The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is the evolution theory wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/12/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 76514
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Evolution disproves religion, it saying science started this all, one simple question, who made science if it is man made, or should I say animal made, because supposedly were animals because we have similar traits and hair.


BoP is on pro to show the theory of evolution incorrect.
Good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1


what does BOP, stand for, and that wasn't an argument, you gave me luck, anyway thanks for the luck.


BoP= Burden of proof, meaning it is not by job to prove evolution but yours to disprove it because you made a positive claim, however as you seem new, I won't be petty regarding technicalities and will present an argument none the less.

A prerequsite to debating the validity of evolution is knowing what one means by "evolution". Well in the most general since it can be used to mean change over time but in the spirit of intellectual debate let's use the technical definition, which is as follows:Evolution is is all that is meant by evolution and when one puts it like that, the answer is obviously yes, evolution is true.

-Universal Genetic Code:
Every cell on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the petals of flowers, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is quite convincing evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
-Fossil Record
Birds-The evolution of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton ofArchaeopteryx lithographicain Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile - it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton ofArchaeopteryx.

A reconstructed Archaeopteryx.) This ancient animal seems to constitute strong evidence of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.
In 1994,Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales.Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians.Ambulocetusis regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.

-Ubiquitous Genetic Similarity:
Human beings share approximately 96% of genes with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
Bacterial Resistances:
Bacteria colonies may only build up a resistance to antibiotics via evolution. It is vital to note that in every colony of bacteria, there is a minority of individuals that are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
I think the aforementioned pieces of evidences is sufficient to substantiate evolution.

Are we still evolving?
Yes, however it is not drastic because we are no longer exposed to drastic climates that would require us to do so.
Increased Resistance:
In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution discovered 1800 genesthat have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy.
Shrinking Brains:as they shrink, our brains are being rewired to work faster but take up less room. The best explanation is smaller brains are an evolutionary advantage because they make us less aggressive beings, allowing us to work together and to solve problems, rather than tear each other to shreds.

Remember, evolution is merely the change of inherited traits in populations over generations.
Debate Round No. 2


EzaDragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by KhalifV 1 year ago
I copied and pasted this argument from a former debate I had, but the argument is mine none the less.
Posted by Thegreatdebate98 1 year ago
I have to say con most likely copy and pasted his long argument, because the font size is quite different from his font size in the other rounds. It also doesn't fit with his first way of approaching the debate. Plagiarism, if not, you wouldn't be on wasting your time arguing with someone who has the argument that "evolution is against religion." XD
Posted by palmkrawler 1 year ago
The problem is no one can say for sure claims made by religion are false. Well, some claims, perhaps. But, the assertion that God created the heavens and the Earth. No one alive today was around when the Earth was created. We can use science to theorize and this is exactly what science can
and should be doing. But, in the end, you'll find no true scientist that will step forward and say
"We know 100% without a doubt this happened" because they were not here when it happened.
That is the problem with religion, though. They claim to know 100% how it all started. By God.
Sorry..that is not an answer. An answer with no evidence is nothing. At least science has SOME
evidence to go in with it's theories. I'd rather take a theory based on evidence over a supposed
answer based on nothing. Until science has a 100% answer, we can't say what is absolutely false. But, we can say the Creation story is EXTREMELY unlikely.
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
As for the title, is evolution wrong? well... define what is wrong with it. and the answer will be no, currently it's not wrong
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
@palm, @pro. religion can be and should be dismissed if, the assertions and claims made by said religion are just false.
Science can't disprove a god however it can disprove the claims apparently made by one.
Posted by palmkrawler 1 year ago
Evolution does not disprove religion. It ignores religion.
It does not say "science started it all". Evolution explains how life evolves AFTER life already existed on Earth. Science seeks to answer questions through the natural world. Whatever we can see, feel, touch and examine. Science ignores religion as well. As it should. Science is filtered by logic, facts and peer review. To filter it through religion means it's no longer science. It's something else.
Take a basic science course. It might help.
No votes have been placed for this debate.