The Instigator
ijij45
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolutionary Theory is a viable model

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 3 votes the winner is...
ijij45
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 86734
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

ijij45

Pro

Evolutionary Theory is a well supported theory.
ViceRegent

Con

Evolution is not a theory for is lacks a cogent scientific definition, is not observed, is not testable, is not repeatable, is not falsifiable.
Debate Round No. 1
ijij45

Pro

My opponent seems to be unable to distinguish evolution and evolutionary theory. Evolutionary Theory is synonymous with common descent, evolution is the change in allele frequency of populations over time. We do observe evolution every time a population reproduces as the allele frequency of said population changes. It is easily falsifiable, all you need to do is find a population of organisms that is static genetically. Such a thing is impossible according to evolution. Now that that is out of the way let us get into the evidence for evolutionary theory.

#1 *Molecular Evidence*

As I don't have enough characters to get into all the evidence for evolutionary theory, I will only focus on molecular and fossil evidence. Shared molecular vestiges are indicative of common ancestry, when we look at the genome of closely related organisms we expect genetic markers indicative of common ancestry. There's a sweet taste receptor gene called Tas1r2. In felids there's a 247-base pair deletion in exon 3 and a premature stop codons in exons 4 and 6. I am sure my opponent would concede this is indicative of common ancestry between the felids. The Tas1r2 gene in bottlenose dolphins has a deletion of exon 4, a 20 base pair insertion in exon 3 and a 1 base pair deletion in exon 6. I am sure my opponent would agree that common ancestry between the dolphins best explains this. Now are there any genetic markers in humans also found in other apes? Absolutely. UOX is a gene responsible for the oxidation of uric acid so an organism can synthesize allotonin. In humans UOX doesn't function because of a nonsense mutation. The 33rd amino acid position on exon 2 has been replaced with TGA which is a stop codon. This premature stop codon doesn't allow UOX to have a functional protein in humans. This identical mutation is also found in not only chimpanzees but in gorillas and orangutans. NANOGP1 is in a family of genes responsible for the differentiation of stem cells in trypoblast in humans in chimps there is a 1 bp insertion causing a frame shift resulting in a premature stop codon on exon 4. There is a premature stop codon on exon 13 of the ACYL3 in humans and chimpanzees. There is a premature stop codon on exon 13 of the ACYL3 in humans and chimpanzees. The COX8H gene has a nonstop (stop codon deleted) mutation in exon 1 in all cattarhine primates (apes and cercopiths). Another piece of evidence in favor of common ancestry is MHC-DRB2. This gene in humans goes by the name HLA-DRB2, it goes by Patr-DRB2 in chimpanzees and Gogo-DRB2 in gorillas. MHC-DRB2 is in a family of genes which determines histocompatibility which is what determines who you can give and receive tissues from. In HLA-DRB2 exon 2 is gone and exon 3 has a 20 bp deletion. In Gogo-DRB2 and Patr-DRB2 it's broken the exact same way. Only common descent explains this fact. There are plenty of other examples of genetic markers like this in humans and other primates.

#2 *Fossil Evidence*

The fossil record is clear defined evidence for evolutionary theory. I will use the example of birds and dinosaurs. Most people have no idea just how bird-like dinosaurs were, take a look at T-Rex. T-Rex had gastralia, an antorbital fenestra complete with an antorbital sinus, a bipedal posture with the legs held beneath the body, an elongate deltopectoral crest on the humerus, pneumatized bones, fused clavicle forming a furcula, a bowed ulna, a long sarcum with fused sacral vertabrae forming a synsarcum, long narrow foot, fused sternal vertabrae, jugals in contact with the antorbital fenestra, ischial "foot", reduced immovable fibula, digitigrade, and no cranial notch between scapula and coracoid absent. Every one of these traits can be seen in chickens which is remarkable and best explained by evolutionary theory. Using phylogenetic bracketing we can even infer T-Rex had feathers due to feathers being found on other Tyrannosauroids such as Yutyrannus and Dilong. Another bird-like dinosaur is Velociraptor. Velociraptor possesses all the bird traits T-Rex did plus an ischium less than 2/3 the length of the pubis, quilled feathers, and a fully reversed pubis. I would continue but I want to see my opponents response to the evidence put forth.
ViceRegent

Con

This dude is funny. First he provides us a definition, which has nothing to do with evolution and then he proceeds to ignore it to prove evolution.

He said "Shared molecular vestiges are indicative of common ancestry", but how does he observe, test, reproduce and falsify this? Indeed, he is committing the classic logical fallacy of begging the question, but assuming evolution to see evolution.

And he did not tell us how the fossil record is clear and defined evidence for evolutionary theory. And he never tells us how this claim is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

He failed the test of science.
Debate Round No. 2
ijij45

Pro

Deliberate antagonization is the technique I expected of my opponent as indicated by his other debates, being an adult I can ignore that and get down to the meat of his argument.

My opponent states "First he provides us a definition, which has nothing to do with evolution and then he proceeds to ignore it to prove evolution." I am curious, how exactly does giving the scientific definition of evolution have nothing to do with evolution? It is nonsensical.

In response to my shared molecular vestiges argument my opponent deliberately ignores the examples provided that I am sure he would agree with. If you (The reader) recall I said "There's a sweet taste receptor gene called Tas1r2. In felids there's a 247-base pair deletion in exon 3 and a premature stop codons in exons 4 and 6. I am sure my opponent would concede this is indicative of common ancestry between the felids. The Tas1r2 gene in bottlenose dolphins has a deletion of exon 4, a 20 base pair insertion in exon 3 and a 1 base pair deletion in exon 6. I am sure my opponent would agree that common ancestry between the dolphins best explains this." As indicated by my opponents retort I get the message that he would disagree with this as evidence of felids and bottlenose dolphins being related.

Onto my opponents question he ask "how does he observe, test, reproduce and falsify this?".

Observation: Map the genome and observe the sequence. We observe that mutations are inherited from parents, for example me and all 7 of my siblings inherited mutations from our parents, I simply applied the same logic in my molecular vestiges argument.

Test: Map your genome and the genome of your parents, it is an undeniable fact that you have inherited mutations from your parents.

Potential Falsifiability: Find an identical molecular vestige in humans and some more distantly related species such as naked mole rats that isn't in chimps. This would easily falsify my argument.

Onto his claims about my evidence from fossils. He claims "And he did not tell us how the fossil record is clear and defined evidence for evolutionary theory. And he never tells us how this claim is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable."

I am starting to think he did not even read my post at all or he skimmed it. As I said, "The fossil record is clear defined evidence for evolutionary theory. I will use the example of birds and dinosaurs. Most people have no idea just how bird-like dinosaurs were, take a look at T-Rex", I then proceeded to list bird traits in T-Rex.

Observation: Dig up a fossil and proceed to do a cladistic analysis.

Test: Analyze the morphology of said fossil since paleontology relies on morphological data rather than molecular.

Potential Falsifiability: Find T-Rex in the same layer as a mammoth or find no morphological traits indicative of birds in T-Rex.
ViceRegent

Con

This dude is funny. He continues to insist upon a definition for evolution and then immediate abandons it That is the lack of cogency I was speaking about.

And the point of this debate is that we do not agree on evolution. Apparently, he does not understand what the con side of the debate is all about. If his proof is nothing more than "I am right if you agree with me", the debate is over and he loses.

And I did not ask him how he does scientific analysis on the genome. I asked him how he does scientific anaylsis on his claim of common ancestry. Hint: He cannot. But evolutionists always change the subject afte begging the question.

And he continues to dodge the Q while begging it. I want to see him do the scientific analysis on his claim that the fossil clearly shows evolution.

These tools know nothing of science or philosophy.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Edlvsjd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't believe a species has ever evolved into another species for all of history, recorded or not, con offered no valid explanations, although pro's argument was based mostly upon, well, gibberish to most people.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This vote is past the statute of limitations (at least 1 month after the voting period ends).
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: matt8800// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con used insulting verbiage. Con offered no rebuttal or argument in support of his position.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This vote is past the statute of limitations (at least 1 month after the voting period ends).
************************************************************************
Posted by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
Con seems more interested in spouting moronic idiocies rather than read what his opponent is saying.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Vote for pro.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Moreover, you continuously fail to abide by the burden of proof yourself.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Vice, you'd fail to pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the damn heel.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
The burden of proof is on he who asserts the claim. You asserted evolution was scientific. You failed to show it was.
Posted by ijij45 1 year ago
ijij45
I think the reader would agree in that all you did was antagonize me rather than present any scientific data but you said "These tools know nothing of science or philosophy." Hmm kettle thy name is pot. You accused me of begging the question but you didn't address my argument or demonstrating how i committed said fallacy therefore, you have committed the fallacy fallacy and fallacy of assertion. Good day to you, I would no longer like to debate with someone as condescending as you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
ijij45ViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used insulting verbiage. Con offered no rebuttal or argument in support of his position.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
ijij45ViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't believe a species has ever evolved into another species for all of history, recorded or not, con offered no valid explanations, although pro's argument was based mostly upon, well, gibberish to most people.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
ijij45ViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct should seem pretty self explanatory to anyone whom has read the debate. Regarding questions asked from Con (not that they needed to be addressed), they were answered succinctly to the purpose of answering how its testable, or falsifiable. Con had no rebuttal, and nothing of substance to counter the initial claim than beyond questioning the veracity. That's not a debate.