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

Is there any viable, provable evidence for evolution

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,060 times Debate No: 45609
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




I am arguing that there is no viable evidence for evolution. For clarification, I mean macro-evolution, change from one species to another, not micro-evolution, or adaptation. My argument is that there is no evidence for evolution. First off, the fossil record does not prove evolution for two reasons. This is because the fossil record is extremely faulty and is different every different place that it is found. There is rarely any correlation between them. Also, the fossil record shows no change between species. To put it in layman's terms, there are no missing links. If evolution happened over billions of years, the number of in-between animals, the number of animals that were changing between species should be as many or more than the number of animals that were staying the same. This is because evolution is supposedly a gradual process, something that takes small changes in a species over and over until it is a large change. There is no evidence of that. All the fossil record proves is that the dead animals stay the same until the next one magically appears.


Yes. But first, some observations of the round:
A: My opponent must advocate a viable counter-theory. If they cannot do so, they are free to attack evolution without any ground to stand upon.
B: Evidence must be used in the round as "Consistent with Scientific Principle", meaning it must be both derived from verifiable observation and make an accurate prediction that is not only valid in pre-existing circumstances.

Evolution is Viable and Provable for 3 reasons:
First: Without evolution, there are no verifiable scientific phenomenon that can explain the gaps in the fossil layers.
In the absence of Macro evolution, there is no valid theory that can explain in any more certainty the existence of these gaps. while admittedly very geographically diverse, this diversity in the Fossil layers serves as evidence that micro-evolution is valid.

As I have shown that Evolution is both viable and provided one of many examples of proof fro macro evolution, and my opponent is not advocating a counter-position, it is clear that the Con will carry the round.

Second: The theory of evolution is consistent with scientific principles, and is thus viable.
The theory has not been around long enough to prove macro-evolution, yet one key aspect of the scientific method is the application of principles from a controlled small-scale to a large scale. The application of the concept of Micro-evolution to Macro-Evolution is one that is not only consistent with scientific thought

Third: Existing evidence is consistent with the application of micro-evolution.
The existence of Atavisms in both humans and animals is proof of a shared genetic heritage. Mutations in gene sequences can result in previously unused DNA being replicated. Some prominent examples include dolphins and whales born with leg-like apparatuses near their tails and human newborns growing a natural tail as a result of prematurely limited regression of genes. This shared genetic evidence confirms that adaptation from an original organism can result in significantly different species.
Debate Round No. 1


For your first point, there is a verifiable scientific phenomenon that does explain the gaps in the fossil record. The Flood, as described in the Bible, as well as cultures from practically every continent, would account for it. Here is why it would explain the fossil record, the gaps therein, and the less known petrified trees that vertically intersect multiple layers in the fossil record, which is unexplainable from the standpoint of evolution. First off, it accounts for the lack of change between species. In the event of a world wide flood, all animal species would be caught as they were. They would all be roughly the same with slight differences in each species (which accounts for micro evolution). Secondly, the Flood accounts for the way that the fossils line up. Enclosed is a link to a picture of roughly how the fossil record aligns itself ( Obviously, this is not by any means a good representation, and I'm sure I could find better if I looked, but I lack the proper time right now. This picture illustrates my next point. If you look, you will see small organisms at the bottom, then fish, then large dinosaurs, then smaller mammals. This is heralded as proof for evolution, but it is also proof for the flood. The smallest organisms are at the bottom because they exist at the bottom of the ocean. Then the fish would next be caught by shifting earth, and they would be entombed next. Then the largest animals, the dinosaurs would sink to the bottom next, followed by the smaller mammals. That lines up pretty closely to the picture shown of the fossil record. Third, in case you ask how the fossils form in so short of a time, that is easily answered. Petrification is possible when materials are protected from decay by layers of sediment. In a flood, many animals and plants would be placed in those types of scenarios. Thus, a lot of animals would be made into fossils. Also, the flood explains the petrified trees phenomenon. For the uninformed, there have been many petrified trees, usually in coal deposits, that run vertically through many different layers of the fossil records. Some are even upside down. This presents a problem to evolution, as it is hard to explain how a tree could stand for millions of years while being petrified bit by bit, and upside down trees present even more of a challenge to explain. However, in light of the flood, it is simply to explain. Trees float until they are water logged, and then they sink. Many trees would have been uprooted by the flooded, and would have waterlogged, and sunk into the ground, while more layers would have been built up around them. Also, a coal deposit is explained by large quantities of biowaste being collected and sunk by the flood, which would have turned into coal. So that is a verifiable scientific phenomenon that fully explains the gaps in the fossil record, and the contradictions that are made when it is viewed in a evolutionist light. Additionally, I am not called upon to provide an alternative to evolution, because my position is that it is wrong, not necessarily that I have another one. Science is not about keeping one theory that is proved wrong until we have a better one, but about removing the bad theories and then getting new ones.

For your second point, I have two words for you: Fruit flies. Yes, I am going to debunk your second point with fruit flies. If evolution happens, it is not measured in years but in generations. Now, this is an important point. If one creature had a time gap between generations of 10 years, and it took 2.7 billion years for it change to a new species, then it would not take another creature with a time gap of only one year between generations the same amount of times, because the micro-evolutions would happen quicker by having more generations, and would speed up the process of changing from one generation to another. Now, it just so happens that we have a creature that has one of the shortest time gaps between generations: fruit flies. Evolutionist scientists have been working on mutating fruit flies for over half a century in order to induce macro evolution. Now, there have been extraordinary mutations, most of them harmful and few of them helpful. However, there is not the slightest indication of a change from a fruit fly to some other species entirely. Now, given that the time gap between generations for the fruit fly is about 7, and the scientists enormously speed up the micro-evolution part by inducing mutations by numerous ways, like catalyzing them with x-rays, this result is not very good for evolutionists. Because Macro evolution is supposed to be a gradual process, the flies being worked on should have some sort of species change. However, this is not the case. They have remained fruit flies. So, although there might not have been much change, there should have been some species change, and there was none.

For your third point, the existence of atavisms do not prove shared genetic heritage. The example of dolphins and whales born with leg-like apparatuses is explainable. Some whales have a pair of bones that serve as a organ anchor. Sometimes, a defect will cause extra bone to be attached to them. Kinda like extra fingers or nipples on humans. And around these bones will form flesh. These are nowhere near a functioning leg, and to get that it proves that whales originally came from land takes pretty good imagination. Also, the account of human newborns having a natural tail is false. There has been one newborn that had a tail, but it was all fat, and a defect. Some embryos have what look like tails, but are not. They are reabsorbed into the body, and are used in the development of the baby


First, on the Biblical flood as a scientific and cultural phenomenon and evidence within the fossil layer:
You make assumptions about the flood based on the deposition of fossils throughout the fossil layer, however you ignore the fact that a single flood event would create at most a few layers of deposition, not the millions of years worth of deposition in thousands of layers observable. Yes, small organisms are on the bottom, with larger at the top, but this is not because they could swim, but because they are separated by millions of years worth of geological events and biological evolution. In fact, if the individual species of fossils represented in the fossil layers are analyzed it can be found that they span multiple layers. So, in short, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

Not only that, but fish such as the titalic fish have been shown to conclusively prove that sea creatures developed legs to walk on land. In addition, it has been empirically proven that humans share a common ancestry with primates, one that dates back millions of years.

As far as the individual examples of trees within coal deposits, it is important to understand that Coal is organic. It formed by the degradation of plant matter and their eventual degradation. Moreover, trees that died towards the beginning of a geologic period have ample time to petrify before being subsumed into a geologic layer, explaining the presence of petrified wood in organic substrate (Coal).

In regards to your overall explanation of coal deposits, I call your attention once again to time frame. How can coal deposits exist in different geologic layers separated by millions of years if they were all formed by a single flood? Coal deposits can be far more consistently explained by the presence of bogs and swamps, which are also high concentrations of biomass which do not rely upon a flood for which no evidence exists.

Not only that, there are several regions and faiths which do not tell of a great flood. Notable examples include much of Asia, especially the example of Buddhism, in which there is no flood or creation story, practitioners are encouraged to use reason and contemplation to determine the truth.

To take into account the fruit flies point, it is important to explain how evolution is measured. Evolutionary scientists use a unit called the Darwin, which is essentially change in an organisms character by a factor of "e" over time. The average rate of change in the fossil layer is .6 darwins, whereas in certain situations, called "Colonization Events", something called the founders effect can introduce rates of change as high as 342 darwins. This is due to genetic separation from the main population causing regressive alleles to emerge. This proves that rate of evolution is highly dependent on genetic isolation, and thus that rate may change wildly. However, to respond more directly, fruit flies are the result of a long term evolutionary span, and as they have adapted fully to their existing environment they fall into one of these evolutionary gaps, it would take a colonization event or a near extinction to trigger an enhanced rate of evolutionary change. Meaningless mutations have no effect on overall Darwinian change.

In response to your criticism of Atavisms, you fail to realize that atavisms are not purely physical, they are facilitated by regressive gene sequences that fail to be eliminated. The evidence that they resulted from DNA regression comes not from theories as to why atavisms emerge, but as directly verified DNA observation, regressions were detected in organisms with atavisms that are not present in regular species.

You, as the instigator of the debate, have the burden of a viable counter-theory. Without a counter interpretation, any criticisms of evolution are invalid as they do not rest upon any alternative. However, as you mentioned the biblical flood, I will be assuming that you base your criticisms upon a Biblical frame of reference.

Now that I have effectively defended evolution, I will present arguments to debase the underlying theory behind your claims.

Ultimately, this debate rests upon 2 theories of origin, that of macro-evolution and that of intelligent design, at least of initial members of the animal gene pool, which still takes into account the observable effect of micro-evolution. In order to evaluate these two theories it is important to recognize that an essential aspect of proof is the existence of Scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is not merely a conclusion drawn from a fact,it is the creation of a hypothesis that can be extrapolated beyond it's original context to understand that which cannot be empirically tested.

Macro-evolution draws it's roots from the original observations of micro-evolution by scientists such as Charles Darwin. This short-term and empirically verifiable concept was then condensed into a scientific theory that could be applied to the overall question of origins.

Creationism on the other hand, does not have this same scientific consistency. It accepts the empirical concept of micro-evolution yet denies it's logical and scientific conclusion.

Thus, as macro-evolution is not only verifiable empirically through the Fossil layer, colonization events, the common ancestor, the titalic and atavisms but also holds up to fundamental scientific principles, upon which we base the MEANING of scientific proof itself.
Debate Round No. 2


For your first point, you show your ignorance about the abilities of ordinary floods, and the biblical flood. First off, your statement that 'a single flood event would create at most a few layers of deposition', is sadly not based in reality. You seem to be assuming that the Flood was a calm flood, while in reality, a world-wide flood would have been a violent affair, which would have shifted mass amounts of earth and easily could have made those layers. The Mount St. Helens flood is a modern day example of a violent flood. After that flood, there were many such geological layers that were formed in the flood and the aftermath. Also, the fact that individual species are found in multiple layers back up the flood because a flood would have been a chaotic affair, and one wouldn't be able to expect that everything would line up nice and easy. Also, there is evidence of a world-wide flood. At the bottom of the ocean floor there are vents that force out water from chambers below even the sea. Now, this is evidence for the flood because when the flood happened chambers filled with water under the earth erupted and spewed up water onto the earth, flooding the earth. This is verified by the vents under the earth, and other evidences.

For your point of the titalic fish, it does not prove anything, but that a fish micro-evolved to the point where it was walking on its fins on the ocean floor. While there could have been many reasons as why it was best for them to micro-evolve to that point, it does not conclusively prove that sea creatures developed legs. If you look at them, they do not have legs, but merely fins. Also, you have to give me the empirical proof. I am unaware of such proof, and until you actually bring it and prove that it proves what you claim, you still have not done any more than make empty claims.

No, you are ignoring that there were trees, lots of them that were not found in coal deposits, but in multiple layers of the fossil record. Therefore, it must have stood for millions of years while it slowly was covered and petrified as it was covered, which obviously could have worked, or it must have been covered and petrified, then unearthed and stood for those millions of years while layers were formed around you.

When I said most cultures, I meant early ones. Buddhism is a relatively newer culture (formed around Christianity) and thus would not have a flood story. I apologize, I assumed you would have realized that. I'm also interested how you seem to approve how Buddhism encourages its practitioners to use reason and contemplation to determine truth, but you obviously think that religions are false, which seems to me that you should think that Buddhists don't use reason and contemplation very well, as they are following (what you believe) a completely false religion, and mindset.

For your dismissal of the fruit flies point, you are using a completely evolutionist theory to prove evolution. That is arguing in a circle. That would be comparable to me using bible verses to prove the bible is real. You can't do that. Also, your statement that meaningless mutations have no effect on overall Darwinian change contradicts itself. You say later that macro-evolution logically and scientifically follows from micro-evolution. However, mutations are a key point in how micro-evolution works. Therefore, mutations must have an effect on Darwinian change.

As I said before, I do not have the burden of a viable counter-theory. Scientific theories are not supposed to be kept after they are proven false. The validity of a criticism of evolution is not dependent on if they are from another alternative. The validity of a criticism is determined on whether it grounded on fact that shows an error in the theory. You base the theories off of the facts, instead of interpreting facts off of theories.

Finally, macro-evolution does not logically or scientifically follow from micro-evolution. It seems to, I will give you that. However, it seemed that if one object was heavier than another, it would fall faster. It seemed to logically follow. But it didn't. Just because you want it to follow does not mean it does. (By the way, Galileo did not have any counter-theory in mind when he disproved that objects fall at different speeds, yet he still was able to disprove it, and we would think that anyone who still held to that theory after it was proven was an idiot even though there was no other theory). Also, you have still failed to show any scientific evidence, so it does not scientifically follow.


DJhegemony forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


As my opponent was unable to make an argument for his last round, I will also forgo this round, for two reasons: First, I dont want it to be unfair at all, and Second, I am arguing that there is no viable evidence for evolution, so I can not really present arguments, but refute the evidences my opponent presents and show how they are either false, or do not prove what he says they do. I have presented all of my reasons why his arguments and proofs so far do not prove evolution, and thus I do not have an argument for this round as he did not present any new proofs.


First of all, you have my sincerest apologies for missing the last round. Now, as far as the biblical flood is concerned, evidence for a flood would not exist in the form of underground vents, but from the melting of the ice that covered much of the earth around 100,000 years ago. You also misunderstand my point on species, as they cross over geological periods, such as the nautilus, whose fossils date back over 500 million years, and still exist today. It's not that things line up well, it's that they don't. A flood event would leave all of the fossils in those layers sorted by size, with the smallest on the bottom and larger towards the top, and this is not evident. Also, in places where fossil order is reversed from what it would need to be for evolution, the folding strata layers, via seismic activity, would reverse the order of sediments.

Insofar as the Tree argument, your point makes no sense. the trees could easily have stood until petrified and then have layers formed around them. Also, your argument seems to support the my argument, and doesn't serve as evidence for a flood.

Ultimately, all of the evidence you suggest in support of a flood falls apart when you take into account the fact that the evidence you cite does not exist in one geologic time period, but is all across the board. A SINGLE flood event could not have distributed the evidence across millions of years of geological periods.

You ignore common ancestry, DNA evidence that all species are caused by very small variations of a shared DNA code. For example, there is irrefutable shared ancestry between humans and primates, as well as the homologous structures in species that are geographically separate. Purely mathematical models also cite common ancestry as 10^2860 times more probable than multi-ancestor models.

I am not using macro-evolution to prove evolution, the darwin is a micro-evolutionary unit, a theory that you claim to subscribe to. Mutations need to be relevant to environment and neccessity. Also, in the fruit flies study, all of the mutations they introduced had already emerged in the wild, White eyes being the most prominent mutation. Regardless, you were using evolution to disprove evolution, bringing me to my theoretical analysis:

Without proposing a counter theory, you cannot disprove evolution as viable. as you express in the topic. With no counter theory, evolution remains the only viable explanation. You need to provide another viable theory in order to prove that something is not. When Galileo proved that objects fall at different speeds he created an experiment to test a hypothesis, the hypothesis being a counter theory upon which he based his experimentation.

Galileo is also a perfect example of scientific extrapolation, using his results to prove aerodynamics. Micro-evolution provides empirically confirmed evidence for adaptation, which can then be extrapolated to the ideas of a common ancestor and macro evolution. Additional evidence, such as shared genetic background, atavisms, the titalic, and homogenous structures add additional credence to this theory. You MUST provide a counter-theory drawn from an equally valid chain of evidence and reason to prove evolution not viable.
Debate Round No. 4


WesleyBucher1 forfeited this round.


While my opponent forfeited the last round, I will take this time to clarify the debate, as well as provide some suggestions to the voters.

First off, in order to understand what my opponent and I are arguing, it is essential to understand that in order to prove that evolution is not viable, my opponent needed to provide a counter-theory that was equally if not more viable. While he failed to do so explicitly, throughout the debate I operated under the assumption he was advocating a Christian/Biblical Creation theory. Even if you regard all of the other evidence and counter-evidence specifically in regards to evolution, it remains the only viable alternative, as any other explanation was not provided.

Beyond this, in order for evolution to be Provable, it must align with scientific principles. Proof, as it is used in science, is not necessarily empirically proven, it can be extrapolated from empirically confirmed evidence. As macro-evolution applies the empirical evidence of macro-evolution into a larger context, it is scientifically provable.

Moving past the theory of the debate, it can be plainly seen that enough evidence exists for macro-evolution. I have proven evolution is viable through Atavisms, The Common Ancestor, Genetic Regression, The Fossil record, and species such as the Titalic fish. Not only that, but I have effectively disproved any counter-theories my opponent has provided, especially Noah's flood.

So in the end, you must support the pro side of the debate, not only due to empirical evidence but also due to my consistency with the very way the question is framed.

When evaluating this debate, I ask that you, as voters, disregard all of your prior beliefs, be they for or against evolution, and evaluate the debate based solely on the arguments presented within.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by WesleyBucher1 2 years ago
the entire theory of evolution would fall apart. Darwin assumed that the fossils would be found in the future. However, they have not been found. Transitional fossils are non-existent. That is why evolution is not true.
Posted by WesleyBucher1 2 years ago
the entire theory of evolution would fall apart. Darwin assumed that the fossils would be found in the future. However, they have not been found. Transitional fossils are non-existent. That is why evolution is not true.
Posted by WesleyBucher1 2 years ago
fruit flies adapt to the lab that they were in? I mean, it was a completely new environment, so the colonization effect should have been in play and in addition to the mutations forced by the scientists, so the mutations should have made the flies slowly more suited for survival within the new environment, but that was not the case. However, I was not using evolution to disprove evolution, I was using micro-evolution, which is true, to disprove a theory that was made from it, macro-evolution

Finally, one does not need to present another viable theory to prove that another theory is not viable. Ever heard of phlogiston? When it was proven wrong by Boyle there was no other theory that Boyle was trying to prove, yet he still managed to prove it wrong. The validity of one theory is not dependent on the presence of another. That's just the way things are. Galileo was not experimenting to prove a theory of his, he was trying to show how Aristotle was right. He made a counter theory after he proved it wrong, but still my point stands that a theory can be proven wrong even in the absence of another theory.

The practice of extrapolation is valid, I would not deny that. However, I do not believe that Macro evolution is a valid extrapolation for the fact that the evidence shown is not valid enough to prove the theory. The evidence is not conclusive, and misinterpreted and twisted to prove what the evolutionists want. The fossil record does not prove what it has to prove. If macro-evolution is true, the fossil record would have to be littered with missing links between species, as they would have been as common as the original species themselves. In the absence of any missing links, the whole theory falls apart. Dr. Patterson, a famous paleontologist, said himself "I will lay it on the line"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument" in his book Darwin's Enigma. Also, Darwin himself said to the effect that if the fossil record was not true
Posted by WesleyBucher1 2 years ago
I apologize, I completely misunderstood how much time i had left. Here was what I was going to say.
As this is my final round, let me with thanking my opponent for his willingness to participate with me in this debate. I am going to refute his arguments, make an overview of my arguments and make a few final words. As to the flood, I think my opponent misunderstands how I view the age of the earth. I believe that the earth is about 6000 years old. Maybe more and maybe less. But around that age. This would make it so that the flood creates all of the layers in the fossil record in that brief period of around 40 days instead of millions of years. Thus some of the nautilus fish would have survived the flood and thus have fossils in the ground and still exist today. Additionally, the flood, as stated before would have been violent, so it would not have worked out perfectly. Also, it would not have been smallest on bottom and largest on top, but smallest organisms that inhabited the bottom of the ocean first, which we see, then the larger fish still closer to the bottom, which we see, and finally the large land dwelling mammals, and then the smaller land animals, which we also see. For the trees, the tree would have had to have been covered for it to be petrified, and to stay covered for a bit. Thus a lot of them would have had to have randomly covered in the right conditions, then randomly unearthed and then have layers built up around it. That is such a convoluted explanation, Okham's Razor takes care of it immediately

When you just say that you know of evidence for macro-evolution, but do not give, just hint at it, that does not count as evidence. You must at least give me a link to this 'irrefutable shared ancestry' so that I could try to refute it, and also to these mathematical models. Otherwise, I can't do much about them because I don't know what you are trying to prove with them.

If mutations need to be relevant to environment and necessity, why didn't the
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
Rather quite amusing. Good though.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
Good debate so far!
Posted by DJhegemony 2 years ago
My apologies for missing round 3. I was facing problems of a medical nature and was not able to make it online in time. You can expect my 4th round rebuttal to not only respond to what was dropped in the 3rd but also any new argumentation my opponent may put forward.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
Con please change it to 10,000 characters and I will gladly accept.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
You've come to the right website, Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Social-twitterfly 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted pro for a few reasons. With the lack of evidence that BOTH sides presented, Pro's claims seemed more logical. Pro refuted con while it seemed the con was making unorganized confusing claims.