Is evolution 100% true?
Debate Rounds (3)
Basically-is evolution all true? Or can certain aspects of it be proven false?
Terms: Evolution: as in Macro-Evolution
100%: entirely, without any fault etc.
I look forward to a good clean argument with just 2 rules.
1. Be Chivalrous (argue well, no non-sense, serious, no profanity etc.)
2. No junky public editing websites. (Wikipedia, Yahoo etc.)
un-flawed? Completely true? I will show you that certain parts of the macro-evolution are false.
I. Information. Evolution Does account for bringing matter into the universe, but however it does not explain information. Allow me to quote Phillip Johnson- "First, life consists of not just matter (chemicals) but of matter and information.
Second, Information is NOT reducible to matter, but is a different kind of thing all together. The theory of life has to explain not just the origin of matter but also the independent origin of information.
Third, complex specified information of the kind found in a book or a biological cell cannot be produced either by chance or at the direction of physical and chemical laws..."
Information is completely different from matter-not the words on a page BUT the meaning of words on a page. How could this have come from an explosion? Its already looking like the theory of evolution might be not so "100%" after all.
II. In his book Darwin's black box, molecular biologist Michael Behe writes this...
" When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the retinal protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The proteins metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks another protein called transducing..." There is a lot more than that-you can read about it in Michael Behe's book (cited at the end).
All you need to know is that"Molecular molecules are IRREDUCIBLY complex. What this means is simply that they are made up of many parts that interact in complex ways, and all the parts need to work together. any single part has no useful function unless ALL the other parts are present. There is therefore no pathway of functional intermediate stages by which the Darwinian process could build such a system step by step."
Darwinian systems cannot create a Irreducibly complex system by a slow process. I personally believe that God created everything with one word (its not contradicted by these irreducibly complex systems.) But that's not what we are debating about.
III. James Shapiro of the University of Chicago agreed with Behe that the Darwinian theory cannot explain molecular complexity, he wrote in the National Review,
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject-evolution-with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."
I'm starting to think evolution may not be 100% true. Maybe some aspects of it are true-but you can see from what I have uncovered so far it has quite a few flaws...
So, my three reasons evolution is Not 100% true-
1) lack of explanation for information
3)too little examination of Darwin's theses.
-Defeating Darwinism, Phillip E. Johnson
-Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe
(both are books)
Thanks for the debate!
Now for your main points:
1.) information. Very similar to the word "kinds", the word information pretty much remains undefined by creationists. I don't get what they MEAN. Technically EVERY mutation adds or subtracts what i think you mean by information.
2.) Irreducible complexity. This is often thought of as one of the best creationist arguments. However, this holds no water and I will explain why.
Things like the bacterial falgellum or the human eye are very complex with parts that serve specific functions, without any of which the eye or flagellum could not work. To assert that something is irreducibly complex is to assert that none of the parts could have provided a benefit by themselves. if someone claims that there are ten parts to a particular irreducibly complex structure, then there are ten different possibilities for which one developed first. If even just one of them has a use that we are unaware of, then the structure is not irreducibly complex. One way which so called "irreducibly complex" Parts could form is During evolution, a feature may shift from one function to another. It's not that complicated. For example: the parts of the Bacterial flagellum could has served completely different functions back when it was much more complex. Another example is the wings of birds. half a wing may not be useful for flying, but it has other functions. A chicken has half a wing for example. Another way is by a process known as scaffolding, wherein a structure gains in complexity via duplication and mutation of parts, then parts are knocked out via mutations, leaving a structure with no direct linear development from the original, basic structure. Other paths by which irreducibly complex structures may form include cooption of parts from other structures. Both of these can be seen in the case of the bacterial flagellum, which includes many parts taken from a secretory pump.
Now onto your final point: well the fact is that the technology in Darwin's day was nothing compared to what we have now. most of his claims were verified after the fact. He was right about the concept, and most of the details were worked out in later centuries.
a) "For example: the parts of the Bacterial flagellum could has served completely different functions back when it was much more complex. Another example is the wings of birds. half a wing may not be useful for flying, but it has other functions. A chicken has half a wing for example."
However, a chickens wing is not irreducibly complex. Half a wing may have other functions, but the human eye is so complex even Darwin expressed some doubt due to it. ." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
b)"Now onto your final point: well the fact is that the technology in Darwin's day was nothing compared to what we have now. most of his claims were verified after the fact. He was right about the concept, and most of the details were worked out in later centuries."
Could you show exactly HOW his theory was proven true? I am personally interested. Thanks!
So, my arguments.
I. Restating information.
Information is invisible to us. It is different than matter (as in materials). Lets say you are reading a book (or this website for that matter(no pun intended)), you pick up valuable information from the way that matter is shaped on the page. This information allows you to comprehend what the person who wrote the book (or website) is trying to convey. Evolution only accounts for matter, but not information.
Sorry for the misunderstanding my friend.
Anyways, You still must prove evolution 100% true, flaweless.
It is true that evolution has some flaws. another " is the problem of extending "microevolution" into "macroevolution." Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called "microevolution." Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.
Long-term evolution, though, requires "macroevolution," which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another."
WHAT the scientists have to say.
"As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry"
"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."---Chris Williams, P.h.D, Biochemistry Ohio University
There are many more scientists than that who doubt the theory. But I am running out of characters and unfortuanatly cannot extend my argument to far. But I will say a few more things.
"Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies " they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution."
"Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation""life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.
"Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years non
Whew...That is my final round!
Good luck on your last arguments!
roark555 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I simply agree with Con's side. If I absolutely need to tell the reasons, just look at the above voting questions.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.