The Instigator
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Nd2400
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Human Beings Evolved

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...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/2/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 104737
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)

 

Emilrose

Pro

This is a debate reserved for Nd2400. It is intended to be a reasonably short/quick debate.

Definitions:

1. human being

a.) a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

b.) any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens

2.) evolved

a.) change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift

b.) a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form

********************

Debate Structure/Rules:

-round one acceptance, round two opening arguments, round three rebuttals and closing arguments

-24 hour argument period

-select winner voting system

-no forfeits

Good luck to Con.
Nd2400

Con

Challenge accepted... Would have accepted sooner, just didn't get any notifications.

Anyway good luck to you Emilrose.... Looking forward to a good debate..........
Debate Round No. 1
Emilrose

Pro

Note that isn't an science vs. religion debate per se, rather, it is simply intended to explain the process of evolution and show it to be demonstrable fact.

Opening Argument:

C1.) First life forms

Now, one thing that people often fail to provide in evolution debates is a sypnosis of when and how life was first formed on this earth. In fact, it is only when assess the evolution of life thoroughly, that human evolution becomes more coherent and understandable.

Around 3.8 billion years ago (the earth is over 4 billion years old), the first ever cells (life-forms) developed-known as Prokaryotic cells, within Prokaryotic cells are bacteria and DNA strands. However, though dinosaurs came after the formation of this cell, as it stood alone wasn't enough to bring formulate the chemical energy necessary to bring about human and other complex forms of life, so eventually, Eukaryotic cells evolved from them. [1.] https://evolution.berkeley.edu...


The bacteria within these cells, was able to produce a type of oxygen and nucleus, thus breathing more 'energy' into them. Not long before this (at least in evolutionary terms), biological molecules were starting to form within our oceans, as well. Within Eukaryotic cells contained organelles such as Phagocytosis, which, had further chemical reaction to the pre-existing Prokaryotes.

To avoid getting too complex with the details, then there came mammalia formation, more oxygen accumulation (on earth), fungi, amphibians/fish, more multicellular organism development, primates, and finally, Homo sapiens.

This directly brings us to human evolution.

C2.) The process of human evolution

Once again, there were different types of species belonging to the class of hominoids. So, we start at the Homo antecessor, which came after Homo erectus which evolved in Africa; with its varying subtypes 'Homo georgicus', 'Homo pekinensi', etc.

The Homo antecessor, expanded out into Europe and the rest of the world, with a collection of remains being found in Spain in 1994-1995. [2.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., [3.] http://www.sciencedirect.com..., and [4.] http://www.sciencedirect.com...

In addition, actual footprints belonging to the antcecssor group were found in England. [5.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now, the reason it's important to mention these occurrences is because they provide further evidence for human evolution. That antecessor remains/footprints, etc. have been found, shows that a subspecies belonging to Homo sapiens existed, and that we have indeed evolved over a period of time.

Antecessor skull:



Antecessor jaw:


Physical appearance of the antecessor:





In terms of how this further correlates to our evolution, the differences, or rather-the 'changes' that occurred within our development over time are certainly notable. There are the obvious distinctions in our physical appearance; I.e, modern-day humans are considerably more physically refined than antecessors. On average, we are taller, our noses are more well-defined, our brain size is larger; these are direct evidences of evolution of a species taking place.

Homo heidelbergensis skull:



As can be seen, more similarities are beginning to develop with a modern-day Homo sapien (human) skull, which looks like this:


The heidelbergensis subtype, had slightly larger brains than antecessors and more muscle mass-though again, they were not tall. Within 1000 years, they evolved into what we now call the 'Neanderthals', who have led the pathway to our modern development. During this period, further Homo-sapien migration took place out of Africa, Europe and across the rest of the world; West Asia, East Asia, Australia, and so on-this is why we have different Haplogroups groups. The Neanderthals become extinct around 25,000 years ago, during this period more Haplogroup types developed (including the R2A and R2B, which belongs to South/Central Asia), and the JT, J1 and J2, which belong to the Middle East. After this, the Haplogroup X1 and X2 also came into existence across the Americas, Europe, West Asia and North Africa.

During this period, a small number of different variations of pre-existing Haplogroups developed (in certain regions), causing minor gene mutations, etc. A few thousand years later, white-skinned (Caucasoid) humans began to appear in Europe, forming their own haplogroups.

As per showing that humans evolved, I've proved that different life-forms and different species and sub-species have developed over time, so it's now on Con to disprove my arguments and show that humans did not evolve.
Nd2400

Con

First i want to thank you Emilrose, for this opportunity to debate you on this topic. But do realize this debate will be a forever type debate. Meaning they probably no way both sides could actually win this. But as for you and me i guess it's who could bring their best stuff to the big table. So, let's get started shall we...

Oh wait a minute. Wait one darn second. Did i hear what i through i heard? I think i did. You say you don't want to bring religion in to this. We'll why the heck should i debate then if i can't bring religion in to this, because that goes right in to my Creation argument. Well thank you Ms.Emilrose, and thank you who ever reading this. Well this was a very short debate......

Naw, really..... It's over...........it's really is over..........

Wait...

Wait....... I think i'm still breathing. Yeah, that's right. The higher power give me a working brain to work with. So, with the power invested in him i will go on in this debate.....

You challenge me, so i must go on.....

Okay, before i really begin. I want to go over something.
Human evolution is a theory, not a absolute truth.

So, before i begin i have a video here to share with you.
There is three main key factor in this clip.

1. We still aren't really sure why we walk on two legs, why we don't have fur, and where our big brains come from.

2. Very little is known, for example, about why humans became bipedal.

3. Why humans continued to evolve when our fellow hominids became extinct.

Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com... Highly encourage you to watch. it's only 3 minutes and 20 seconds.

I will give a brief description on Creation.

Scientific study of the origin of life on earth" cannot go back in time and trace the first life on the earth given present technology.
"Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1"2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God".
(1.) https://answersingenesis.org...
"Scientists can attempt to estimate the age of the universe, the age of the earth, or the age of a rock, but they cannot directly measure the age".
(2.) https://answersingenesis.org...

The second subject i will accept to go though is The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"A biological evolution that converts bacteria into humans, with an obvious increase of order and complexity, would violate the Second Law which says "things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists.
(3.) http://www.asa3.org...

This is obviously wrong to go by this. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by either mutation or natural selection, which are the major actions in neo-Darwinian evolution. If an overall process of evolution is split into many small steps involving mutation followed by selection, each step is permitted by the Second Law, and so is the overall process".
(4.) http://www.asa3.org...

Human evolution, just isn't clear enough and not enough dated to go forward with this theory. They the scientist, can't accurately predict when or where we came from. They could
estimate on the age. But they are always off with they numbers, first they say dot, dot, dot. Then totally change things around. At least the Bible, don't change. Plus the bible is the only written document, and the oldest that state where we actually came from. Science have yet to accurately say where we came from.

Why evolution not happening.

What we see right now, of course, is an array of distinct kinds of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Human evolution is just a theory. It has been for the last 50 years and it will remain a theory for the next 200 years or more.

Looking forward to what Emilrose have cooking up next.....

Your turn.............
Debate Round No. 2
Emilrose

Pro

Rebuttals:

'Oh wait a minute. Wait one darn second. Did i hear what i through i heard? I think i did. You say you don't want to bring religion in to this. We'll why the heck should i debate then if i can't bring religion in to this, because that goes right in to my Creation argument. Well thank you Ms.Emilrose, and thank you who ever reading this. Well this was a very short debate......'

Firstly, Con makes a number of structural/grammar errors here-so it is not a promising start to his argument. He also fails to refer to anything specific.


'Wait....... I think i'm still breathing. Yeah, that's right. The higher power give me a working brain to work with. So, with the power invested in him i will go on in this debate.....'

At this point, it would seem that Con is merely repeating nonsense. No arguments thus far have been presented.

'Okay, before i really begin. I want to go over something.
Human evolution is a theory, not a absolute truth.'

Human evolution, as I have displayed evidences for in this debate, is a proven scientific process.

'1. We still aren't really sure why we walk on two legs, why we don't have fur, and where our big brains come from.'

So, this is the first real contention from Con, but one which is easily negated. We walk on two legs because our ancestors walked upright (so the hands could be used for carrying tools and so on). [6.] http://www.bbc.com...

As for not having any 'fur', this is due to natural selection. However, humans retained hair where it was practical for it to be retained (the head, the genital area, etc.) [7.] http://www.nytimes.com...

Regarding Cons third contention-our brains are big because of our gradual evolutionary development. They have in fact doubled in size since the first species belonging to Homo genus come into existence. [8.] http://www.nytimes.com...

So, if anything, Cons questions actually benefit my argument as they relate directly to the evolutionary process of change.


'Why humans continued to evolve when our fellow hominids became extinct.'

Again, this simply alludes to what occurs in evolution; different subtype of species' die out and then other subtypes develop. I gave a basic example of our evolutionary timeline in round one-so that our fellow hominoids became extinct does not contradict or negate my case at all; because in acknowledging that we did indeed have primate ancestors in the first place, Con is acknowledging that evolution exists.


The video that Con links does nothing to dispel evolution, rather it's just raising certain questions, which as I have pointed out, are easily answered. And to note once again.

'Scientific study of the origin of life on earth" cannot go back in time and trace the first life on the earth given present technology."Creator Himself, who does not and cannot lie. Genesis 1"2 provides an accurate eyewitness account of the beginning of all things, according to God".'

It does not. There's not one thing in Genesis that can be scientifically validated or shown to be correct.

'"A biological evolution that converts bacteria into humans, with an obvious increase of order and complexity, would violate the Second Law which says "things become more disordered through time, not more complex, as evolution insists.'

This is incorrect. Unfortunately, some anti-evolution proponents have a poor understanding of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. 'Entropy' is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to 'disorder'. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

Referring further to evolution itself:


The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the 'entropy' of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less 'ordered' (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.

[9.] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

So again, the argument that the second law of evolution isn't compatible with thermodynamics simply doesn't work-it is clutching at straws.


'Human evolution, just isn't clear enough and not enough dated to go forward with this theory. They the scientist, can't accurately predict when or where we came from.'

They have researched where we came from; originally, it was Africa.

'They could estimate on the age. But they are always off with they numbers, first they say dot, dot, dot. '

No. See my opening argument to get an idea of the evolutionary timeline.

'Then totally change things around. '

Nothing significant in regards to our knowledge of human evolution has been changed,

'At least the Bible, don't change.'

That is because the bible isn't scientific-therefore, no real research or new developments are conducted and/or found. In written pieces of literature, things do not change unless they are rewritten or reformulated.

'Plus the bible is the only written document, and the oldest that state where we actually came from. Science have yet to accurately say where we came from.'

This is because 4000-2000 years ago (this is the timeline of the bible), people did not have the means to research our origins. Since then, science has been able to accurately conclude our origins.

'What we see right now, of course, is an array of distinct kinds of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called micro evolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.'

Again, accepting that micro evolution exists does not contradict my case in any way. Con is yet to provide a strong argument against human evolution.


Nd2400

Con

Okay, let's get started...

You say I'm acknowledging that evolution exists. That's wrong i didn't say that. Just because i said we had primate ancestors doesn't mean i acknowledge evolution. It just means i acknowledge some of our history. Doesn't mean i agree with evolution. It still an unproven theory. Their are just as many scientists who don't believe in human evolution.

Example of one scientists, Dr Julia Shaw.

"Well, let me tell you a secret about science; scientists don"t prove anything. What we do is collect evidence that supports or does not support our predictions. Sometimes we do things over and over again, in meaningfully different ways, and we get the same results, and then we call these findings facts. And, when we have lots and lots of replications and variations that all say the same thing, then we talk about theories or laws. Like evolution. Or gravity. But at no point have we proved anything".
(5.) https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

This isn't just one scientist who believe this there are many others.

"Evolutionary theory cannot account for life"s complexity by pointing to real gaps in scientific knowledge, which indisputably exist in all scientific theories, but also by misrepresenting well established scientific propositions".
(6.)https://en.m.wikisource.org...

Pro say this "There's not one thing in Genesis that can be scientifically validated or shown to be correct".
Believing in creations don't need to have a scientific reasons on being right. You just have to have a understanding of how to believe in the supernatural.

Pro also say this "So again, the argument that the second law of evolution isn't compatible with thermodynamics simply doesn't work-it is clutching at straws".
Well you did put a nice touch on this. But i think you are failing to understand the simple concept of thermodynamics laws. Creation is set, cannot be added to nor subtracted from. kinda like a Legos set, you have so many pieces and they can only be moved, deconstructed and reconstructed. Creation moves only in progression but never increases...never decreases, once the Creator sets it in motion though it cannot be added to only rearranged. Consciousness, is never changing, never dies or was born. The Creator exists basically in a fixed state, and isolated system....it was not born nor decreases and nothing can be added to it. That is the state of the Creator, the pure conscious alone state.
The only way for the Creator to experience change or something other than the alone state is through creation, which is the manipulation of consciousness, movement, energy and of course matter, atoms, molecules ect ect....but consciousness, is an isolated system from which all arrangement come from.

"The micro-level, a system's entropy is a property that depends on the number of ways that energy can be distributed among the particles in the system. Entropy is a measure of probability, because if energy can be distributed in more ways in a certain state, that state is more probable".
(10.) http://www.asa3.org...

Pro say "They have researched where we came from; originally, it was Africa". Yes in science they have. But not in the bible... Did you know Evolution is basically a religious philosophy.

"Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated".
(7.) https://answersingenesis.org...

The other part of this demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. "Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex". (8.) https://answersingenesis.org...

Did you know, they were no living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. Anther fact is there was "no living scientist there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!)". (9.) https://answersingenesis.org...

Human Evolution is at best a good theory... But you would think will all the evidence human evolution has it would be accepted everywhere. But it just not. Even after 150 years of studying it, it no closer to be universally accepted by everyone. It just a good theory. There is a reason why human evolution not accepted to even some of their own scientists.

Really this could go on and on. But it was only for 3 rounds.

So, i want to thank Emilrose for this debate.....
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nd2400 2 months ago
Nd2400
Well i must say this to Emilrose, congratulations on winning this debate. I know im down 3 votes to none, and probably going to be more when it all set and done. But just to remind you Emilrose even before we started this debate, i told you this one was for fun, and i knew i had a huge up hill to climb. I told you i would had to debate this just right to have a chance, and i failed on that part. But it was fun. I Learn something...
Posted by tejretics 2 months ago
tejretics
RFD:

This is fairly straightforward. Con doesn't directly deal with any of Pro's case, basically dealing with skeletal evidence suggesting that humans evolved from different species (the rest of the material in R2 from Pro isn't particularly relevant).

Con has a bunch of mitigatory attacks. First, Con says that scientists aren't sure about a bunch of things related to evolution, doing nothing to link that to why that disproves the notion that human beings evolved. Con then says science itself doesn't prove anything with certainty. Pro's BOP in this debate, though, isn't to defend that evolution definitely occurred -- just that it probably did. Epistemic certainty is an unfair burden to push on Pro. Finally, Con argues that science relies on empirical evidence that's observed now, so can't make predictions about the past. Con doesn't explain this argument at all -- the statement "science observes things which exist now" has no connection whatsoever to whether observing those things can allow predictions about the past. Second, Con says that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution. Pro points out the complete lack of connection between a constant rate of entropy and evolution, and notes that evolution does not occur within a closed system. To this, Con has no response, except to say Pro "misunderstands" entropy, and says something about how the structure of objects never changes ("Creation is set, cannot be added to nor subtracted from. kinda like a Legos set, you have so many pieces and they can only be moved, deconstructed and reconstructed. Creation moves only in progression but never increases...never decreases, once the Creator sets it in motion though it cannot be added to only rearranged."). Once more, Con has no explanation as to why that links to evolution.

At the bottom, Pro proves with fossil evidence that evolution probably occurred, and Con doesn't respond in any way. Thus, I vote Pro.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 months ago
dtaylor971
Round Three:

The affirmative successfully attacks the negative's most compelling point, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, by correctly stating that the Earth (and by proxy, Evolution itself) is not a closed system. While this can be somewhat argued, it remains that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not applicable to this debate. The affirmative continues by providing additional context in response to the gaps that the negative brought up in round two (i.e the course of human travel) in an attempt to show that "discrepancies" in human evolution can be explained. The explanation of bipedal action and lack of fur was scientific and sufficient. The affirmative's attacking regarding the integrity of the Bible was extremely effective for me; the affirmative compellingly notes that the Bible was written at a time where there was little motivation to research our origins. In doing this, she neutralizes the source behind negative's opposing theory, thereby essentially sealing the debate for her.

I found that the negative citing sources from various scientists was inconsequential in light of how many scientists there currently are. Citing one or two scientists who differ from the current theorized process of evolution isn't as effective in this debate as the affirmative showing scientific evidence that the process occurred. Furthermore, the negative scarcely responds to nor successfully refutes the affirmative's attacking of the Bible.

For the following reasons, I cast an affirmative ballot:
- Scientific evidence brought forth by the affirmative was not successfully refuted by the negative
- Affirmative showed that source behind Negative's alternative theory was shaky at best
- Negative's only attempt at disproving evolution, Second Law of Thermodynamics, was swiftly and successfully refuted by the Affirmative.

Valiant effort by Negative in this debate, and great participation by both sides.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 months ago
dtaylor971
Round Two:

The resolution stated requires pro to shoulder a massive burden of proof through proving evolution in a manner that has been attempted and failed by thousands of scientists alike. Therefore, I'll judge the debate upon whether or not Pro shows that evolution is the most desirable theory of human creation (for if it's the most desirable with no reasonable alternative, we can infer, based on our current knowledge, that it happened).

The affirmative begins with a systematic overview of the theorized process of evolution. The inclusion of fossil evidence is a great contention for the resolution. Affirmative's round two could have been made substantially stronger, however, through introducing dating methods and citing reliable sources regarding the fossil record as to verify her evidence. Regardless, the introduction and explanation of the fossil contention remains a compelling advocate in affirmation of macroevolution. Though I will not venture to say that the affirmative "proved" evolution, she undoubtedly provides satisfactory evidence to its plausibility.

The negative's rebuttal runs through a succinct introduction of his rival theory, creationism, which disappointingly cited no evidence further than the Bible. The affirmative cited empirical, tangible evidence that relies upon proven scientific methods; the negative relies upon a book which, while indisputably admissible evidence to some, is questionable and unacceptable to others like myself. The subsequent 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is intriguing at best, though the negative fails to properly show why this results in disproving evolution. Lastly, I'm not fond of the negative conceding that microevolution has occurred insofar as it paves the path for macroevolution to occur over the course of eons.
Posted by Nd2400 2 months ago
Nd2400
I'm not lost. I do think God was the creator. Not evolution. I will admit i list round 2 pretty good. But round 3 I'm pretty confident that i won that battle. Should have been a tied.
Posted by Unstobbaple 2 months ago
Unstobbaple
There is no higher criteria term theory in science. I'm quite confident this was not a biased vote. It's obvious that you lost.
Posted by Unstobbaple 2 months ago
Unstobbaple
There is no higher criteria term theory in science. I'm quite confident this was not a biased vote. It's obvious that you lost.
Posted by Nd2400 2 months ago
Nd2400
Unstobbaple. If have a feeling this was bias... Could have let this be a tried. Evolution is a theory. Still unproven to even a lot of scientists. Evolution still don't have all the answer like believing in God he does. It in fact something supernatural that created us. Not by chance, like with evolution....
Posted by Unstobbaple 2 months ago
Unstobbaple
Shite that went fast. With a science background I'm kind of biased but I love the topic and I'll do my best to be objective here. Reading the debate now.
Posted by Nd2400 2 months ago
Nd2400
Thank you arugula278, but I not debating you...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 months ago
tejretics
EmilroseNd2400
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 months ago
dtaylor971
EmilroseNd2400
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Unstobbaple 2 months ago
Unstobbaple
EmilroseNd2400
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presents the straight forward facts for evolution. Without the possibility of a creationist rebuttal I'm not sure what Con could do. He essentially presented God of the gaps style arguments as in, we don't know everything about evolution so it's not real. Pro's evisceration of the trope entropy argument was almost painful to watch. Con was not able to present a compelling argument and Pro stayed with mainstream arguments and easily knocked down Con's two objections (God of the gaps and entropy) Con also nearly conceded round 2. Pro is the clear winner.