The Instigator
pricetagg0o0
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
swagwhale
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Humans share a common Ancestory with Primates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
swagwhale
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 56846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

pricetagg0o0

Pro

people share a common ancestor with primates
my first thing to say is that we share over 95% of are genes with them, we have homologous structures and they have every bone in the body that we have.
it is said that we broke off from that group of animals 5-8 million years ago.
fossil records can help you see that over time certain skulls started to look more human like than primitive primate like.
swagwhale

Con

First of all I would like to say that no there are not transitional human-ape fossils. There are human fossils like Neanderthals, who in fact had bigger brain cases than modern day humans. There are also other human fossils and ape fossils but none in-between. As there are so many claimed ape men I won't mentioned them all now, but will try to address any you bring up. Also it is not fact that human DNA is 95% ape DNA because neither the entire human genome nor ape genome has been sequenced.
So far I have only made your points invalid, however the real proof that we did not evolve from apes is that evolution is impossible. It would require mutations that added useful genetic information, which just doesn't happen.
https://www.youtube.com... (Richard Dawkins fails to give example of a mutation which "Can be seen to increase the information in the genome".)
Debate Round No. 1
pricetagg0o0

Pro

pricetagg0o0 forfeited this round.
swagwhale

Con

I would like to start this round by pointing out, like many people have done in the comments, that humans are technically classified as primates. All this really means is that the people who decided what animals should count as primates were evolutionists, and so naturally thought that humans are just another ape like creature. Therefore I ascertain that you mean "humans share a common ancestry with apes", and will be debating against this. Also "ancestory" is not a word, so I will assume you meant ancestry.
As you have not posted a rebuttal to my previous argument, for this round I shall merely give some of my reasons as to why I believe evolution is not a scientifically viable theory of how we came to be.

1) Something was needed to create the first cell. As evolution couldn't account for how it developed before life, something would have to have spontaneously materialise that displayed:
-Movement
-Reproduction
-Sensitivity
-Growth
-Respiration
-Excretion
-Absorption of Nutrition

2) DNA is made from nucleotides which are polymeric, meaning that they are only made from other nucleotides. For one to be formed by the forces of nature alone would be operationally impossible.

3) Irreducible complexity
Basically this is saying that for a system to function it needs all of it's parts, or at least most of them. For an eye to function it needs a large amount of genes. If any one of these were to not be there the eye would be deemed useless. Therefore specimens with those genes would not be selected for unless they had all the important genes, of which there are too many to simply happen to mutate into being in the same animal. Similarly an ape with human teeth would be useless unless he could make human food, but it would be pointless for him to make human food if he didn't already have human teeth.

4) Mutations change existing genes, they don't create new ones. The thousands of genes humans have would therefore have to have been present in our first ancestors.
Debate Round No. 2
pricetagg0o0

Pro

pricetagg0o0 forfeited this round.
swagwhale

Con

Going back to the similarities in human and ape DNA, http://listverse.com... has some interesting points:
"It is often said that humans and chimpanzees share 99% the same DNA. Genetic comparison is not simple due to the nature of gene repeats and mutations, but a better estimate is somewhere from 85% to 95%. This figure may still sound impressive, but most DNA is used for basic cellular functions which all living things share. For example, we have about half the same DNA as a banana, and yet people do not use this to emphasize how similar bananas are to us! So 95% does not say as much as it first appears to. Chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes, two more than humans. It is thought that this is because in a human ancestor, two pairs of chromosomes fused into a single pair. Interestingly, humans have some of the least genetic variation of all animals, which is why inbreeding can cause genetic problems. Even two completely unrelated humans are usually genetically more similar than two sibling chimpanzees."
Though this seems to be written by an evolutionist, the evidence shows creation. Also the fact that human beings have little genetic variability reflects what is written in Genesis, that is, we are all descended from Adam and Eve. The Bible doesn't state how many apes that He originally made, so they could have a lot more variability. The only limitation to the smallest number of apes that all modern apes have one ancestor among is that there were only 7 pairs on the ark. ( I assume apes are ritually clean because it didn't say otherwise in http://www.ucg.org....) Also I would like to point out that the similarities these tests found were between humans and chimpanzees, not just any ape (my mistake) or primate. If you have any questions on this topic http://creation.com... is a great website to visit, or you can challenge me to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
the theory of evolution is not even a theory, it's a religious hypothesis and it's a joke.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
yes, a tadpole emerged out of pond scum after it was struch by lightning and morphed into a monkey who gave birth to your granpa the Orangutan.......and his children had birth defects and became your uncles and they were much better looking then you are .
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Even though this article attempts to refute the idea, the article begins with "Primates are an Order of animals that include the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, and humans."
http://creationwiki.org...
Posted by E_Pluribus_Unum 2 years ago
E_Pluribus_Unum
Strictly speaking, since humans are primates, their ancestors would also be primates. However, replacing "primates" with "apes" is also not correct either. The consensus among evolutionary biologists is that apes today and humans today are cousins descended from a common ancestor. I think the the debate title should be phrased accordingly. If I understand the instigator's intent correctly, then "Humans and modern apes share a common ancestor" is a debate title that I think is more accurate than the current one.

For the opening argument, I wonder how well Con would perform if he claimed Pro made a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I think that a discussion on what extent correlation does not imply causation would apply to DNA and biology would be interesting to see.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
If he said common ancestry with *apes*, then I would accept this debate.
Willing to change it Pro?
Posted by Artifex 2 years ago
Artifex
Actually, we are primates. The debate statement makes no sense.
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 2 years ago
EthicsPhilosopher
Actually, a little more that 99%
Posted by spinosauruskin 2 years ago
spinosauruskin
*we share 99% with chimps*
Posted by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
@Wiley: I don't see what is wrong with a debate being scientific instead of religious.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
There doesn't seem to be a point to your argument. All you have presented is a scientific issue, not a religious one. The VAST majority of theists in the world accept evolution. Hard-line fundamentalists are a small yet vocal minority.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
pricetagg0o0swagwhaleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is unsourced. Con made too many uncontested arguments. Arguments, sources and conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
pricetagg0o0swagwhaleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.