The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

If according to evolution, all currently existing species were involved, then it's automatically at

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 46209
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)





1. No plagiarism. In other words, don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. I will argue in favor of the resolution that if according to evolution, ALL currently existing species were involved in it, then evolution would automatically be at least innacurate.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.


Mayfly lifetime

A'ight. As we have discovered, mayflies (Which are considered single-cellular organisms (Which, according to evolution, is what we originally were (Or at least some of us))) only live up to 24 hours[1]. No matter the health of the insect, the fact remains the same; Once 24 hours pass from when they were produced, they'll die and overtime, rot (Can be by decomposers decomposing them. Otherwise, it'll simply deteriorate because of the lacklust of needed materials to maintain current health status).


[1] (I received my information from this)



I accept.
Thank you Pro for instigating such a debate. Being an AP Biology student, I'm sure my knowlege can be of use in this debate.

When Pro uses the term "evolution," it is implied and I am assuming that Pro is referring to both macroevolution and microevolution. I myself do not believe macroevolution to be an accurate theory.
Therefore, I will be arguing that microevolution is an accurate and plausible theory.

macroevolution (noun): Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a kind, over geologic time resulting in theformation of new taxonomic groups.

microevolution (noun): Evolution involving small-scale changes, i.e. within the kind, occurring over a short period of time that results in the formation of new species.


First of all, I would like to begin by pointing out that Pro has either been misinformed or clearly misread his sources concerning the Mayflies.

Pro said that Mayflies are single-cellular organisms.

This is obviously not true! According the source Pro provided, Mayflies are insects. And all insects are multicellular. If you look at the link provided by Pro, which I will provide underneath, you will see that Mayflies are in the kingdom Animalia, meaning they are animals. And if you refer to the link I provided below that link, you will see at the first sentence that all animals are multicellular. It is absurd to say that an insect is composed of only one cell.

Pro claimed that Mayflies only live up to 24 hours.

This is not true. Adult Mayflies only lives up to 24 hours, but depending on the species, it takes Mayfly nymphs (babies) 2 weeks to even 2 years before they emerge from the water to enter their subimago stage or become adults, where they will die after 24 hours. It is understandable that you left this part out because it was not on the Wikipedia page you provided. Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.;


I will give Pro the chance to correct himself and attempt to elaborate as to why Mayflies disprove of the theory of evolution.

In the next round, I will be explaining why microevolution is a valid theory, regardless of what Pro says about Mayflies.
Debate Round No. 1


LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.


This is why microevolution cannot be disproved regardless of what Pro had to say about Mayflies, and I will provide an example.

The reason why microevolution cannot be disproved is because we have seen it happen with our own eyes. While macroevolution remains unproven, the process of microevolution has been witnessed with our own eyes and I will provide with the example of Ensatina Salamanders of California[1].

The picture below is of the Ensatina Salamanders of California. I have doctored the picture slightly so that it can be a bit more understandable. The picture shows how the population starts off as a single species (orange) at the top, but as the population of salamanders move down California, they are separated by the California Valley. The more isolated they become, the more different their appearances become. In the middle of the Valley, there is a river that connects both sides of the valley, so that the isolated salamanders can meet again. In this area, they are still able to reproduce and form hybrids (purple). However, after the river they are isolated again, until they re-meet at the very end of the Valley, but there they are not able to reproduce, meaning they are now two different species (red and pink).

Because we have seen this event occur with our own eyes, it is automatically proven and cannot be disproved regardless of what Pro says unless Pro is claiming that scientists have problems with their sight.

Note that while this proves microevlution, this does not prove the theory of Evolution as a whole and in ways contradicts the theory of Evolution. If any viewers would like to know more about this, feel free to PM me.


Debate Round No. 2


LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.


Normally, in situations like these, voters would give Pro at least 1 point due to concession. But I don't think Pro deserves this point because he didn't concede but simply ignored and forfeited the debate, a debate that he instigated.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4


LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.


Okay, to wrap up the debate:

-Pro has provided false information and claimed that it supports his claim. Yet his claim has not been revealed.

-He has not shown why his evidence supports his claim. And I have shown why regardless of what his claim be, microevolution is not innacurate.

-Pro's second rule in round one says that he must argue in favor of his resolution, yet he did not argue anything at all. He specifically said that if his rules are broken, it will result in a 7-point forfeiture.

-Because he's broken his rule, I deserve 7 points from voters.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Geez....not another quitter!

Pro I encourage you to post in the next round!
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Look at the title being cut short.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago

You have obviously not done enough research. Mayflies ARE NOT single-cellular organisms.
Also, they don't live up to just 24 hours! They take weeks or even months to become adults AND THEN they die after 24 hours!
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
As in, copy/pasting the source link cited?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Please do not rely on copy/paste so much.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and demanded a 7-point-forfeiture himself. Just following his preset parameters.