The Instigator
tala00131
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Is human 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 4 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,450 times Debate No: 37658
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

tala00131

Con

There are many problems with human evolution, here they are.

The fossil record: The fossil record doesn't support human evolution. If you look at hominid fossils, it's clear that their bones are much more robust than ours. They were stronger than us, they were very different from us. If you go to museums, you can see pictures of these hominids, and these scientists always draw a human body, with a primate head. This is part of the brain washing which has been done on us.

Chromosomes: All primates have 48 chromosomes. we have 46. How does that make us primate? It makes no sense. Some evolutionists then say well the chromosome fused. This is bull. That doesn't happen in nature.

Comparative anatomy: All primates have hair in the front, none on the back. We have none on the front, lots on the back. Primates are bigger, and stronger than us.

One argument that has been used for the myth of evolution is the fact that chimps share 98% of our DNA. Bananas share 50% of our DNA. We must be kissing cousins with Bananas.
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks for posting your arguments! Here is my step-by-step rebuttal.

The fossil record: The fossil record doesn't support human evolution. If you look at hominid fossils, it's clear that their bones are much more robust than ours. They were stronger than us, they were very different from us. If you go to museums, you can see pictures of these hominids, and these scientists always draw a human body, with a primate head. This is part of the brain washing which has been done on us.

Evolution is about change from the original form through natural selection, which is a life form mutating. If the mutation is beneficial, it gets passed on as the life form is more likely to survive. If it is not, it would prevent it from surviving and will not make the population without the mutation lower. These mutations eventually add up. [1] So it is not unlikely for such a large difference to happen.

Also, differences as big as this kind have evidence of their existence. The human genome project discovered instructions for body parts that are no longer existent in our DNA as we don't need them anymore. [2] Something big like that could happen, so why can't this?

Chromosomes: All primates have 48 chromosomes. we have 46. How does that make us primate? It makes no sense. Some evolutionists then say well the chromosome fused. This is bull. That doesn't happen in nature.

This is actually evidence for evolution. The fusion is not bull. One evidence is that the 2 ape chromosomes corresponds to the human counterpart. [3] This kind of fusion is completely possible.[4]

Comparative anatomy: All primates have hair in the front, none on the back. We have none on the front, lots on the back. Primates are bigger, and stronger than us.

Refuted above.

One argument that has been used for the myth of evolution is the fact that chimps share 98% of our DNA. Bananas share 50% of our DNA. We must be kissing cousins with Bananas.

The coding for making body parts that no longer exist and are no longer needed has been found in the human genome by the human genome project. [2] This result implies that we are closer to primates due to our common ancestor than bananas, as bananas don't have animal body parts. Also, bananas have shared a common ancestor with us, but way before our common ancestor with other primates.

The amoeba dubia has 670,000,000,000 base pairs in its genome, while humans only have 2,900,000,000 base pairs. [5]Since the amoeba dubia is one of the possible common ancestors of animals and plants, and it has a larger genome than most creatures, there has to be some similarities, especially considering that only about 2% of our genome is usable DNA and the rest are non-coding DNA, according to the human genome project. [2]

[1]http://rationalwiki.org...
[2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5LzKupeHtw
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://pandasthumb.org...
[5]www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc
Debate Round No. 1
tala00131

Con

My opponent says that evolution is abut change over time by mutations and natural selection. This is true. However, in order for macro-evolution to occur, there has to be an addition of new information. Natural selection gets rid of information, mutations destroy information. We have never seen an addition of new information. We have seen micro evolution, such as moths. But all that happened with moths was there were more dark than light. That's not an addition of new information, it's removal of information. It doesn't make sense for us to have evolved to become weaker. Don't we need to be strong in order to survive? And, yes, evolution can (if is true) lead to bigger changes. But, these fossils look nothing like us. So, how could you say we evolved from them? The chromosomes isn't evidence for evolution. We have never observed a chromosome fusion, therefore it's irrational to say that it happens.
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for responding quickly.

"Evolution cannot add new information"
Increased genetic material through accidental gene duplication is observed. [1] While this initially is just a useless extra gene and possible harmful, sometimes another mutation can change the extra gene and turn it into a beneficial gene. This is responsible for the anti-freeze gene in Ice Fish which was initially a digestive gene. [2] Those duplicated genes gain mutations quicker than normal genes. [2]

"We have never observed chromosome fusion, therefore it is irrational to say that it happens."

However, the fact that these chromosomes are just the two chromosomes pieced together according to the DNA inside is a pretty good evidence. The good thing about science is that it changes when new evidence that is against it is found, and "we have never observed it" is not evidence against it. It is like how we cannot see your brain, but we know of its existence indirectly.

"these fossils look nothing like us."

Keep in mind that there are differences between the different early human species, so you should compare the fossil and what scientists say evolved from that, not a fossil a few species away to modern humans. Also, how do you difine "looking similiar"? Look at this comparision of modern human skeleton and the A. afarensis, which was bipedal, meaning that it moves on its two lower limbs, but it did not walk upright:


As similiarities of imagery is subjective, it cannot be used as evidence. As my previous round's argument provided evidence that big changes can happen, it is reasonable for those two to share a common ancestor.

[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Though more correctly I should call it Chromosome duplication.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
Enjoy.
BTW: The second law of thermodynamics does not hamper upward evolution because evolution is powered by an external power source: The Sun.
Atrophy is not an issue.
For those who believe that bit of Creationist general nonsense.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL! Though it's funny how Mutations can actually add to our genetics.
Take for instance the very common mutations from genetic duplication.
It now appears obvious to many neurologists that this is where the advances in human intellect came about when the primate IPL mutated in humans through genetic duplication to produce 2 extra structures in the angular and supramarginal gyri, which in addition to wernicke's and Broca's areas give us the ability to conceive physics and descriptive, abstract notions and language.
It's this descriptive language that blasted humans into accelerated evolution and allowed us to produce technology.
Without such language, we'd not be able to make fire, nor create religions.
We'd likely still be living like the other apes.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
"All primates have hair in the front, none on the back. We have none on the front, lots on the back. Primates are bigger, and stronger than us."

1. Hairy back people are gross.
2. Chuck Norris has a very hairy chest.
3. Primates workout constantly, and have different needs to their survival than we with better intellects do. (plus like Lance Armstrong, they might be taking HGH)
Posted by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
Con is correct about the fossil record. It does not support the drawinian theory. In fact darwin himself said so! He hoped that would change but in fact the cambrian explosion made the case for fossils supposrting the theory even more difficult. I put this in the comment section so anyone is free to respond.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
tala00131jh1234lTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate didn't change science, which is slightly disappointing, but oh well; my opinion is the same. Conduct and spelling and grammar were fine; Pro used good arguments while con merely presented a wall of text with little content. Pro used sources which were reliable; Con didn't use sources at all.
Vote Placed by Ozymandias_King_of_Kings 3 years ago
Ozymandias_King_of_Kings
tala00131jh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had far better arguments, and all around was the better debater.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
tala00131jh1234lTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Best efforts to con, particularly for that first round; but his organizational skills began to drop in R2. ARGUMENT (pro): Con's sarcasm about Bananas won him nothing, whereas pro logically pointing out how biology works won him everything. Replying to con's bit about how the skeletons look nothing alike with a picture, was simply brilliant. SOURCES (pro): Good informative sources; regardless of my anti-wiki bias.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
tala00131jh1234lTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a tie. Both were polite. S/G is a tie. Arguments goes to pro. Con seemed to not understand some of the points about evolution, and in fact gave pro some arguments. Pro successfully refuted con's notion that we do not look similar through images, and con's assertion that chromosomes can not fuse. Sources goes to pro, as you used more and they were reliable.