The Instigator
cagystorm
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SamStevens
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is Evolution a scientific theory?

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...
SamStevens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,967 times Debate No: 68284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (2)

 

cagystorm

Con

I do not believe that Evolution should be considered a scientific theory. I believe it should be called a tested hypothesis, but there is much evidence against it so you can't call it a theory.
Please be respectful of what I believe and I will be respectful of you. Please no links. Use your own mind's knowledge to debate me.
SamStevens

Pro

Terms:Scientific theory is a substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Evolution:the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified.
Speciation is diversification. Examples of speciation: Speciation of Culex pipiens mosquito,Oenothera lamarckiana primerose plant, and finch speciation.
Debate Round No. 1
cagystorm

Con

Ok, to start I must say that I do believe that microevolution is most definitely scientific theory, but I don't believe macroevolution is theory. I believe it is unconfirmed hypothesis. There is no proof for macroevolution that can't be explained by a Creationism point of view.
SamStevens

Pro

The goal posts have shifted during the course of this debate. Nevertheless, I will provide evidence of macro evolution with out using links. Macro evolution has plenty of evidence. Some examples were presented in the previous round. Macro evolution is defined as: change at the species level or higher. The speciation event of Culex pipiens is a macro evolutionary change. Another example is the speciation: Galápagos finches as well as North American song birds such as wood warblers.
Debate Round No. 2
cagystorm

Con

I'm sorry, but the Galapogos finches are not species change. It's microevolution big time.
For what you said about the Culex pipiens, the Culex pipiens is difficult to mate with the C. p. molestus (if that is what you're talking about) it is not impossible. Not to mention, there should be thousands of species of animals in between development that we can find fossils of. There isn't a single fossil that can be shown as definite proof of macroevolution.
SamStevens

Pro

"Galapogos finches are not species change. It's microevolution big time."The basic definition of macro evolution refutes this.It is as follows:major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. There are plenty examples of speciation that cannot be listed due to space character limitations.

Culex pipens: "Breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground."
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
I thought I was using your definition of Macroevolution. Many times people seem to think that Evolution has proven that organisms have evolved into new organisms which is not true. I thought this was something you were trying to do.
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
To specify, speciation proves macro evolution to be partially true if the validity of macro evolution is to be established by observation. Other, larger changes would occur over time; therefore, genetic and fossil evidence is all there is and not direct observation.
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
And I am arguing straight from the definitions, put forward by credible dictionaries and scientific websites, and citing real world examples of evolution that fit those definitions.
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
Well, macro evolution is *change* at the *species level*(speciation/new species evolving) or higher. Not what you are trying to say it is. The mosquito example fits that perfectly(new species of mosquito) and so does Darwin's finches depending on species definition of species you use( there are a lot of them).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.biology-online.org...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

It becomes apparent that your flawed understanding of what macro evolution is most likely sprouted from sources such as biased creationist websites: https://www.icr.org...

Real world examples of speciation/new species formation:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.darwinwasright.org...

Good day.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
When I said "this is only microevolution" I was referring to your supposed example of macroevolution.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
I am saying that we will never see a dog evolve into a bird or evolve into anything else besides a different breed of dog (this is only microevolution).
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
Correct me if I am wrong. You are essentially saying that we will never see a dog evolve into a new organism such as a bird like dog or a reptile like dog?

If you could provide a hypothetical example of an animal changing into a new organism, that would be great to help aid in understanding what kind of change you are thinking of.

I ask these questions since if things are not cleared, discussing in circles will occur.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (https://www.google.com...). For example...animals are organisms. And you will never see an organism evolve into a new organism.
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
Because if you have a different definition of what constitutes a new organism, there will be some difficulties in discussing.
Posted by SamStevens 1 year ago
SamStevens
Can you define what a "new organism" is? With past discussions online, the benchmark of what is a "new organism" changes from person to person.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
cagystormSamStevensTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided good reasons for thinking evolution is a scientific theory. Con failed to provide comparably good reasons for thinking evolution is not a scientific theory.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
cagystormSamStevensTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both sides could have benefited from using more evidence and developing their arguments more thoroughly. That being said, Pro's definition of macroevolution stands, allowing his Finches example to be used to affirm the resolution. Vote goes Pro.