmindissoclosed sauce and a spice called BO (brain odor)
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@InnovativeEpherema, no, it doesn't make sense yet.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
LoveshismommabrewerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many rounds.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LoveshismommabrewerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a good and highly rational argument which clearly defeated Con's arguments, Con made some astounding fallacies, in his P1,P2 (second argument) If evidence points away from Evolution it certainly does not point to Creation, that is a false dichotomy fallacy. But Con provided better sources as well as showed better conduct,
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LoveshismommabrewerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
LoveshismommabrewerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made terrible arguments, none relating to evolution. Biogenisis and evolution are unrelated subjects.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LoveshismommabrewerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture