The Instigator
tala00131
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Iredia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is evolution true?

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: 2/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 45467
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

tala00131

Pro

Here are the rules:
Round one is for acceptance only, no arguments are allowed. Round two are for opening statements, round three is the first rebuttal, round for is the second rebuttal, and round five is for closing statements. No hate speech (ex. you're stupid) is allowed.
Iredia

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Iredia

Con

Iredia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Iredia

Con

I was hoping the instigator will bring his arguments befire I bring mine. I can wait no longer. I would like to make my arguments as simple as I can for the sake of comprehension. By evolution, I take it you mean the development of life from a universal common ancestor via random mutations and natural selection.

My reasons for not accepting evolution are because of certain pressuppositions I hold; presuppositions I believe best explain observations and contradict evolution, particularly as it relates to common descent.

" There are limits to variations in species: This is why no one_including evolutionists_expects a man to grow gills or horses to grow wings. But which theory is more in line with this absurdity ? Clearly, it's evolution. Once you believe all organisms descended from an ancestral species very different from them, you are more likely to believe in such 'hopeful monsters'. 'Hopeful monster' was a hypothesis advocated for by Richard Goldschmidt, an evolutionist. Consider evo-devo, which involves ideas from Goldschmidt. But at most, creationists have stated that all species were created in their current form, which is wrong given the facts of speciation. So what does speciation show ? That there variations occur within barriers. This explains why bacteria and species of sharks, lizards, fishes etc which precede man have mostly remained the same.

" Poor or over-estimation of principal evolutionary mechanisms: Random mutations and natural selection are the principal evolutionary mechanisms. But what they can achieve is little. At most, natural selection results when an organism is poorly adapted to changes in an environment; but too often the fittest may die. A fast-sprinting antelope may be caught unawares; an attractive, bright-colored fish may be caught by a predator and a high-flying eagle may be shot down by a hunter. Organisms possesses traits that allow them survive within a certain range which they tend to occupy; ranges which appear to be narrower for multicellular organisms. They also require organs crucial to their immediate survival and crucial to the survival of the species. Nature, especially abiotic nature is passive in that respect. And I have suggested, no matter how adapted it is to an environment an organism may die before reproducing or may be impotent. Clearly, Nature lacks the means to favor an organism with a novel trait for survival. But more crucial is that natural selection doesn't even explain how such adaptive traits are arrived at. Random mutations supposedly makes such traits but they are usually neutral, mostly harmful or degrading, and attimes beneficial. But this hardly explains how fishes 'ancestored' reptiles. We lack any precedent that random mutations build organs, especially given the fact of adaptive mutations (as in immune systems); and the fact that in some parts of the genome mutations are deadly and lead to cancer or harmful birth defects. When a 'random' mutation tends to more complex organisms, and hardly tends to simpler organisms or stays within such bounds, it's more likely it isn't random. In fact, the mere fact of DNA repair, redundancy of the genetic code and adaptive mutation undermine random mutation as vital to common ancestry.

" Paucity (or lack) of vestigial organs: I am actually quite surprised this nonsense is still used as an argument. Medical science (especially physiology) proceeds on the presumption that organs have functions. To assume otherwise is dangerous. Imagine if early anatomist presumed the pineal gland was useless, and on that guess cut it out of a patient's brain. Despite the fact some human brains have been succesfully cut in half there are side-effects, and neurosurgeons try to avoid it as much as possible. Even someone's belly button, which is nothing but a curiosity or smelly place, had a function: it was an entrance point for nutrients when a human was once a foetus. No doctor or anatomist takes Wiedersheim's list seriously, yet we still hear of vestigial organs (wisdom teeth, appendix and the coccyx). That said, consider the lack of parsimony as it applies to science. Scientists use Occam's razor when necessary. If you claim an organ (functionless or not) had a precedent in an ancestor you are making an additional claim on the organ. As a skeptic of evolution I make no such claim, and add no more entity. Vestigiality assumes, where function is to be seen, that it diminished from its use in an ancestral species. But this is only partially true. For instance, to some extent, hearing and swimming in basset hounds is diminished from their ancestors, but this hardly applies if I said dolphins descended from bats given their sonar abilities. In fact, functional vestigiality is a needless explanation, a prop to further argument from homology: it doesn't evidence evolution, it presumes evolution.
Debate Round No. 3
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Iredia

Con

Iredia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Iredia

Con

My opponent didn't give this debate the required seriousness. Maybe it was a spoof debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
sengejuri
Can you clarify what exactly your position is please?
No votes have been placed for this debate.