The Instigator
Leo.Messi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hayhen13
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is the Theory of Evolution 100% 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: 12/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 66753
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Leo.Messi

Con

The theory of evolution is not 100% true.
a) The World is to complex
b) information
c)other issues
hayhen13

Pro


I have accepted this debate and look forward to its outcome. I will be taking the pro side in this debate, “Is the Theory of Evolution 100% true?” My side is obviously very difficult to prove since, technically, anything can exist. You can never prove that, in an alternate reality, flying laser teddy bears can exist, you can just never prove it. So I hope my opponent does not take the easy perspective on this debate and say that I have to prove it is 100% true, and since I can’t do that, he wins. I hope my opponent will agree that that would be childish and I hope my opponent will actually have a debate.


In the title of the debate, my opponent states that I have to prove, as pro, that the Theory of Evolution is 100% true. As I have already established, this is impossible, so this debate already has its flaws. I decided to take on this debate though, despite its fallacies to convince my opponent that the Theory of Evolution has so much evidence and proof, that it would be illogical to think otherwise.


This relates much to the subject of the Earth being round. The first person to propose the idea of the Earth being round was Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher that lived around 500 B.C. When he first proposed his idea, people thought it was crazy. If the Earth is round, then why don’t we just fall off? People didn’t understand it. Most is true of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. (Actually , in the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution, but later refined in Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species (1859).) At first people thought that this was crazy. How could humans be monkeys? But as time progressed, the theory became widely accepted in the 1920’s and 1940’s as more and more evidence backed it up.


Today, there is so much evidence to support evolution, that it is ludicrous to state that it is false. Evolution is even taught in my 8th grade science class. Archeologists have found millions of bones showing the slow process of evolution from apes to humans, clearly stating that we evolved from apes, not suddenly appearing as Adam and Eve as in Christian mythology. Evolution is a fact.


Argument:


You seem to categorize the debate into 3 different topics or some sort. Very confusing, but I will address them.




  1. “The World is to complex”




“Astronomers at the University of Auckland claim that there are actually around 100 billion habitable, Earth-like planets in the Milky Way — significantly more than the previous estimate of around 17 billion. There are roughly 500 billion galaxies in the universe, meaning there is somewhere in the region of 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (5×1022) habitable planets. I’ll leave you to do the math on whether one of those 50 sextillion planets has the right conditions for nurturing alien life or not.”


Ok, so imagine how many planets there could be in the whole entire universe. According to the University of Auckland, there could be 100 billion Earth like planets, only in the Milky Way! And imagine how many galaxies there could be in the universe.


So saying that our Earth is too perfect to be made on accident, and therefore has to be made by God, is a fallacy. Out of the 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 habitable planets, at least one of them would be perfect for human life. Even if we were a hotter planet, then life would have evolved to thrive in this new habitat over time. So saying the World is too complex is incorrect.




  1. ‘information’


    I’m not sure what you mean by this so I will skip it.





  2. ‘Other issues’




Also not sure what you mean by this, so I will again skip it.


I have provided my arguments on the short guidelines provided. I hope you can clarify this debate in your next response. Thank you very much for this debate!



http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://www.extremetech.com...


http://www.agiweb.org...


http://www.pa.msu.edu...


Debate Round No. 1
Leo.Messi

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. However much I would like to edit the topic-I cannot, it is what it is.
You must prove evolution 100% true and flawless while I must prove it not 100% true.
Here are 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.

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.

Edward Peltzer
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 nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it"s given, non-life will not become alive."

Yes, I quoted this from a similar debate I did on this topic yestarday. However, I still have a good argument. I have evidence against Darwin's theory, Scientists to support my claims, and good sources.

Thank you for the debate!

Sources.
http://www.epm.org......
http://www.evolutionnews.org......
http://www.gotquestions.org......
hayhen13

Pro

Thank you for that wonderful response. Now onto mine.

Rebuttal:

A. I will start by rebutting what the scientist said.

“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.”

I hope we both agree that evolution takes a significantly long amount of time. So saying that you don’t see any evolution happening while you are observing is stupid. Evolution takes millions of years, not less than one life time. I agree that having a ‘breeder’ speeds things up, but by saying that you don’t see any change unless you speed things up is a fallacy since you don’t have time to observe it.

“Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.”

Heredity is not chance. If both of your parents are tall, they will pass on those genes to you, and you will get those genes, and will probably be tall too. That is not chance, it is called heredity.

The scientist concludes that this is why he doesn’t believe in evolution. So this argument is now defeated.

B. “Information is invisible to us. It is different than matter (as in materials). Let’s 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.”

Not sure where my opponent is trying to go with this. I agree that when you read a book, the book is made of matter. And is conveys information to you. You can learn information through all your five senses. I don’t understand how this disproves evolution, learning does not disprove evolution. I ask my opponent to evaluate this next round. This argument is kind of defeated, but not really since it wasn’t really an argument and I will reevaluate it next round.

C. “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.”

Okay in this paragraph, my opponent gives lots of good details and information about ‘microevolution’ I would have copy and pasted the whole paragraph but in order to save characters, I just stated the argument part.

You say that breeding dogs has never turned a dog into a different species. But that was just a few thousand years. Try breeding for 100’s of millions of years, and you would end up with something completely different. And this is “reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.”

Let’s do a mind game to try to understand this. Let’s relate this to age. You don’t wake up one day and say, “I’m an elder now, just today I became an old person.” It slowly happens over thousands and thousands of days. That is kind of what you’re saying; a dog cannot be a bat. But that’s taking a picture of a present dog, and a present bat and saying they are drastically different and different species. If you took a picture of you when you were a child, and then when you were an elder, and said we don’t look alike, so we aren’t the same. If you looked at evolution from that perspective, then that would seem unnatural and make evolution seem impossible. But if you realize that aging, evolution is a slow process of millions and millions of years, thousands and thousands of days of miniscule differences, you would realize evolution is true. Same is true with plants, is grows slowly, and impossible to notice but if you see it at first, and then check on it a month later, you would notice it and say they are drastically different, they aren’t the same species, but it is a long process of small differences. I hope that helps.

D. “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."

As I have just explained, this is very possible and I don’t have to go over it since I went over it previously.

E. "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

I assume that this scientist is referring to the origin of life, the first life organism. He disproves evolution by saying that it doesn’t explain how life first started and therefore is false.

"Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."

This scientist is very incorrect, for evolution by definition is,

A theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time” Merriam-Webster

So arguing that evolution is false because it doesn’t explain the origin of life is a fallacy.

F. "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 majorities 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."

I have to stop this person in the first sentence. This whole excerpt is completely incorrect. Evolution is not based off a series of accidents, or mutations. This is a very, very, very popular misguided perception. Evolution is based off heredity, genes from parents to offspring. Not mutations. This whole paragraph is completely incorrect. I would understand why you and many others don’t believe in evolution if you have heard these lies.

G. "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 nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it"s given, non-life will not become alive."

This is again built on the lie that evolution is built on chance. Genes being passed from parents to their offspring is not chance. So saying that a coin can’t grow arms and legs and become a monkey is just plain stupidity.

Conclusion:

Most of your argument was based on the lie that evolution is chance. I don’t understand how people perceive it this way now, since it is totally incorrect. Anyways, thank you for this interesting debate and I look forward to its outcome.

Debate Round No. 2
Leo.Messi

Con

Commentary on previous arguments:"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."Okay in this paragraph, my opponent gives lots of good details and information about "microevolution" I would have copy and pasted the whole paragraph but in order to save characters, I just stated the argument part.
You say that breeding dogs has never turned a dog into a different species. But that was just a few thousand years. Try breeding for 100"s of millions of years, and you would end up with something completely different. And this is "reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else."

But how would we know that if you breeded for 1 million years the dog would become a totally diffrent species? We have never treid it, so your argument lacks evidence. However, it has been scientifically proven that 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". And since no dog has become another species on its own thus far, we have really no reason to ever assume it will ever become another species...

Also "You don"t wake up one day and say, "I"m an elder now, just today I became an old person."
Yes, but aging is not related to macro-evolution. When you are aging your not evolving into a different species.

"Evolution is based off heredity, genes from parents to offspring. Not mutations.'

Actually, "Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, "
definition of transformation- which is "a thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance."
or an alteration/mutation.

"Most of your argument was based on the lie that evolution is chance."
On the contrary,
"Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn't, but chance events play a big role too."---www.newscientist.com
"Chance and randomness do factor into evolution"---evolution.berkeley.edu/
"You can't have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation."--www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/
However it is not random, but it is chance.

Thanks for the debate-but I have a limited time.
Good luck!

www.thesaurus.com/browse/
http://www.thesaurus.com...
evolution.berkeley.edu/
hayhen13

Pro

hayhen13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
huh?
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Forfeited to make the debate fair
No votes have been placed for this debate.