The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
abc123jendunee
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 81225
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Con

Evolution is False:
Article 1; Reproduction:
This is one of the largest issues with evolution, is the unrealistic switch from asexual reproduction (Cloning), to sexual reproduction (combined genetics), to explain how, I will explain the evolutionary theory; The Theory of Evolution states that ferns developed a means of sexual reproduction (growing flowers) as to increase genetic diversity. I will disprove this by stating simply that the fern is incapable of recognizing asexual reproduction as inferior to another form, in simpler terms, it does not have a direct gain, and organisms are only capable of recognizing threats/ benefits which harm/ benefit them directly, an example of this is that honey was able of being an antibiotic, and staying just as powerful today as it was 10,000 years ago, it stumps bacteria reproduction, since the bacteria does not recognize the honey as harming them, so they do not develop a defense. The next problem with this is that it could only apply to an individual, because a shift from one form of reproduction to another is unfeasible without a "evolutionary leap" because it cannot develop gradually due to an inability to spread genetic material (It reproduces Asexually remember) which only applies to an individual, and if there is only one of the sexually reproducing ferns, then you have a real problem because they need another organism to reproduce.
Article 2; Unfavorable traits:
According to the theory of evolution, only traits which are favorable will survive, so it is reasonable to say that compassion for offspring is realistic, whereas compassion toward other creatures will be unfavorable as they would most likely become competitors, so if evolution was reality, then all of humanity would be composed of Mafiosi"s who are immensely protective of their children, but could care less about others, yet this is not reality.
Article 3; Piecing an organism together, and "evolving it into a human:
According to the theory of evolution, all life is descended from one cell which was by incredible (non- credible) means pieced its self together, and formed a functional set of RNA, piecing these sections together in unrealistic proximity so that they could be fit together perfectly with no interference, this is unrealistic for obvious reasons. Another problem is that the time it would take to evolve just the right genetics to evolve from a microbe into a human is much more than the lifespan of the universe, let alone the lifespan of earth, let alone how long ago evolutionists propose this occurred.
abc123jendunee

Pro

First of all, to address your first point:

"This is one of the largest issues with evolution, is the unrealistic switch from asexual reproduction (Cloning), to sexual reproduction (combined genetics), to explain how, I will explain the evolutionary theory; The Theory of Evolution states that ferns developed a means of sexual reproduction (growing flowers) as to increase genetic diversity. I will disprove this by stating simply that the fern is incapable of recognizing asexual reproduction as inferior to another form, in simpler terms, it does not have a direct gain, and organisms are only capable of recognizing threats/ benefits which harm/ benefit them directly,"

This is not necessarily true. The living organism does not need to be sentient of the benefits for evolution to occur. A lion with enhanced eyesight, for example, probably does not know it has better eyesight than the norm, however it benefits from it anyways. Same with

"it stumps bacteria reproduction, since the bacteria does not recognize the honey as harming them, so they do not develop a defense."

The bacteria does not need to know that the honey is harming them, but it is likely that at least one would mutate and gain traits that help it survive the honey. And therefore while the rest of the bacteria are dying off, this bacteria would be able to reproduce and make many 'clones' of itself.

"The next problem with this is that it could only apply to an individual, because a shift from one form of reproduction to another is unfeasible without a "evolutionary leap" because it cannot develop gradually due to an inability to spread genetic material (It reproduces Asexually remember) which only applies to an individual, and if there is only one of the sexually reproducing ferns, then you have a real problem because they need another organism to reproduce."

Theoretically, sexual reproduction originated because Eukaryota cells would sometimes have damaged DNA. However, if it were to be a diploid organism, it would be able to repair the damaged DNA through what is called 'homologous recombination.' A haploid however, would not be able to as the DNA repair would not know the original DNA code. The first 'sexual' reproduction would be a cell with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself, meaning it was already a naturally implemented process. This primitive version of 'sexual' evolution would, in time evolve to how we know it today.

For your second point,

"According to the theory of evolution, only traits which are favorable will survive, so it is reasonable to say that compassion for offspring is realistic, whereas compassion toward other creatures will be unfavorable as they would most likely become competitors, so if evolution was reality, then all of humanity would be composed of Mafiosi"s who are immensely protective of their children, but could care less about others, yet this is not reality."

This is wrong. There is actually something in evolution called co-operation, which is defined as an evolutionary trait where a group of living things work together for common benefits. For example, animals in herds are more likely to survive in a herd than living alone, and so this is the case a lot of the times. This co-operation would lead to an eventual creation of a society, like the one we live in today. Without people caring and working together, humanity would not have made it this far.

And for your final point,

"According to the theory of evolution, all life is descended from one cell which was by incredible (non- credible) means pieced its self together, and formed a functional set of RNA, piecing these sections together in unrealistic proximity so that they could be fit together perfectly with no interference, this is unrealistic for obvious reasons. Another problem is that the time it would take to evolve just the right genetics to evolve from a microbe into a human is much more than the lifespan of the universe, let alone the lifespan of earth, let alone how long ago evolutionists propose this occurred."

You seem to not know what you are talking about. Evolution defines the origin of species, not how life started. (There's abiogenesis for that). Because of this, I will only address your last point, which is untrue, this can be proven by fossil records and etc.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

The bacteria does not need to know that the honey is harming them, but it is likely that at least one would mutate and gain traits that help it survive the honey. And therefore while the rest of the bacteria are dying off, these bacteria would be able to reproduce and make many 'clones' of itself.
This was not my point, yes a small fraction may develop a defense, but this remains at a minuscule percent because honey does not actually kill the bacteria"s, it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%.
Theoretically, sexual reproduction originated because Eukaryote cells would sometimes have damaged DNA. However, if it were to be a diploid organism, it would be able to repair the damaged DNA through what is called 'homologous recombination.' A haploid however, would not be able to as the DNA repair would not know the original DNA code. The first 'sexual' reproduction would be a cell with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself, meaning it was already a naturally implemented process. This primitive version of 'sexual' evolution would, in time evolve to how we know it today.
Hmm, "Theoretically", I thought we were going off facts here, not some random guys "theory", now I also want to point out that Eukaryote bacteria work a little differently than ferns, a bacteria could evolve, a multi celled organism cannot, how you may ask, because a cell is one cell, it"s easy to absorb something and screw with its genetics, a fern has many cells per bulb, so it is IMPOSIBLE to directly, and instantaneously affect every cells genetics in the exact same way, the chance is exactly 0, a primitive cell still going off of RNA finding a stray piece of carbon and absorbing it is feasible, with a fern it is not that simple, it would have to find the genetic material to make an entire flower, every cell to absorb this same strand even though they would not accept foreign material anyway, then for this design to allow for combine genetic reproduction, and for more than one fern to do the exact same thing (If it reproduces sexually it goes extinct if there is only one), the chances of this are as I said before; exactly ZERO.
This is wrong. There is actually something in evolution called co-operation, which is defined as an evolutionary trait where a group of living things work together for common benefits. For example, animals in herds are more likely to survive in a herd than living alone, and so this is the case a lot of the times. This co-operation would lead to an eventual creation of a society, like the one we live in today. Without people caring and working together, humanity would not have made it this far.
But said creatures would not recognize the benefit.
You seem to not know what you are talking about. Evolution defines the origin of species, not how life started. (There's abiogenesis for that). Because of this, I will only address your last point, which is untrue; this can be proven by fossil records and etc.
Well this is a very peculiar way of "proving" something, pawning it off to "fossil records, I think I already explained how this is not credible, you cannot "prove" an organism s descended from another group, you could say that it is "similar" but that hardly makes it an ancestor.
abc123jendunee

Pro

"This was not my point, yes a small fraction may develop a defense, but this remains at a minuscule percent because honey does not actually kill the bacteria"s, it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%."

The cause for honey to be such a good antibiotic is because it naturally produces hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)[1][2] I do not know where you got you're information from, but it does not stump reproduction. [3]

"Hmm, "Theoretically", I thought we were going off facts here, not some random guys "theory", now I also want to point out that Eukaryote bacteria work a little differently than ferns, a bacteria could evolve, a multi celled organism cannot, how you may ask, because a cell is one cell, it"s easy to absorb something and screw with its genetics, a fern has many cells per bulb, so it is IMPOSIBLE to directly, and instantaneously affect every cells genetics in the exact same way, the chance is exactly 0, a primitive cell still going off of RNA finding a stray piece of carbon and absorbing it is feasible, with a fern it is not that simple, it would have to find the genetic material to make an entire flower, every cell to absorb this same strand even though they would not accept foreign material anyway, then for this design to allow for combine genetic reproduction, and for more than one fern to do the exact same thing (If it reproduces sexually it goes extinct if there is only one), the chances of this are as I said before; exactly ZERO."

Theoretically is defined as 'In theory', so I'm saying "In the theory of evolution...", not some 'random guy's theory'. To address your actual point, a fern indeed has many cells, but every single cell has the same DNA. They don't need to homogeneously recombine all cells, just one, which is how sexual reproduction basically works. Seeing that this works with one celled bacteria, this is how it would work in a fern as well. [4]

"But said creatures would not recognize the benefit."

Seriously? I very clearly stated "The bacteria does not need to know" and "The living organism does not need to be sentient of the benefits for evolution to occur." The key word there is NEED.

"Well this is a very peculiar way of "proving" something, pawning it off to "fossil records, I think I already explained how this is not credible, you cannot "prove" an organism s descended from another group, you could say that it is "similar" but that hardly makes it an ancestor."

My father is genetically 'similar' to me. Using DNA testing, we can find that we shared a direct relationship. An ape and a human share 99% [5], making it very likely for it to have either a common ancestor, or one evolved from the other.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://www.lenntech.com...
[4] http://mr.crossref.org...
[5] http://humanorigins.si.edu...

(Apologies for not citing sources before)
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

The cause for honey to be such a good antibiotic is because it naturally produces hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)[1][2] I do not know where you got you're information from, but it does not stump reproduction. [3]
Yes that is a very weak piece you made;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Theoretically is defined as 'In theory', so I'm saying "In the theory of evolution...", not some 'random guy's theory'. To address your actual point, a fern indeed has many cells, but every single cell has the same DNA. They don't need to homogeneously recombine all cells, just one, which is how sexual reproduction basically works. Seeing that this works with one celled bacteria, this is how it would work in a fern as well. [4]
If it does not affect all cells, the rest of the cells would reject the new material, how do you not know that?
Seriously? I very clearly stated "The bacteria do not need to know" and "The living organism does not need to be sentient of the benefits for evolution to occur." The key word there is NEED.
Ok, evolution,; survival of the fittest, and adaptation; adapting to a different environment, I am referring to adaptation, such as a rabbit growing longer ears in a hotter climate, or a rabbit growing shorter ears in a colder climate, even though both parents could have the opposite, you are talking about survival of the fittest (evolution) where a creature randomly alters its genetics and the fittest survives, I was saying that the fern cannot develop combine genetic reproduction through adaptation because it would not recognize the threat, I later stated why evolution would not work either, that is because it is too complicated, only one creature could do it if that is they mutated to develop flowers, and this would utterly prevent them from reproducing.
My father is genetically 'similar' to me. Using DNA testing, we can find that we shared a direct relationship. An ape and a human share 99% [5], making it very likely for it to have either a common ancestor, or one evolved from the other.
Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both developed calculus with no contact from each other, couldn"t one creature develop the same traits as a human without being related, it is more than feasible for a chimp to develop these traits in some 250,000 years, when newton and Leibniz developed the same thing in the same century.
abc123jendunee

Pro

The only thing close to:

" it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%"

in the article was

"Most bacteria and other microbes cannot grow or reproduce in honey i.e. they are dormant and this is due to antibacterial activity of honey." [1]

This does NOT mean 0.000001%, for all we know, it can be 50.000001%.

To address:

"If it does not affect all cells, the rest of the cells would reject the new material, how do you not know that?"

Of course I did know that. Evolution is beneficial to the species, not just for the individual. When the primitive gamete cell of the fern is transferred to the other fern to perform homogeneously recombination, surely you didn't think that the 'fixed' cell would go back the fern that it was from, did you? Chances are it would produce another fern with the fixed DNA, while the other fern would die off due to said genetic defects.

"Ok, evolution,; survival of the fittest, and adaptation; adapting to a different environment, I am referring to adaptation, such as a rabbit growing longer ears in a hotter climate, or a rabbit growing shorter ears in a colder climate, even though both parents could have the opposite, you are talking about survival of the fittest (evolution) where a creature randomly alters its genetics and the fittest survives, I was saying that the fern cannot develop combine genetic reproduction through adaptation because it would not recognize the threat, I later stated why evolution would not work either, that is because it is too complicated, only one creature could do it if that is they mutated to develop flowers, and this would utterly prevent them from reproducing."

It appears that you do not understand the meaning of 'adaptation'. "In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection." [2] Adaptation IS evolution. Anyways, in the previous arguments I have already explained the evolution and functional reason for such evolution which makes such adaptation possible.

"Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both developed calculus with no contact from each other, couldn"t one creature develop the same traits as a human without being related, it is more than feasible for a chimp to develop these traits in some 250,000 years, when newton and Leibniz developed the same thing in the same century."

Actually, evolution requires many variables to be true in order to consider a certain trait to be considers 'favorable'. Climate, predators, availability of food are just some examples. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz have somewhat similar reasons for developing calculus as and tool, and additionally it is still disputed who actually created, or if they did it at the same time. [3] (They also developed certain parts of calculus as well, (Likely due to differed motives))

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://books.google.ca...
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Con

The only thing close to:

" it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%"

in the article was

"Most bacteria and other microbes cannot grow or reproduce in honey i.e. they are dormant and this is due to antibacterial activity of honey." [1]

This does NOT mean 0.000001%, for all we know, it can be 50.000001%.

I do not think that we are as un-advanced as to not be able to record such numbers.
Of course I did know that. Evolution is beneficial to the species, not just for the individual. When the primitive gamete cell of the fern is transferred to the other fern to perform homogeneously recombination, surely you didn't think that the 'fixed' cell would go back the fern that it was from, did you? Chances are it would produce another fern with the fixed DNA, while the other fern would die off due to said genetic defects.
Ok I think I need to go through this again with you, so the fern will have to develop combine genetic material on its own as it has no contact with other organisms, since it develops this as an individual it is incapable of reproducing due to the lack of another fern (It reproduces by cloning remember), so these genetics would never pass on, you attempted to combat this by saying that by a straw strand of DNA traveling through dirt (what?) to a fern bulb, and the majority of the fern bulbs cells being affected (enough to fight off the rest and still have enough left over to survive), and that this impossible incident occurred to more than one fern, this is impossible, so you write this paragraph, what is that paragraph supposed to mean, I got the part of you not knowing something, after that it"s un-understandable.
It appears that you do not understand the meaning of 'adaptation'. "In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection." [2] Adaptation IS evolution. Anyways, in the previous arguments I have already explained the evolution and functional reason for such evolution which makes such adaptation possible.
I used the word adaptation to define the phenomenon where creatures develop traits as a result of recognizing the need for it, the other case is where these traits are random, I explained why adaptive evolution cannot cause a fern to develop flowers, then explained why random evolution could not either.
Actually, evolution requires many variables to be true in order to consider a certain trait to be considers 'favorable'. Climate, predators, availability of food are just some examples. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz have somewhat similar reasons for developing calculus as and tool, and additionally it is still disputed who actually created, or if they did it at the same time. [3]
Yes, we know that humans originated in Africa, and that chimpanzees live in similar environment as the original humans did, so it would be more than reasonable for them to develop traits to said climate, this is not evolution, well it"s not evolution where a species can transform into another species, they can however adapt to situations, like what I am explaining, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz live in the same world, with the same natural laws, so they will observe those same laws and come to the same conclusion, like the chimp developing traits similar to a human because they both live in similar climates, but to say that the chimp will "evolve into a human is ridiculous, just a chimp with slightly different traits than other chimps.
abc123jendunee

Pro

"I do not think that we are as un-advanced as to not be able to record such numbers."

I do not understand what you mean. Please clarify.

"Ok I think I need to go through this again with you, so the fern will have to develop combine genetic material on its own as it has no contact with other organisms, since it develops this as an individual it is incapable of reproducing due to the lack of another fern (It reproduces by cloning remember), so these genetics would never pass on, you attempted to combat this by saying that by a straw strand of DNA traveling through dirt (what?) to a fern bulb, and the majority of the fern bulbs cells being affected (enough to fight off the rest and still have enough left over to survive), and that this impossible incident occurred to more than one fern, this is impossible, so you write this paragraph, what is that paragraph supposed to mean, I got the part of you not knowing something, after that it"s un-understandable."

I fully understand the topic, it seems you don't. Allow me to summarize and clarify the points.

1. Single cell organisms reproduce in a 'sexual' manner in order to preform homologous recombination which would repair the next generation's DNA to the norm. [1]
2. A fern originally reproduces asexually
3. Some ferns have parts of DNA damaged.
4. A mutation allowed for a primitive gamete cell(s) to be created.
5. A gamete cell would reach another fern without damaged DNA (Chances are there are some nearby), where it would preform homologous recombination in order to restore DNA.
6. With this newly repaired DNA, the cell creates another fern, with this 'homologous recombination' mutation.
7. This trait evolves into sexual reproduction as we know it today, as it has many benefits such as genetic diversity and faster creation of offspring.
(Fern Info Used: [2][3])
I hope I have made it easy enough for you to comprehend.

"I used the word adaptation to define the phenomenon where creatures develop traits as a result of recognizing the need for it, the other case is where these traits are random, I explained why adaptive evolution cannot cause a fern to develop flowers, then explained why random evolution could not either."

I do not believe there are any cases of biological 'adaptive evolution' in the manner in which you are speaking of. I maybe wrong, but please provide a source. I have also proved why it is not impossible for 'random' evolution to occur with the ferns.

"Yes, we know that humans originated in Africa, and that chimpanzees live in similar environment as the original humans did, so it would be more than reasonable for them to develop traits to said climate, this is not evolution, well it"s not evolution where a species can transform into another species, they can however adapt to situations, like what I am explaining, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz live in the same world, with the same natural laws, so they will observe those same laws and come to the same conclusion, like the chimp developing traits similar to a human because they both live in similar climates, but to say that the chimp will "evolve into a human is ridiculous, just a chimp with slightly different traits than other chimps."

As I said before, you misunderstand evolution. I will repeat again, I do not believe there are any cases of biological 'adaptive evolution' in the manner in which you are speaking of. I maybe wrong, but please provide a source. And once more in this point you misunderstand me. Chimps do not evolve into human, but they share a common ancestor. [4]

Round 5 should be summary, conclusion and final rebuttals, I believe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.shmoop.com...
[3] http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu...
[4] http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Con

I do not understand what you mean. Please clarify.
Of course we could be able to tell how many bacteria"s are resistant, and many other sites said only a minuscule amount are resistant.
I fully understand the topic, it seems you don't. Allow me to summarize and clarify the points.

1. Single cell organisms reproduce in a 'sexual' manner in order to preform homologous recombination which would repair the next generation's DNA to the norm. [1]
2. A fern originally reproduces asexually
3. Some ferns have parts of DNA damaged.
4. A mutation allowed for a primitive gamete cell(s) to be created.
5. A gamete cell would reach another fern without damaged DNA (Chances are there are some nearby), where it would preform homologous recombination in order to restore DNA.
6. With this newly repaired DNA, the cell creates another fern, with this 'homologous recombination' mutation.
7. This trait evolves into sexual reproduction as we know it today, as it has many benefits such as genetic diversity and faster creation of offspring.
(Fern Info Used: [2][3])
I hope I have made it easy enough for you to comprehend.

Ok, I went through this before, it is very simple for a bacteria to accept other material, a fern does not work in the same way as it would have to affect all cells, otherwise the unaffected cells would reject the mutated ones, this is easy with a single cell because then you only have to affect one cell, you are yet to rebut this, instead you presented the same old theory that I already proved wrong.
I do not believe there are any cases of biological 'adaptive evolution' in the manner in which you are speaking of. I maybe wrong, but please provide a source. I have also proved why it is not impossible for 'random' evolution to occur with the ferns.
Well you see this is where the debate stops progressing, adaptive evolution happens all the time, such as developing an antibody to a virus you were exposed to, or the virus becoming resistant to your antibody if it survives, this is a small example obcourse, so we move back to random evolution, according to the theory of evolution, random evolution is due to mutations, (technically so is adaptive evolution but those mutations are designed by the organism for a specific purpose) they commonly happen slowly by many mutations from generation to generation, or one big one, asexual organisms cannot spread genetic material, so they would "evolve" individually, since sexual reproduction requires there to be more than one creature, these ferns (assuming they somehow had a big enough mutation that is perfect enough to create a flower, which is too complicated to be random, and is unnecessary and would not help reproduction in any way even so.) would die out, so all our plants would reproduce asexually, this is not the case, again, you fail to combat this.
As I said before, you misunderstand evolution. I will repeat again, I do not believe there are any cases of biological 'adaptive evolution' in the manner in which you are speaking of. I maybe wrong, but please provide a source. And once more in this point you misunderstand me. Chimps do not evolve into human, but they share a common ancestor. [4]
No I understand evolution perfectly, enough to know why it is ridiculous, your only combat to my reply is my saying that chimps could not evolve into humans, I knew this, I was stating that one species cannot be said to evolve into another just because their genetics were similar, then I pointed out that Newton and Leibniz developed the same calculus, so logically we have no reason to believe that chimps would not develop similar traits/ genetics to humans because they are both adapting to the same environment, likewise is Newton and Leibniz assessing and transferring into an equation the same reality.
Well that was fun, interestingly enough most everyone defending evolution is an atheist, why aren't there any Hindus, Buddhists, or some other religion? Strange, I though that "Being an atheist demands no qualifications but that you do not believe in god." yet every atheist I've seen on this site defends evolution, but you won't find any Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, deists, agnostics, how many religions are there that wont defend evolution, every one of hem but atheists, and yet I hear so much about "logic" and "not forming a conclusion without evidence", those guys remind me of Richard Nixon who said "Homosexuals are communists who are trying to destroy America", but then he was cheating on his wife--- WITH A MAN, anyway I think I disproved evolution here, I don't want to be beating a dead horse so to speak, good luck "disproving" my statements though.
abc123jendunee

Pro

"Of course we could be able to tell how many bacteria"s are resistant, and many other sites said only a minuscule amount are resistant."

And yet I do not see any sources or links.

"Ok, I went through this before, it is very simple for a bacteria to accept other material, a fern does not work in the same way as it would have to affect all cells, otherwise the unaffected cells would reject the mutated ones, this is easy with a single cell because then you only have to affect one cell, you are yet to rebut this, instead you presented the same old theory that I already proved wrong."

Please read my explanation carefully. I mean, you seriously did not think that one the cell repaired its DNA, it somehow sprouted wings and flew back to the original fern, did you? As I said evolution benefits the species, no the DNA damaged individual. However, this special mutation would allow for it's genetics to last longer than another fern with damaged DNA, but without the mutation..[1]

"Well you see this is where the debate stops progressing, adaptive evolution happens all the time, such as developing an antibody to a virus you were exposed to, or the virus becoming resistant to your antibody if it survives, this is a small example obcourse, so we move back to random evolution, according to the theory of evolution, random evolution is due to mutations, (technically so is adaptive evolution but those mutations are designed by the organism for a specific purpose) they commonly happen slowly by many mutations from generation to generation, or one big one, asexual organisms cannot spread genetic material, so they would "evolve" individually, since sexual reproduction requires there to be more than one creature, these ferns (assuming they somehow had a big enough mutation that is perfect enough to create a flower, which is too complicated to be random, and is unnecessary and would not help reproduction in any way even so.) would die out, so all our plants would reproduce asexually, this is not the case, again, you fail to combat this."

The main point of my last 'argument' was for you to STATE A SOURCE. In all the years I have researched and study evolution, I have never heard of 'purposeful mutations'. The only thing close is 'adaptive mutation', and the reason why I did not know of this is highly controversial in the scientific community and generally NOT considered evolution. (Has only been observed in bacteria) [2]

"No I understand evolution perfectly, enough to know why it is ridiculous, your only combat to my reply is my saying that chimps could not evolve into humans, I knew this, I was stating that one species cannot be said to evolve into another just because their genetics were similar, then I pointed out that Newton and Leibniz developed the same calculus, so logically we have no reason to believe that chimps would not develop similar traits/ genetics to humans because they are both adapting to the same environment, likewise is Newton and Leibniz assessing and transferring into an equation the same reality."

To quote: "Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa are separate from the major human fossil sites in East Africa; however, chimpanzee fossils have been reported from Kenya, indicating that both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene."[3]

"Well that was fun, interestingly enough most everyone defending evolution is an atheist, why aren't there any Hindus, Buddhists, or some other religion? Strange, I though that "Being an atheist demands no qualifications but that you do not believe in god." yet every atheist I've seen on this site defends evolution, but you won't find any Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, deists, agnostics, how many religions are there that wont defend evolution, every one of hem but atheists, and yet I hear so much about "logic" and "not forming a conclusion without evidence", those guys remind me of Richard Nixon who said "Homosexuals are communists who are trying to destroy America", but then he was cheating on his wife--- WITH A MAN, anyway I think I disproved evolution here, I don't want to be beating a dead horse so to speak, good luck "disproving" my statements though."

I am are here to debate evolution, not talk about how the 2 atheists you've seen defend evolution.

Well anyways, it has been a truly enjoyable debate, although con did appear to try to attack controversial sub-theories (Which are controversial for a reason), just to gain points. I look forward to the voting, and remember to choose the one you truly think won!

[1] http://itol.embl.de...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
The person who accepts gets the last say, here's the rest:
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
And yet I do not see any sources or links.
Hmm, I remember citing.
Please read my explanation carefully. I mean, you seriously did not think that one the cell repaired its DNA, it somehow sprouted wings and flew back to the original fern, did you? As I said evolution benefits the species, no the DNA damaged individual. However, this special mutation would allow for it's genetics to last longer than another fern with damaged DNA, but without the mutation..[1]
No, you were suggesting that it could transfer through the ground, no, too solid, it can"t transfer through the air, ferns don"t have flowers yet remember, plus the bulbs are below ground, plus there is this thing called skin, or whatever it"s called on a plant, it wouldn"t accept it even so, let alone mistake it for its own cells, (It"s called an immune system, organisms reject foreign material), then there would have to be enough material for every cell, and it would have to affect them all almost simultaneously, strange, you are consistently avoiding the statement.
The main point of my last 'argument' was for you to STATE A SOURCE. In all the years I have researched and study evolution, I have never heard of 'purposeful mutations'. The only thing close is 'adaptive mutation', and the reason why I did not know of this is highly controversial in the scientific community and generally NOT considered evolution. (Has only been observed in bacteria) [2]
Yeah you see this is what I meant, you are avoiding my statement again, I am my own source, I saw it first hand, I have rabbits, and I notice that rabbits which are born in the winter tend to be born with shorter ears than those born in the summer, why- because the rabbit recognizes cold weather, so they develop short ears, hence adaptive evolution.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
To quote: "Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa are separate from the major human fossil sites in East Africa; however, chimpanzee fossils have been reported from Kenya, indicating that both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene."[3]
Inconclusive, really, really, really inconclusive.
I am are here to debate evolution, not talk about how the 2 atheists you've seen defend evolution.

Well anyways, it has been a truly enjoyable debate, although con did appear to try to attack controversial sub-theories (Which are controversial for a reason), just to gain points. I look forward to the voting, and remember to choose the one you truly think won!
Yes, I attacked sub subjects because evolution is almost entirely composed of sub subjects, and they are all wrong. Anyway I wrote that little thing because this is relevant to a separate issue.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
And yet I do not see any sources or links.
Hmm, I remember citing.
Please read my explanation carefully. I mean, you seriously did not think that one the cell repaired its DNA, it somehow sprouted wings and flew back to the original fern, did you? As I said evolution benefits the species, no the DNA damaged individual. However, this special mutation would allow for it's genetics to last longer than another fern with damaged DNA, but without the mutation..[1]
No, you were suggesting that it could transfer through the ground, no, too solid, it can"t transfer through the air, ferns don"t have flowers yet remember, plus the bulbs are below ground, plus there is this thing called skin, or whatever it"s called on a plant, it wouldn"t accept it even so, let alone mistake it for its own cells, (It"s called an immune system, organisms reject foreign material), then there would have to be enough material for every cell, and it would have to affect them all almost simultaneously, strange, you are consistently avoiding the statement.
The main point of my last 'argument' was for you to STATE A SOURCE. In all the years I have researched and study evolution, I have never heard of 'purposeful mutations'. The only thing close is 'adaptive mutation', and the reason why I did not know of this is highly controversial in the scientific community and generally NOT considered evolution. (Has only been observed in bacteria) [2]
Yeah you see this is what I meant, you are avoiding my statement again, I am my own source, I saw it first hand, I have rabbits, and I notice that rabbits which are born in the winter tend to be born with shorter ears than those born in the summer, why- because the rabbit recognizes cold weather, so they develop short ears, hence adaptive evolution.
To quote: "Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa are separate from the major human fossil sites in E
Posted by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
This is a tough topic, whatever side you take. Good luck to both Pro and Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.