The Instigator
LogicPrevails
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
thesouthwillrise
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is biological evolution real?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 58600
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

LogicPrevails

Pro

The First round is for acceptance. If you accept just say, "I accept." In the second round I will make my opening statement and then you will make yours. From then on it will be rebuttals.
thesouthwillrise

Con

I accept. To the audience, I am arguing in favor of a creationist perspective, specifically the Christian perspective.
Debate Round No. 1
LogicPrevails

Pro

I will attempt to make my opening statement short and to the point. I am defending the position of naturalistic evolution. I believe evolution can explain the diversity of life as we see it today without any divine intervention. I believe that genetics and the fossil record are more than enough to prove that life has evolved and still is.

-make your opening statement and then it will be rebuttals
thesouthwillrise

Con

The study of the fossil record is called palaeontology, and it provides strong evidence against macro evolution. If macro evolution did occur, palaeontologists should be able to find series of fossils that demonstrate he one species slowly evolved into another. If wild dogs, for example, did eventually give rise to horses, then there should be fossils of animals that are somewhere between a horse and a dog. Darwin called these life forms intermediate links, because they represent a link between one species to another. Unfortunately for Darwin, there were only a few examples of fossils that might be interpreted as intermediate links, and even for these fossils, their status as links was quite questionable. This lack of evidence was the worst problem Darwin faced with his hypothesis. In fact, he stated in his book: "Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate links; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of objections of which can be raised against my views." The origins of species.

Notice what he says here. Darwin's hypothesis says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be "fine, intermediate links" of fossils in between species. The fact that there weren't was a problem that he called "grave". Although Darwin couldn't find any good examples of intermediate links, he had a hope. He figured that palaeontology was still in it's infant stage; therefore, they just hadn't found the intermediate links yet. He was convinced that as time went on, palaeontologists would find them.

Thus, he assumed that the intermediate links were currently just "missing from the fossil record, but they would be found in time. Critics of macro evolution quickly coined the term "missing link" to emphasize that the fossil record was devoid of any evidence for macro evolution.

Well, what of these missing links? Has palaeontology uncovered them? The answer is an unequivocal NO. Read, for example, the words of Dr. Raup, curator of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural history and an expert on the fossil record:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded due to more detailed information." Dr. David Raup, 1979

So Dr. Raup says that the missing links are still missing. Darwin saw this fact as strong evidence against macro evolution, and Dr. Raup says that the situation is worse than ever.

Since Dr. Raup's quote is almost 25 years old, let's examine a more recent quote:

"According to Darwin, the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved, but instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links. most palaeontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transitional links between documented species." Jeffery H Schwartz, 1999.

In other words, Dr. Schwartz (a macro evolutionist), is admitting that instead of finding transitional forms, palaeontologists find mostly gaps. Understand that this flies in the face of what Darwin proposed. In fact, on the back cover of Dr. Schwartz's book, sudden origins, we read "Darwin may have argued that new species emerge through a slow, gradual process of tiny mutations, but the fossil record reveals a different scenario-the sudden emergence of a whole new species, with no apparent immediate ancestors.

Now think about this for a minute. The hypothesis of macro evolution tries to explain something about earth's past. Since no one was around back then to tell us whether or not macro evolution actually happened, it is necessary to look for data that either support or contradict the hypothesis. Well, if you're looking for data about Earth's history, where is the FIRST place you would look? You would look in the fossil record! What does the fossil record say? It says macro evolution never happened! If the fossil record (the main place you should look for information about earth's past), shows no evidence for macro evolution, scientists should simply not believe in it.

There is much more that I can argue, but I am running out of time, and as my opponent is aware of, I am preparing for my trip out of the country, so I am pressed for time. I apologize that this took so long.
Debate Round No. 2
LogicPrevails

Pro

Well I see in his opening statement he gives a clear definition of paleontology, but then makes the assertion that it provides strong evidence against macro evolution. I have yet to see this strong evidence, but I digress. I am going to state that there is no difference whatsoever in micro and macro evolution other than time. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over a long scale, therefore micro evolution proves macro evolution by default.

It seems that con uses a lot of quote mining. I am going to have to say that even if these quotes are in context do not disprove evolution. Simply because one person says something does not make it so. If I were trying to disprove a thing, I would not quote mine someone who is an expert in studying how the thing works to disprove it.

Con states that there are no transitional forms from one species changing to a different species. I would encourage him to look up the evolution of the whale and humans. There are many transitional forms. For example archaeopteryx is an example of one of the transitional forms between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

Let me say that even if we didn't have transitional forms, DNA proves evolution without a doubt. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution describes the fact. I would be interested in knowing how the fossil record "says macro evolution never happened!"

You see con there are these things called ring species. Ring species are species that migrate to different parts of the world and become too genetically different to interbreed. This proves that as species enter new environments they change accordingly. Think of life as plastic to the environment. As the environment changes, the molding of the plastic slowly catches up.

We even see our ancestors traits still within us today. We have a coccyx where our tail used to be. Rarely babies are born with a semi-functional tail. Babes have strong grips just like newborn apes so they could hang on to their mother fur. We have opposable thumbs like apes. We share almost 97% DNA with chimps and much more.

We have observed in the lab evolution of flys, bacteria, and more. Denying that these things evolved is just flat out silly. You might say that it is just micro evolution, but once again, micro evolution is just macro evolution on a smaller scale. I don't like to even use the terms micro and macro evolution. I just say evolution.

There are a lot of vestigial organs as well. For example the appendix is the most famous. There is also wisdom teeth. Getting goosebumps is also a fight or flight response that makes our hair stand on end. This is observed in many species and is a trait we have received from our ancestors.

Works Cited:
http://www.actionbioscience.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.npr.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
thesouthwillrise

Con

thesouthwillrise forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
LogicPrevails

Pro

LogicPrevails forfeited this round.
thesouthwillrise

Con

thesouthwillrise forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicPrevails

Pro

LogicPrevails forfeited this round.
thesouthwillrise

Con

thesouthwillrise forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LogicPrevails 3 years ago
LogicPrevails
your political debates are weird and btw I'm going out of the country too,
Posted by thesouthwillrise 3 years ago
thesouthwillrise
I already posted an opening statement, (which was supposed to be the first round,) so just post an argument. We will probably have a debate 2 and 3 anyways. BTW accept my political debates!
Posted by LogicPrevails 3 years ago
LogicPrevails
HA! I don't think he will respond. Automatic win for me.
Posted by LogicPrevails 3 years ago
LogicPrevails
Man you are really thinking hard about it. It must be VERY convincing.
Posted by LogicPrevails 3 years ago
LogicPrevails
And please post your opening statement.
Posted by LogicPrevails 3 years ago
LogicPrevails
I think that is levi.
Posted by thesouthwillrise 3 years ago
thesouthwillrise
How do you know trey?
Posted by Logical_Thinker 3 years ago
Logical_Thinker
I don't think logan is trying to actually win here, I think he's just trying to get a point across.
Posted by LogicPrevails 3 years ago
LogicPrevails
Well it is finally here.
Posted by Logical_Thinker 3 years ago
Logical_Thinker
Lol, I've been waiting for this one, trey.
No votes have been placed for this debate.