The Instigator
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Evolution a good explanation for life?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 93710
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

VarEvidenceEqualsTrue

Con

IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO VOTERS, IF YOU ARE TO VOTE ON THIS DEBATE, YOU MUST SUBMIT A COMMENT OF AT LEAST 50 WORDS STATING WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT ONE SIDE ARGUED BETTER THAN THE OTHER SIDE, PERSONAL BIASES ARE NOT ALLOWED, IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS MESSAGE I WILL REPORT YOU

Today, I'm going to debate that evolution is false and should not be taught at schools and public institutions and be a part of mainstream science. Before I start on the rules of this debate, I have some things I would want to say about myself:

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY KIND OF GOD, I SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG AND MOER RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE IS NEEDED BEFORE WE JUMP TO ANY CONCLUSIONS (I personally believe that evolution is kind of like a religion, since it relies more on blind faith than actual science)

Now we got that cleared out on with the rules of this debate, if you are not going to completely follow these rules, than you can not debate with me.

1: No personal insults.
2: No using any special fonts except bold (Don't want to distract the voters).
3: Cite all evidence, no need for fancy citations, if it is a webpage just tell state the URL, if it is a book just state the name and page number.
4: No usage of bad sources, only major websites (including wikipedia) and books with credible authors are allowed, if one side believes that the other side is using a bad source, than that side can challenge their opponent's source. Their opponent must respond to that challenge.
5: Rebuttals to all your opponent's arguments are mandatory, if you are unable to create an rebuttal against one of your opponent's argument. Than you must state that at the end of your argument.
6: Even though I set the time to argue for 48 hours, please respond within 24 hours, but this rule can be violated in the event of an emergency.
7: This is how each round will go
Round 1: Agree to these rules
Round 2: State argument (no rebuttals)
Round 3-4: Rebuttals and more argument
Round 5: Conclusion
8: And most importantly of all, stay polite ^_^

If you want to debate against me and you agree to these terms, please type I Agree, in the box below.

Debate Round No. 1
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue

Con

Sorry I did not reply in time, I have a very weird work schedule.

Evolution, the gradual development of simple microbes to complex organisms like us. Evolution states that all life originates form simple life forms, and that everything we see today is a result of tiny genetic mutations in a cell that contributed to its survival. Sounds improbable? But since everyone around us, especially the scientists that are researching life, tells us that it's true, it's hard to believe otherwise. The deeper you look, however, the more unlikely evolution becomes. I certainly believe that on a small scale, a type of natural selection exists, but I believe that evolution is impossible on a massive scale, such as evolving a wing or a system of creating and storing energy.

Some systems in life are so complex that it is literally impossible for it to be slowly evolved, Photosynthesis is a great example of that. Modern scientists love to hypothesize about the origins of photosynthesis, but even they have to admit that there is no apparent pattern of evolution in photosynthesis [1], it is simply too complicated and even the most primitive versions have more than 10 steps, doesn't seem like something that can just randomly appear from a mutation. Yes, it is true that over time, photosynthesis became more complicated, (Scientists can tell that by the amounts of gases in the atmosphere at the time) and that is mistaken as a sign for evolution. I believe otherwise, because it seemed that every single system in photosynthesis just appeared, there was no gradual change in the photosynthetic system [2].

And besides, let's forget for a moment all those complex science stuff, let's pretend that you're a simple bacteria living millions of years ago. You survive by absorbing chemicals that is released by the earth [3], one day however, you split into 2 (A very, very complicated process that simply could not have been evolved), but in the splitting process, the genetic material of one of the new you is changed, the new you mutated. This new mutation only changed a few letters in your genetic code, but somehow, miraculously, the new you is able to absorb the photons from the sun. Great right? NO! Without the ability to create energy using this new ability, it becomes a burden instead of a strength, and so this new you is SELECTED OUT instead of being the new dominate life form. The same applies to every step of the photosynthetic system, you simply cannot just evolve one or two and expect it to work, each step by itself is a burden to the life form, only if they all work together can they produce energy, even if you got all the steps but one, it still won't work at all, and even the most primitive versions observed by scientists have more than 10 steps and require every single step to work perfectly [1]! It requires an almost statistically impossible mutation to mutate all the steps at the same time!

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in a change in life from inefficient to efficient, from simple to complex, but evidence points to the fact that the change happened almost instantly (In science instant is a relative word, in this case it could be a thousand years, still not enough to "evolve" all steps of primitive photosynthesis though), instead of through a gradual process.

Those are my arguments for now, I feel that there is a giant pile of evidence there, just waiting to be dug up, but modern scientists just cover all that evidence up with a rug of evolution and pretend that it's not there. I hope that by disproving evolution people can finally actually dig into that pile of evidence and find the truth.

Feel free to prove me wrong, science is about proving the other side wrong. The only science that shams you for trying to prove it wrong is, oh hey, Evolution!

Cited Evidence:
[1] http://www.plantphysiol.org...
[2] http://www.life.illinois.edu... (Does not openly say so, but evidence in it proves my point. For example in page
Evidence number 2 does not openly state what I wrote, but the evidence it showed proves my point. For example in page 248 it implies that Cytochrome B evolved into the modern Photosystem I and II, an important part of the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis, however, there is a clear distinction between Cytochrome B and the Photosystems. And there was no evidence found on a transitional system between Cytochrome B and the Photosystems, that is where I derive my conclusions.
[3] http://www.windows2universe.org...

Where my ideas came from:
https://www.youtube.com...,
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.livescience.com...
https://www.khanacademy.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
And lots and lots of books.
Stupidape

Pro

Outline round 2
I. Intro
II. Round 2: State argument (no rebuttals)
III. Mutations
IV. Mutations that do and do not pass onto next generation
V. Natural selection
VI. Fossil evidence and other evidence
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Sources


I. Intro

Darwin's theory of evolution is a good explanation for the variety of life and species. The utmost importance part about Darin's theory in my opinion is mutations. Without mutations there would be no evolution. Fossils provide supporting evidence, but without solid evidence for mutations the fossil evidence would be attributed to something else.

Without ado, there are four main parts to Darwin's theory. A. Mutations. B. Mutations being passed onto the next generation. C. Natural selection. D. Evidence. All four are critical and must be supported, yet like a pyramid the foundation is the most important, A. mutations. Therefore I will spend the most effort reinforcing this part of the hypothesis.

II. Round 2: State argument (no rebuttals)

I haven't even looked at my opponent's argument yet. This is because I am only making my argument, no rebuttals. Therefore, I see no logical reason to look at my opponent's argument at this junction.

III. Mutations

A person must have a solid understanding of how mutations occur. DNA is surprisingly vulnerable, yet key to life. Sometimes an error occurs or the DNA is damaged in some way. This is called a mutation. The best example that we hear daily is cancer. Free radicals collide with DNA and damage DNA.

"Because DNA is the repository of genetic information in each living cell, its integrity and stability are essential to life. DNA, however, is not inert; rather, it is a chemical entity subject to assault from the environment, and any resulting damage, if not repaired, will lead to mutation and possibly disease. " [1]

As you can see we are under constant attack at the DNA level by the environment. Enough mutations can lead to cancer. [2]
Finally another way mutations can happen is mistakes in replicating DNA information [4]. As you can see mutations are key to evolution and adds great reinforcement to the resolution.

IV. Mutations that do and do not pass onto next generation

One way that mutations can pass onto futher generations is via mutations in the mitochondria. [3] Another way is somatic versus gamete mutation. Somatic does not pass on while, gamete does. [4] The mitochondria mutations and gamete are important to the resolution because without passing the mutation onto the next generation, mutations would be of little consequence.

V. Natural selection

A large part of Darwin's original theory before microbiology came around was natural selection. Natural selection simply means that lifeforms with mutations with an advantage are more likely to survive and reproduce. Eventually, out competing the original. This is why we don't see many if any transitional species still alive today.

Mutations that negatively affect the organism will eventually become extinct. They will have less chance of survival and eventually be out competed by other lifeforms. There is only a finite amount of room on the planet. This is important to the resolution, because without natural selection evolution fails because mutant and non-mutant organisms would have the same chance of survival..

VI. Fossil evidence and other evidence

What is science without evidence? Conjecture is my answer. While all this seems to be true, without hard evidence, its all conjecture and can be dismissed. The main three categories with solid evidence are fossils, biography, and molecular biology. [4] Archaeologists have discovered a stunning array of fossil evidence that can be tested using carbon dating techniques. Not only do we know what these animals look like, we know when. [5]

Biography has to do with organism having similar traits and geographical location. There is amble evidence to show that even though an animal would be able to thrive in area A, its often absent because of no ancestors in area A.

Molecular biology lets us look under the hood and see the DNA for itself. We can figure out how many amino acids are in a protein and so forth. Also, fossil evidence is not always available and we can figure out information about evolution that we couldn't otherwise. These three categories of evidence heavily reinforce the hypothesis and move Darwin's ideas from conjecture to scientific theory.


VII. Conclusion

I have heavily reinforced the hypothesis. It should take a considerable effort on my opponent part to even dent my case. Good luck.

VIII. Sources
1. http://www.nature.com...
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
3. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
4. https://www.britannica.com...
5. http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue

Con

Following my opponent's outline, I will make my rebuttals against my opponent's arguments.

I. Intro

Yes, mutations are an important part of the theory of evolution, and yes, they do exist in real life, but you did not present how they help in your argument.

III. Mutations

You explained how and why mutations happen, but again, you did not present how they help in your argument.

IV. Mutations that do and do not pass onto next generation

Again, how does that help your argument again? I feel like I'm reading a paper on mutations, not on defending evolution.

V. Natural selection

I do believe in what you said about certain mutations giving an organism a advantage, and I do believe that in a small scale (The color of the organism, for example), that helps. But like I argued in my previous argument, I do not believe that it can happen in a massive scale.

VI. Fossil evidence

Fossil evidence proves my argument as stated in the previous round, all fossil evidence proves although life is becoming more and more complex, it happens rapidly in stages, not slowly throughout millions of year as evolution claims. Read my evidence on my previous argument. In layman's terms, there is the fish, and than suddenly there is the amphibian, but there is no gradual change from fish to amphibian.

Stupidape

Pro

Outline Round 3

I. Intro
II. Rebuttals
III. Wings
IV. Photosynthesis
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources

I. Intro

I am going to devote this entire round to rebutting my opponent's round 2 claims. Next round I will defend my round two argument against my opponent's rebuttal.

II. Rebuttals


Opponet's arguments are in bold, mine are in plain text.

"Sorry I did not reply in time, I have a very weird work schedule.

Evolution, the gradual development of simple microbes to complex organisms like us. Evolution states that all life originates form simple life forms, and that everything we see today is a result of tiny genetic mutations in a cell that contributed to its survival." VarEvidenceEqualsTrue

I agree.

"Sounds improbable? But since everyone around us, especially the scientists that are researching life, tells us that it's true, it's hard to believe otherwise." Var

Agreed.

"The deeper you look, however, the more unlikely evolution becomes." Var

I beg to differ, I found more evidence by researching Darwin's theory and became more convinced.


" I certainly believe that on a small scale, a type of natural selection exists, but I believe that evolution is impossible on a massive scale, such as evolving a wing or a system of creating and storing energy." Var

I strongly disagree. This is also appeal to ignorance fallacy on my opponent's behalf. [6] For wings, there are both flightful and flightless birds. Ostrich, penguins, and emu are examples of flightless birds. Impact, not only does my opponent use an appeal to ignorance fallacy, but I have proven my opponent wrong, by showing examples of flightless birds thriving. [7]

"Some systems in life are so complex that it is literally impossible for it to be slowly evolved, Photosynthesis is a great example of that."

Appeal to ignorance fallacy again by my opponent [6]. Impact, my opponent's statement should have no impact on the resolution.

"Great right? NO! Without the ability to create energy using this new ability, it becomes a burden instead of a strength, and so this new you is SELECTED OUT instead of being the new dominate life form." Var

This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy on my opponent's behalf. [6] Some adaptions are neutral or negligible. It is possible that the mutant organism survived despite no advantage. Also, many features of an organism can have multiple uses and/or uses that are subtle. A wing can be used to help swim. As seen in penguins. As for photosynthesis, the mutation may have helped in a different way by protecting the organism from ultra violent light. Impact, again my opponent has not only use a logicial fallacy, but I have proven my opponent wrong.

"Evidence number 2 does not openly state what I wrote, but the evidence it showed proves my point. For example in page 248"

The .pdf file only has 32 pages, therefore your claim of evidence on page 248 is impossible. Impact, my opponent's claim two has no warrant, thus is a bare assertion fallacy, and should have no impact upon the resolution.

To sum up the rebuttals, it seems my opponent focuses on one main issue, that is split into two smaller issues. The main issue is a complex system, that would give the organism a disadvantage. Then, there is two examples one of a wing and one of photosynthesis. Also, almost all of my opponents arguments are an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. "This doesn't make sense to me, therefore it is wrong."

III. Wings

For more information about how wings could have evolved is this link. [8]


IV. Photosynthesis

Here's where I got my idea about photosynthesis. [9]

V. Conclusion

I could have done a more through job. Yet, ultimately I don't feel my opponent has fulfilled his/her share of the burden of proof. If I have to explain every detail of the theory of evolution to my opponent, this put an unfair burden of proof upon me.

There will always be room for doubt about how a specific adaption evolved, yet this in no means undermines the theory of evolution. Example, did the first land based creatures evolved from aquatic organism A or B? Either way, evolution will be the answer. I have fulfilled my burden of proof, my opponent has not. Thank you for continuing to debate and reading.

VI. Sources
6. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
7. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...
8. https://www.reddit.com...
9. http://evolutionwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue

Con

I thought I made it pretty clear in the rules that there would be no personal attacks, but appearently my opponent had either not seen it or had chosen not to follow it, therefore in retaliation, I will also use personal attacks from now on.

I will defend my argument against my opponent's rebuttals.

The main point my opponent uses against me is that some times a mutation may have originally helped in a different way and eventual become part of a more complex system. It works, sometimes, it does explain some parts of a nature, but it leaves hole, exceptions. Imagine if evolution was a math equation used to solve a math problem, would you use an equation that only work some of the time? Therefore my opponent had poked a hole in their own argument.

I do agree with some of my opponent's rebuttal about how wings may have evolved. But I believe that it can not explain all the examples of so called 'evolution'. This time I'll use a different example, the flagella of a bacterial cell is extremely complicated [1], each part have to be the exact size, not just for maximum efficiency, but just to fit with the other parts, and a useless part is a burden this time, because an organism will have to feed and protect it. Each part is useless on its own (You can see it clearly this time) and it simply could not have evolved.

About the pdf file evidence my opponent had, my opponent obviously did not read it, because it says the page number on the top left side. The pdf file is 32 pages long because it starts on chapter 12, again, something my opponent would've found out if my opponent had actually read my evidence.

Yes, evolution does explain some of the questions we have, but it also leaves others blank. Just like saying that the earth is at the center of the universe explains some of the questions, but leaves others blank. A theory cannot be correct unless it explains ALL the questions, not just 80 or 90 percent of them. If some questions are left blank, that means that there is a better theory. Therefore I have proved my opponent's logic to be flawed and imperfect.

Stupidape

Pro

This round I'm going to defend my arguments and rebuttals.

Defending arguments

"Yes, mutations are an important part of the theory of evolution, and yes, they do exist in real life, but you did not present how they help in your argument." Vars

I'm not sure what your saying, specifically the "but you did not present how they help in your argument." Vars
I mean what else is there other than to prove that mutations are an important part of the theory of evolution and they are true? I don't know what else more you could have possibly expected from me. As seen below your saying the theory of evolution is false. I figured you would most likely attack the mutations part of the equation, so I bolstered this part.

"Today, I'm going to debate that evolution is false and should not be taught at schools and public institutions and be a part of mainstream science." Vars


"You explained how and why mutations happen, but again, you did not present how they help in your argument. " Vars

Again, we seem to be missing each other. I don't really know what else I could have done at this stage in the debate. I thought I went above and beyond what was required since Darwin's theory of evolution is main stream. As I see it, I gave supporting evidence for the hypothesis, what more could you ask for?

"I do believe in what you said about certain mutations giving an organism a advantage, and I do believe that in a small scale (The color of the organism, for example), that helps." Vars

Agreed.

"But like I argued in my previous argument, I do not believe that it can happen in a massive scale." Vars

Belief is a matter of faith and religion. This is a scientific debate. You can believe your an 800 pound gorilla for all I care, belief has no relevance on this debate.

"Fossil evidence proves my argument as stated in the previous round, all fossil evidence proves although life is becoming more and more complex, it happens rapidly in stages, not slowly throughout millions of year as evolution claims. Read my evidence on my previous argument. In layman's terms, there is the fish, and than suddenly there is the amphibian, but there is no gradual change from fish to amphibian." Vars

I disagree. Here is a bunch of transitional fossils between fish and amphibians to prove so. [10] Impact, I have shown evidence that there is transitional fossils between fish and amphibians. This not only disproves my opponent's claim, but provides supporting evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution. Showing once again that this theory is a good explanation for the complexity of life.

Onto round 4 defending my rebuttal

"I thought I made it pretty clear in the rules that there would be no personal attacks, but appearently my opponent had either not seen it or had chosen not to follow it, therefore in retaliation, I will also use personal attacks from now on." Vars

Red herring, no such personal attack were made by me. My opponent provides no evidence that an ad hominem attack was made by me, thus this is a bare assertion fallacy. This is only true because my opponent says its true. Impact, Vars statement should have no impact upon the resolution nor should I suffer any loss of conduct points.

"The main point my opponent uses against me is that some times a mutation may have originally helped in a different way and eventual become part of a more complex system. It works, sometimes, it does explain some parts of a nature, but it leaves hole, exceptions. Imagine if evolution was a math equation used to solve a math problem, would you use an equation that only work some of the time? Therefore my opponent had poked a hole in their own argument." Vars

First, a lack of evidence does not disprove or falsify Darwin's theory of evolution. Second, evolution isn't a math problem. Third, what supposed hole are you talking about? Can you give an example when this is not true? Otherwise this is an unsubstantiated claim.

"I do agree with some of my opponent's rebuttal about how wings may have evolved. But I believe that it can not explain all the examples of so called 'evolution'. This time I'll use a different example, the flagella of a bacterial cell is extremely complicated [1], each part have to be the exact size, not just for maximum efficiency, but just to fit with the other parts, and a useless part is a burden this time, because an organism will have to feed and protect it. Each part is useless on its own (You can see it clearly this time) and it simply could not have evolved. " Vars

You don't seem to back up your claims sufficiently. If you are doing so, I can't tell because I have to hunt down your warrants, also known as evidence, for you. You put [1]. So I look at the first link you posted the plantphysiol. Guess what? I did a search for "flagella" within the link. There is no such word "flagella" in that link. Your warrant does not appear to support your claim. Anyways, you seem to be taking questions out of the creationist's handbook. So I typed in "how to argue with a creationist." My link [11] should provide ample answers and evidence to support evolution while proving your claims false.

Specifically, first there is a simpler form of the flagellae. Second, this flagella could have served multiple functions.

"About the pdf file evidence my opponent had, my opponent obviously did not read it, because it says the page number on the top left side. The pdf file is 32 pages long because it starts on chapter 12, again, something my opponent would've found out if my opponent had actually read my evidence." Vars


I will once again reexamine your source. Yes, you are correct, I got the pages mixed up. Let's see what you said originally.

"For example in page 248 it implies that Cytochrome B evolved into the modern Photosystem I and II, an important part of the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis, however, there is a clear distinction between Cytochrome B and the Photosystems. And there was no evidence found on a transitional system between Cytoch" Vars

No evidence of transitional system does not falsify Darwin's theory of evolution. I can't prove you wrong this time. I spend quite some time trying to figure out what in the world Cytochrome B is. I feel if I have do prove every single part of Darwin's theory of evolution that this puts an unfair burden of proof on me. So, yes I am giving up on this part, on trying to disprove you. I'm sure if you ask a biology teacher he or she can explain the answer.


"Yes, evolution does explain some of the questions we have, but it also leaves others blank. Just like saying that the earth is at the center of the universe explains some of the questions, but leaves others blank. A theory cannot be correct unless it explains ALL the questions, not just 80 or 90 percent of them. If some questions are left blank, that means that there is a better theory. Therefore I have proved my opponent's logic to be flawed and imperfect." Vars

No, this above paragraph is almost all wrong. Your argument shows a lack of understanding the basics of science. A theory is true until proven false or a better theory comes along. Just because there is a lack of evidence or the theory can't explain exactly how a few events happens, doesn't falsify the theory. Just because a few questions are left blank, doesn't mean there is a better theory that exists today. Tomorrow, somebody might come up with a better theory, but until then Darwin's theory of evolution is an excellent explanation for explaining the variety of life.

Conclusions, this debate has gotta a little more technical that I would have expected. Con makes very specific doubts about the theory of evolution, specifically lack of evidence in photosynthesis and lack of transitional systems. Ultimately, I am unqualified to answer such technical questions. Yet, a lack of evidence does not disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. I advise in further debates to warn your opponents that you are going into such complex systems.

Sources
10. http://chem.tufts.edu...
11. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 4
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue

Con

In conclusion I believe that although evolution explains a few questions, it does not explain them all. And I believe that more research is needed before we jump to a conclusion, and covering the mountain of evidence under the blanket of evolution without digging into them is wrong.

I believe that evolution cannot not explain how extremely complex systems that require millions of precise mutations come into place, and that a better theory is needed to explain that.

Hope you enjoied this debate.

I want to say a few things, to both my opponent, and to you the voter, before I end my part of this debate.
To my opponent:
After looking at the rules again, I believe that my interpretation of the no attacks rule is a lot more strict that yours. I believed that calling the others idea dumb is a personal attack. Throughout the debate you made my very angry for many reasons, but in the end I believe that you taught me a lot about debating that I did not know. So I thank you.
To the voter:
I learned a lot from this debate, the primary part being that I also need to look for counter-evidence against my argument, instead of just looking for evidence for it. I have suffered in this debate because of that. I also learned from my opponent how to address my opponent in a debate, before I addressed my opponent as "you", and now I learned that writing "my opponent" has a better effect. Considering that this is my first debate, not just on this website, but on any public forum, I would say that I learned a lot. I would not be offended if you voted for the more experienced debater.

Even if I lose the vote, I still won, because I learned a lot. I will not make the same mistakes again! :P
Stupidape

Pro

My conclusions are that people expect too much from science. Yes, science cannot explain everything. Yet, that's kind of the point. We keep looking for better answers and solutions. We don't have the technology nor evidence to show how every single mutation took place. Overall, Darwin's theory of evolution is the best explanation for the variety of life we have today.

Off-topic, to my opponent

If this truly is your first debate, then I think you did amazing. I know I got my feeling hurt a lot the first twenty or so debates online. To be fair, my opponents were much rougher than I was. I think this a good website if you get easily offended. Public forums tend to lead to dog piling. Overall, good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
"I thought I made it pretty clear in the rules that there would be no personal attacks, but appearently my opponent had either not seen it or had chosen not to follow it, therefore in retaliation, I will also use personal attacks from now on." Var

Odd, I don't remember any personal attacks. If I somehow messed up and made a personal attack, I assure it was completely accidental.
Posted by Pursue-Truth 10 months ago
Pursue-Truth
Round 3.
Firstly, the Contender should respond to the Instigators arguments in full context. In some cases, they have rebutted the premise itself rather than the actual set of reasons supporting the idea. Selecting statements that can easily be countered without addressing the actual arguments is considered to be a cop-out.
Secondly, I feel the Contender did not fully address the challenge on how their responses helped their argument in favour of whether Evolution was a good explanation for life.
Thirdly, the appeal to ignorance fallacy was invoked incorrectly on multiple occasions. I believe the contender has given sufficient reasons for his premises without the need to appeal from ignorance. There may be counter arguments for his statements, but that does not automatically mean they are fallacious. The contender needs to go a step further and show how this fallacy applies.
Posted by VarEvidenceEqualsTrue 10 months ago
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue
And on the beginnings of life, this debate is only about evolution and evolution only. Not on how life was first formed. If it is not covered by evolution, than it should not be debated here.

On my previous comment I made a typo while correcting a typo, it was should have instead of should of.
Posted by VarEvidenceEqualsTrue 10 months ago
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue
My brain messed up on explanation of cited evidence #2, this is what it should of said,

(Does not openly say so, but evidence in it proves my point. For example in page
248 it implies that Cytochrome B evolved into the modern Photosystem I and II, an important part of the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis, however, there is a clear distinction between Cytochrome B and the Photosystems. And there was no evidence found on a transitional system between Cytochrome B and the Photosystems, that is where I derive my conclusions.)
Posted by VarEvidenceEqualsTrue 10 months ago
VarEvidenceEqualsTrue
Sorry for breaking my own rule about time, had to go on an emergency trip. Hope that it did not interfere with my argument.
Posted by rolaaus 10 months ago
rolaaus
It seems like there might have been a mix-up in the debate creation and\or the responder to the open challenge

I am responding because a) I want to see any follow ups and b) because there has been a comment added that while true, is misleading.

First, the misleading comment. Yes, it is an undesputed fact that things (animals) do change - in small ways. That can not be denied by anyone! However, I believe that the heart of the contention rests in "do small changes that we observe accumulate over time causing 'speciation' o occur", which has never been observed, nor even artificially caused in laboratory experiments. Yes, there has been experiments with rearranging the DNA of common houseflies, even making a leg grow on it's head, or causing two pairs of wongs to grow instead of one (bw, two sets of wings are not better than one, these make it impossible for the fly to actually fly, but you would still have to classify it as a fly, even if you had to change its name to a "walk" :-)

If anyone else is interested in making the best presentation evidence in favor of the theory of evolution can feel free to join me in my newly created debate here
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
"But evolution isn't an explanation for the existence of life, it's an explanation for the variety of life. Are you thinking of abiogenesis instead?"

Darn, your right. This is going to be much more difficult than I thought. Lol, reminds me of the debates I've created, and I'm like how in the world am I going to defend this point. Not sure its possible this time.
Posted by Pursue-Truth 10 months ago
Pursue-Truth
Being religious does not add any weight to the case for evolution. Plenty of religious people put their faith in evolution, they're called atheists. Change over time happens, that is proven as we see it in breeding and speciation. But to say, therefore slime can turn into people, is an exaggeration of gargantuan proportions. At most you can use speciation as evidence for evolution, but it's far from a proof.

Regardless, the proof or falsehood of evolution is NOT the topic of debate here. The topic is "Is Evolution a good explanation for life?". That is the question we are interested about here.
Posted by TheBenC 10 months ago
TheBenC
I am religious and can tell you evolution has been proven. The specific theories of people are what they are, theories. The basic idea of evolution, which just means that things change for the better, is obviously a fact. Humans have evolved! Human bones dug up from 2000 years ago are, on average, much smaller and shorter than modern people. There is an animal (cannot remember the specifics right now but it was most likely a lizard or amphibian) which has genetic changes we can document within our lifetimes. Their evolution is fast.

I believe God created everything, including evolution. God is not proven but evolution, the fact that things change over time, is 100% proven.
Posted by Pursue-Truth 10 months ago
Pursue-Truth
I believe the voting requirements are quite reasonable. You would expect that anyone voting should actually know why they voted that way. Otherwise you'll get the trolls just whacking on their vote simply because it suits their own personal ideology.

Secondly, yeah, that's what the debate is about. Whether evolution (not abiogenesis) can be a good explanation for the existence of life. There is at least one contender who thinks so. Will be interesting to see their points.
No votes have been placed for this debate.