The Instigator
Moelogy
Con (against)
The Contender
A341
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Moelogy has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 967 times Debate No: 103891
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Con

Resolution: Evolution by natural selection is a viable theory on the origin of species.

Rules :
-no trolling
-no forfeits
-no semantics (tweaking definitions in the dictionary)

Rounds :
Round one - acceptance
R2) arguments
R3) Rebuttals arguments
R4) Rebuttals
R5) Rebuttals

BOP : Burden of proof will be shared.
A341

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Con

Contention 1: The nature of Mutations

A well-known undisputed fact within the the study of genetics is that 90-99% of mutations are harmful and decrease the organism's ability to survive and adapt while the other 1-10% of mutations is neutral which does not increase nor decrease the odds. [1] The infinitesimally rare beneficial mutations can be ticked off on a single hand and they are so inexplicably rare that the scientists did not even bother including them as part of the percentage.

This of course is a major obstacle to the evolutionist since one of the major mechanisms of evolutionary theory is that mutations cause immense diversity and cause better adapted organisms that natural selection can work on.

With the nature of the mutations set right, there is no escape .... Evolution is false since mutations 90-99% of the time are harmful, exponentially decreases the organism's adaptibility and causes the organisms to de-evolve.

I am not denying that there are beneficial mutations. But My major point is that the vast majority of modifications in organisms are harmful and do not conform to "the survival of the fittest" spirit of evolution. What one in a trillion odds of beneficial mutations are incomprehensibly outbalanced byt the negative mutations which are far more likely.



Contention 2: DNA-error checking system

Another major hurddle for evolution to overcome is the simple fact that Most if not all mutations are suppressed and fixed by the cell's DNA error-checking system. If a mutation happens whether beneficial or neutral or harmful, the DNA error-checking system is very quick to fix it. So how exactly would evolution and natural selection work if the vast majority of mutations are fixed on the spot and there is no diversity?

If a miracle happens and a Beneficial mutation happens to pass all stages of the DNA-error checking system, it would be far outbalanced by the harmful mutations.

The bottomline is that 99% of mutations are harmful and cause the organism to de-evolve. The other one percent are neutral and do not cause evolution or de-evolution. (http://evolutionfacts.com...) the benificial mutations are so incomprehensibly rare that they do not even include it as a percent. Whatever one in a trillion benificial mutations happen are all suppressed by the DNA Error-checking system. And whatever beneficial mutations happen to slip will be well outbalanced by the other negative mutations that will also slip causing a net negative mutations to slip causing the organism to de-evolve. You are depending on more chance and you have more faith than the creationist.

Contention 3: Cambarian explosion


One predicition that evolution makes is that there should be a large period of time between simple and complex organisms for evolution to happen and that we should be tripping over transitional fossils from simple to complex life.

However the fossil record from simple to complex life is so airtight and there are no transistional fossils to document even a single transition. Moreover, the cambarian explosion from simple to complex life is so so short for any timely evolution [2] and adpataion to actually happen and for organisms to evolve overtime which puts the simple-to-complex evolution in the coffin.

The lack of transitional fossils in this epoch in the fossil record is so startling that evolutionists could not even make up evidence since they have no idea what the transitional fossils would even look like if they existed.

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”


This demolishes evolutionists' arguments that simple life evolved into complex life. There are no transitional fossils and the timespan of 23 million is absurd to suggest that all the species in the air, on land and in the sea evolved from simple bacteria that fast.

Contention 4: Lack of transitional fossils

Darwin once wrote : " "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? … But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172-280)

Scientists do not find transitional fossils nowhere near as close as Darwin predicted.

Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”


The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”


Here is another prediciton of Darwin that is unfulfilled 2 centuries of digging later. There is no evidence for evolution. And what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

Contention 5: Unreliable evidence

The lack of evidence turned into frustration when Scientists could not find even ONE fossil to prove evolution so what they did they do? They made evidence up that was later discovered to be hoax

The list of hoax evidence includes but not limited to:

1- Lucy [3]
2- Piltdown Man [4]
3- Nebraska man [5]
4- Peking Man [6]
5- Neanderthals [7]
6- Archaetopryx [8]


Why would you ever trust a theory that is so unevidenced that they had to start making up evidence for?


Contention 6: Coelcanth + Damselfly Living Fossil


The final nail to the coffin in the sea of evidence against evolution are two cases that debunk that animals evolve over time.

We have two cases which I will discuss closely.

1- Coelcanth was a fish which is supposedly 350 million years old. They found this exact same fish recently ... with no change whatsoever. This demolishes the evolutionist claims that with enough the species will change into other species. The coelcanth was found to be the exact same with no changes whatsoever from its 350-million-year-old fossil [9]

2- Damselfly poses the same threat to evolution as the coelcanth but this time the species found is the exact same as its 300-million year old fossil. This obviously puts to rest the notion of descent with modification as darwin put it since there obviously descent here but with no modification, no change and no evolution at all. [10]



evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”



Species no change = evolution does not happen = evolution is false.

A341

Pro

Observations of Speciation

A common argument against evolution is that speciation which is key in so called "marco evolution" has never been observed, of course in reality it has showing that evolution through artificial selection has produced speciation in drosophila pseudoobscura (a common fruit fly) [1]. This proves that at the very least environmental stimuli have the potential to direct the selection of random mutations in such a way that over successive generations adaption and then specialisation occurs, this by itself at least in a technical sense proves the existence of evolution which is merely adaption through descent with modification.

Of course there have been other recorded examples of speciation observed in laboratory conditions [2] but that is mostly irrelevant as a single case example should be enough to prove my point and the example of drosophila pseudoobscura is the most famous.

Human Ancestral Tree

DNA evidence has confirmed that modern humans (homo sapiens) and homo neanderthalensis were able to interbreed probably in the middle east [3] proving that at least in technical terms they were subspcies of the same species at one point, possibly before further divergence on the part of the neanderthals. Furthermore DNA of the homo denisova species has been found in many people throughout Asia and Australasia particularly in Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians [4] showing again that there is infertility and therefore a quadripartite relationship between homo sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, homo denisova and what evolutionary theory postulates is the common ancestor of all three which again would likely be inter-fertile with the other three.

This likely fourth inter-fertile species was found in the form of homo heidelbergensis which inhabited Africa, the middle east and Europe from 600,000 to 200,000 years ago and its relationship to the other 3 confirmed through DNA testing [5]. In addition two more important decendents of homo heidelbergensis can be found in the form of homo rhodesiensis [6] which was so close to both later homo sapiens and to homo heidelbergensis that it has often been mistaken for both making it one of the clearest transitional fossils at least as far as morphology goes. But then again there is another decendant of homo rhodesiensis called homo sapiens idaltu which is directly ancestral to the modern human population [7].

In additional direct ancestors of the original homo heidelbergensis have been found in the form of homo antecessor which lived 1,200,000 years ago to 800,000 years ago and was likely not inter-fertile with modern humans however due to its morphological similarities with homo heidelbergensis it has often been confused for such [8] however there were significant enough morphological differences for the same species to be confused with a previous species named homo ergaster or a seperate species derived thereof [9]. Regardless everyone within the feild agress that both homo heidelbergensis and homo antecessor were both derived from homo ergaster [10]. Homo egraster is clearly a much earlier homonid which many more morphological traits of apes than later humans although its close relationship with homo antecessor and heidelbergensis show that there may be potential inter-fertility in these. Homo egraster originates around 1.9 million years ago [11] which means that it overlaps with homo habilis, the species likely transitional between the homo genus and earlier australopithecines. However realistically the furthest back you can trace a single line of evolution (with admittedly a couple of minor disagreements about what goes where or what should be called what) within humans is to homo ergaster which is verified through genetic, morpholitical and phylogenetic evidence as well as relative dating showing a sequential pattern of evolution that could not reasonably be explained by any other theory.

Phylogenetic evidence

Carl Linnaeus set out to classify life into a number of different groups during the 18th century, he could not have believed in evolution since the first musings of evolutionary theory would occur nearly two decades after his death. Despite this when trying to classify life rather than resulting in a number of different categories Linnaeus ended up having to categorise life into a number of hierarchical groups creating a single hierarchy of life where for instance a lion is categorised into the genus panthera along with for instance jaguars and tigers. The lion and all other members of panthera are then categorised into the family of felidae along with all cats big and small. All felidea are then placed within the order of carnivora containing almost all carnivorous mammals. All carnivora are then placed into the class of mammalia along with all mammals (including humans). All of this of course is nested into the phylum of chordata containing everything with a backbone and all chordates are classed in with animalia which includes all chordates and all other animals which are then classed as one of the primary kingdoms of life.

All of this was figured out by Linnaeus in the 18th century (although he did not include humans) producing what is commonly refereed to as the tree of life (for a diagram of the tree of life to see what I mean see source [12]). When this was cross referenced with 21st century genetic analysis it matches up more or less exactly (with a could of changes that needed to be made such as with bats) this shows that there is not only a taxonomic hierarchy established by morphology and physiology but also a genetic hierarchy which mirrors the previously established hierarchy. (for this section I can provide general sources but most of this is relatively general and so if my opponent wants to cross reference anything I have said wikipedia should do). This points to groups with genetic similarities within groups of genetic similarities and those themselves within groups of genetic similarity so on and so forth. This serves as evidence for evolution due to producing the branching tree pattern that would be expected in evolutionary theory showing each taxonomic group the likelyhood of common ancestry, this is difficult to explain with theories other than common ancestry through evolution. Indeed this is the same pattern that we see in the "genetic route" of languages [13] and with human haplogroups [14] both of which directly comparable to the theory of evolution based on the principle of common ancestory.

Genetic Evidence

We know the average rate at which mutations occur within specific circumstances and therefore roughly the rate of genetic drift and evolution by natural and sexual selection occur as a result of this by sequencing the DNA of various organisms it can be told both how genetically related they are to modern humans and how long ago they would have had to share a common ancestor under evolutionary theory. This can often be cross referenced with the fossil record for instance with the family Equidae which traced it back to north America 50 million years ago but the most compelling example encapsulated in a single paper I have been able to produce is that of the ancestry of modern chickens and other related birds seen here [15] where genetics and the fossil record are cross referenced. In addition as mentioned earlier in the human ancestry portion human genetic evidence has been used to show cross breeding with other types of humans and sequence their genes from there as well as match them to fossils of other homonids.

Vestigial Organs

Vestigial organs are often misunderstood as being organs that no longer have a purpose and can therefore be refuted by showing that the organs still have a purpose, instead all that needs to be the case for an organ to be vestigial is that it serves a purpose that it was not originally intended for or serves a purpose that was originally secondary. A key example of organs that are clearly vestigial are the arm/wing and claw of an emu, the arm having no meaningful muscles [16] and the claw [17] is attached to said arm/wing where it cannot be moved. This is of course easily explained by evolution given the presence of claws in very early species of birds such as Confuciusornis [18] although admittedly fossil evidence for the ancestors of the emu is rather scarce [18].

[1] http://www.jstor.org...

[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(SICI)1096-9888(199808)33:8%3C750::AID-JMS680%3E3.0.CO;2-1/full

[3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

[4] https://www.sciencedaily.com...

[5] http://www.innovateus.net...

[6] http://eol.org...

[7] http://www.nature.com...

[8] https://australianmuseum.net.au...

[9] https://www.revolvy.com...

[10] http://eol.org...

[11] https://www.sciencedaily.com...

[12] http://www.greennature.ca...

[13] http://www.ancient.eu...

[14] http://arslanmb.org...

[15] http://journals.plos.org...

[16] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[17] http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

[18] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Moelogy

Con

On Observation of species

The problem with the fruit fly speciation experiment is that there was no evolution at all. All the organisms pre and post experiment stayed fruitflies. The only thing that changed in this entire experiment is the mere fact that maltose fruitflies died in one study group when not given any source of maltose and the starch fruitflies in the other study group died off when not given any starch which is what to be expected frankly whether evolutionary mechanisms are true or not. It does not take a genius let alone an experiment to figure out that some fruit flies will die off when you do not feed them the only source of food that they can intake. The Experiment started off with pre-existent diversity and there were no mutations. The only conclusion that can be logically drawn from this is that when an insect does not eat, it will die which I am not sure how it proves evolution in any way. It at best proves the least controversial evolutionary mechanism, natural selection.

I think this experiment was designed more to prove natural selection. However, the logical thing to assume is that the fruitflies had some junk DNA that was activated to allow them to intake certain types of sugars. Even evolutionists agree that Junk DNA within genomes could be activated to perform certain functions (like eating certain types of sugars that you were not accustomed to). [1]

On Anti-Biotic resistant Bacteria

This is a common myth perpetrated within classrooms but the real story is that antibiotic resistant genes are ancient and the bacteria took in these genes through plasmids. [2] [3] [4] If the bacteria did not evolve any new genes to resist antibiotics and actually just took in ancient antibiotic resistant genes and then used those genes to counter antibiotics during the experiment, where is the evolution?

On Human Ancestral tree

The Human ancestral tree is the claim that evolutionists put forth on how humans evolved. That does not mean that is how humans got here. The claim =/= evidence and you can not use a claim to prove another claim.

On Neanderthals

I have already demonstrated beyond doubt in my opening arguments that the only piece of evidence we had for the Neanderthals (a disfigured fossil) was found to be a hoax, I do not think that your claim that we can find their DNA is justified. The only way they found their DNA is by assuming evolution is true then using molecular clocks to work their way back. I can do the same with the creation narrative by working back and figuring out different genomes from Adam and eve to Nowadays. They can assume evolution is true then attempt to predict the genome of a supposed sub-species we have no evidence for but a history of hoax fossils but you are not justified since you are once again using a claim to prove the bigger claim (the agreed upon resolution).

On Homo Denisova

I am actually very skeptical of this method once again. The most likely method which the scientists mapped Denisova's genome is again by assuming evolution is true then using molecular clocks to work their way back through the sub-species and Genuses and then guessing what their genome probably looked like. Again, you are not allowed to use such circular reasoning tactics. Moreover, there is no way to be certain about an extinct organism's genome unless you have at least one cell through which you can crack the nucleus and look at its chromosomes and genetic material. How exactly would they find a living cell of something which supposedly went extinct 3 million years ago?

On Homo eragster and Heidelbergenesis

Again, this technique of mapping out genome is flawed for two-fold:

1- circular reasoning, assuming evolution is true and then guessing what the genome of a 3 million year old subspecies looked like is just arbitrary and is not enough to prove such a significant claim that you are making.

2- At best, their conclusions are guesstimates since they are ssuming what the genome could have looked like working off other Species in the Homo Genus

In order for your human anscestral evidence argument to work, you need to show that evolution is true then find a living cell with full genome and genetic material Then analyze the differences using molecular clocks to show the differences in the genomes and to show how the genomes of various species evolved from one another.

On Carl Linnaeus

I am afraid that my opponent is conflating two topics : Evolution (how animals evolved from one another) and taxonomy (how scientists classify different animals) [5]

It should therefore be obvious that all of Pro's work in this area was merely to justify current scientific position on how species should be classified according to genus and species. I do not object that there are different species and genuses. I only object to the claim that they evolved from one another.

Vestigial features

This is probably the worst argument because it is slowly but surely wearing out. Evolutionists started with the claim that there are over 30 vestigial features in humans. Now it is down to ... 1. Wisdom teeth. The biggest trump to this argument was that the appendix was found to house bacteria that rebooted the digestive system after diarrhea. Moreover, the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. [6] Although it should be noted that tailbones were also a major trump when they found out The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor which is critical for some sexual function and for allowing the passage of feces and urine in both males and females. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position. [7]


[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com...;
[2] http://easweb.eas.ualberta.ca...;
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
[4] https://www.nature.com...;
[5] https://www.cbd.int...;
[6] https://www.scientificamerican.com...;
[7] http://www.healthline.com...
A341

Pro

Contention 1 - Mutations

Con claims that 90-99% of mutations are deleterious with 1-10% being being neutral and only a very few being beneficial going on technicalities his own second source refutes this [1] where it's more like 90% neutral and 10% deleterious with only a very small number being beneficial but this is meaningless to the overall debate given that . The thing is that that is how evolution works it's not random what mutations are passed on and what are not, that's the whole point, its why it's often called "random mutation with no random selection" those very small number of mutations are selected for within the population due to the organisms carrying beneficial mutations having an increased chance of reproducing and therefore an increased chance of distributing their genes through the population. Deleterious mutations leave the gene pool and beneficial ones spread out within it. Also there are plenty of examples of beneficial mutations just in humans [2].

DNA-error checking system

Yes that happens most of the time however I can just site source [2] again listing a bunch of cases where there were both beneficial mutations and these mutations survived the various error checking processes.

The Cambrian Explosion

If my opponent is to accept the dating methods that show the reality of the Cambrian explosion then they must also accept the relatively slow change in organisms during and after the Cambrian explosion and their precursors seen before that. In addition my opponent would have to recognise that during the Cambrian explosion most forms of animal life we see today were not present largely due to the fact that there was no land life and would not be for another few hundred million years [3]. In addition an integral part of evolutionary theory is something called punctuated equilibrium, the idea being that when a niche opens up a species will very quickly fill it, when a very large number of niches opened up in the Cambrian explosion they were filled in a relatively short period of time (that relatively short period of time being 20 million years) the Cambrian explosion does not conflict with the theory of evolution but in fact it might count as evidence against the theory of evolution if there wasn't a Cambrian explosion.

Various quotes

These quotes are without an exception quotemined, Stephen Jay Gould [4], Mark Czarnecki [5] Richard Dawkins [6] Stephen M. Stanley [7] Lyall Watson [8]

Charles Darwin is a bit more complicated but as should have been obvious from the quote he was setting up an opposing argument to then knock it down as a form of simple rehtorical technique and then goes on to explain this later which can be found in source [9]

Supposed Fabricated Evidence

Lucy: my opponent presents evidence that a single bone of the hundreds of fragments comprising the "Lucy" fossil and that this was identified by examining the skeleton and comparing the baboon vertebrae to those of "Lucy" who was clearly not a baboon based on being able to differentiate between "Lucy" and the baboon bone. Also "Lucy" is far from the only Australopithecus afarensis ever to be discovered there are in fact at least 9 [10]

Piltdown man: a forgery ignored by most scientists by the 1950s for not fitting in with the clear trend and eventually proved by scientists to be a forgery [11] this is not a case against evolutionary science but a case for it given that the forgery was exposed by evolutionary scientists for reasons specifically related to it being a forgery.

Nebraska man: pig teeth and human teeth look very similar, a pigs tooth was incorrectly labled and dismissed by scientists until new evidence could be provided, eventually being retracted by the person who postulated it as a forgery, again this is more evidence for evolutionary science given that it's high standards prevented a mistake being made [12].

Peking man: it's difficult to work out exactly what is actually meant by the source but it seems that it claims that Peking man was misidentified as a dragon when it was really a homonid. I mean I really don't know what con wants me to think with this. Fundamentally though peking man was another homo erectus, a species that has been well documented in the fossil record [13].

Neanderthal: The story that my opponent cites shows a person making fraudulent fossils and getting caught, there's no real relationship to the many other neanderthal fossils that have been found.

Archeopteryx: My own opponents source acknowledges the existence of archeopteryx merely questioning if it has feathers this is simply the public voicing of academic dissent, not an accusation of forgery.

"Living fossils"

Coelacanth: the Coelacanth is an order not a species, there are significant differences between the ancient form of Coelacanth and the modern one.

Damselfly: again the damselfly is not a single species but an order containing multiple different species which share common ancestry [14]

Speciation

My opponent claims that in the experiment I sited there was not evolution because the fruitflies remained fruitflies, of course that is the case seeing as you are observing two very closely related species. However in my first source it should have been obvious that they speciated by the fact that they could not interbreed.

Drug Resistant Bacteria

Con correctly points out that certain forms of antibiotic resistance have been around for a very long time however con fails to mention that they have not become widespread in the population until recent times with the rates of antibiotic resistance skyrocketing in response to the commonplace use of antibiotics in a clear example of natural selection [15].

Human Ancestral Tree

Should the human family tree be real it would prove evolution. To prove the human family tree I provided you with fossil-morphological and genetic evidence. That is not a circular argument.

Neanderthals (again)

My opponent asserts that only one distorted fossil has been found as evidence of Neanderthals (it would have been nice if he showed a source to this affect), the problem is that there are more than 300 Neanderthal specimens that have been found with each one showing the clear morphological evidence of being a Neanderthal [16]. Furthermore genetic information from Neanderthal fossils has been extracted proving that they are a separate species [17].

Homo Denisova

My opponent is incorrect in his assertion that the genome of homo denisova was mapped through the use of molecular clocks when in fact it was mapped with homo denisova DNA extracted from fossils [18] this more or less renders con's argument invalid.

On Homo eragster and Heidelbergenesis

I made no claims about the genome of homo eragster or homo heidelbergensis. I'm not sure if there was some misunderstand here, it would be good if con explains his position in the next round so that I can address it.

On Carl Linnaeus

I think my opponent may have misunderstood my argument, my argument was that the branching tree pattern of taxanomic classification is similar to other single ancestor or single ancestor comparable situations and therefore is indicative of evolution, especially when paired with genetic/molecular clocks and phylogenetics and especially so when genetic/molecular clocks and phylogenetics can be cross referenced with the fossil record.

Vestigial features

I don't think any evolutionary biologist claims that there is only one vistigial organ in humans. I explained this earlier when I pointed out that an organ does not need to be useless in order to be vesigial but just to have a diminished or changed task. To this end the coccyx can be clearly seen as a readapted tail especially given the fossil record and the fact that the genetics tails and the coccyx are intimately related as well as the morphology. Also con did not respond to the only vestigial organ that I showed being what I think is the best example becuase it is so clearly both vestigial and entirely useless.

[1] http://www.cs.unc.edu...

[2] http://editthis.info...

[3] http://www.nature.com...

[4] http://www.talkorigins.org... (quote 50)

[5] http://www.talkorigins.org... (quote 26)

[6] http://www.talkorigins.org... (quote 40)

[7] http://www.talkorigins.org... (quote 7)

[8] http://stonesnbones.blogspot.co.uk...

[9] http://www.literaturepage.com...

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] https://www.theguardian.com...

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[14] https://www.britannica.com...

[15] http://i5.asn.im...

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[17] http://humanorigins.si.edu...

[18] https://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by A341 1 year ago
A341
@Moelogy tbf your own source says that 90% of mutations are neutral.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
You want to quote where your sources say that most mutations are deleterious?

Natural selection is a factor in evolutionary progression, but it is not the main factor. There are many different factors in evolutionary progression, and you acting as if this is the only one worth talking about, shows that you're a neophyte at understanding evolution.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
>The only place you'll find the claim that most mutations are deleterious, is in outdated material or in creationist circle-jerks.

So Nature and US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health are creationist circle-jerks

>Furthermore, evolution is not predicated upon advantageous mutations.

It is. Evolution is founded on the notion that species evolve overtime to fit their environment. How do they do that? Beneficial mutations that increase their chances of survival and adaptibility to the environment. How would they get beneficial mutations when all of them are either harmful or neutral.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@Moelogy The only place you'll find the claim that most mutations are deleterious, is in outdated material or in creationist circle-jerks.

Furthermore, evolution is not predicated upon advantageous mutations. Mutations can be neutral, deleterious or advantageous.

This is why I say you're scientifically illiterate.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
How exactly does that show scientific illiteracy? Your faith demands positive mutations to increase adaptations and to become better adapted to the environment. Reality is opposite to that.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
Oh, and Con misrepresents Stehpen J Gould also lol. That's cute bubba.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
Contention 1 from Con is already show-casing his scientific illiteracy.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
Always on the grind
Posted by A341 1 year ago
A341
Dude you work fast haha
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.