The Instigator
124275
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Alycelilylilan2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is there proof of Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/15/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 91270
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

124275

Con

There is no proof of evolution.
Alycelilylilan2

Pro

There is many proofs for evolution. One of the proof is fossil records.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net...
http://biologos.org...

Fossils can show change in animal's bone structures. For an example, some fossil shows some birds that had claws at the tip of their wings. But over time their fossils show that bird's claws slowly disappeared. This may occurred because the bird's way of living didn't need the claws anymore.
Debate Round No. 1
124275

Con

Firstly, one bird having smaller claws than another don't prove that one is older than the other. Secondly if you look it up there are no missing links between species that have been fownd. Take humans evolving slowly from apes for example. Have you ever noticed that all of the animals drawn on the charts of human evolution have human feet and hands. This is because that of all the ancient human sceletons that have been fownd, only a few fragments have been fownd which isn't enough to test.
Alycelilylilan2

Pro

Sorry, I may have not been clear. Fossil's age can be checked with relative dating and radioactive dating. ( In this case) The fossil with the bird that has claws is older than the fossil with a bird without claws. Also these two birds have been checked genetically and have been proved that they the same species (or close).

Evolution can be also proved by common traits of animals. Lizards in a continent and lizards in an island have different appearance but genetically, they are similar.
Debate Round No. 2
124275

Con

The method of radio active carbon dating can only be used it things less than 50,000 years old and it is not accurate as it assumes that the amount of C14 has stayed constant which it hasn't and all other measuring of other elemonts also assume that their level has remailed con stand thoughout hI story. . However, there is uranium dating that supposidly dates to up to 4 billion years. But I doubt that there was any uranium in old bones to biggin with as it would kill them.
Alycelilylilan2

Pro

"Radioactive carbon dating can only be used with things less than 50,000 years old"
Yes, this is true. But 50,000 is a long time. Evolution is still possible in a short period of time.
("short period of time" 1000~10,000 years)
Evolution is also proved by Genetic Commanalities. For an example, A human has about 96% genes in common with chimpanzees, and other animals such as cats, mice and birds. This proves that human and these animals came from one ancestor who went through an evolution.
Debate Round No. 3
124275

Con

A cloud is 99.9% water and a watermelon is 95% water but no one would say that they evolved from each other. Natural evolution can only produce variations in a kind. For example, Darwin's finches. Finches from different islands of the galapagos have different charictoristics but they are all still finches. It is like the difference between a European and an African and I'd hope that you wouldn't call theme different species.
Alycelilylilan2

Pro

Darwin's finches from different islands of the Galapagos are both finches. But do you know why they have different characteristics? It is because they evolved to suit their environment.

Bateria also evolved through time. People made medicines to kill bateria. These medicine worked when it was invented. But these medicine soon became less efective. The bateria have made some kind of wall for these medicine! Now this is proof for evolution.
Debate Round No. 4
124275

Con

A bacteria that becomes immune to a chemical is still the same bacteria but with a slightly different charictoristi. (This could be termed as macro-evolution. This states that variations in a kind (species) can occur. This means that people can be of different hight or skin colour and dogs can be breed to be more docile. This is obviously real but no matter how selective you are with breeding dogs, your end product will always be a dog rather than a cat.
Alycelilylilan2

Pro

Evolution is proved by similiar appearance of embryo. Developing embryos of mammal, fish, amphbian, birds, and repitile share common features, such as tails and gill-like structures. These similarities suggest that the species share a common ancestor.

Fossils, patterns of early development, and similar body structures all provide evidence that organisms have changed over time. Is there anymore reason you'd like to say to prove "There is no proof of evolution."
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zebracakes 9 months ago
Zebracakes
Okay, both Pro and Con had horrible spelling and grammar. In future debate about evolution, whoever is Pro, look up similarities between whales and hippopotamuses, they are alike in more ways than you may think.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: its.chandler// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I completely agree with @Alycelilylilian2. She put up a good argument and stated her points clearly. @124275 Didn't really have much of a convincing argument in my opinion.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, sources or S&G. Merely stating that one side was clearer isn't sufficient for any of them. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The
************************************************************************
Posted by joseph.vu 9 months ago
joseph.vu
This debate in my opinion, only scratched the surface.
Posted by Alycelilylilan2 9 months ago
Alycelilylilan2
Oh... now that you mention it.. thats true!!
Posted by ReasonFirst 9 months ago
ReasonFirst
i will ignore that guys last comment especially because jet engins and rockets and petrol engins do have a common ancestry......HUMANS!!!!!
Posted by Alycelilylilan2 9 months ago
Alycelilylilan2
Thank Your guys and girls for voting for me!! I had some mistakes but I will try my best to improve for the next debate!! ^^
Posted by its.chandler 9 months ago
its.chandler
Well thank you for answering that for me ReasonFirst!!!! lol cause I wasn't planning on it!! hahaha
Posted by Alycelilylilan2 9 months ago
Alycelilylilan2
ReasonFirst.... do we even have to explain it..
Posted by 124275 9 months ago
124275
Jet engine, petrol engine and rockets all use similar fuels but that don't mean they have a common ancestry.
Posted by ReasonFirst 9 months ago
ReasonFirst
fine ill tell you anyway.

lets start from the beginning.

so IN THE BEGINNING the Earth was still forming. and from looking at the ocean floor and the mountains we have OBSERVED evidence to support the theory that the earth was molten lava all over the surface. At this point there was no ability for life to start forming nor was the earth thinking about forming life. However we have also OBSERVED the power and ability of lave to produce highly nutritious soil. Soil to which plants can thrive. But were not there yet. This molten lava eventually cooled down but Studies show that the earth was going through extreme showers of asteroids. We can even judge the rate from the cratering of the moon. Erosion has not erased all the traces of this episode there, as it has on the earth. The bombardment was very intense up to about 4 billion years ago. In fact, there is evidence that an intense "aftershock" of large impacts resurfaced the moon around 3.9 billion years ago (the Late Heavy Bombardment). Just during that episode, the earth might have experienced as many as 1700 events powerful enough to leave craters larger than 20 km in diameter and capable of widespread havoc and extinction.

So that's the early beginning, what happens next is this, very simple life forms appeared. They were microscopic, and we know this from fossils that have been dated back to 3.5 billion years ago
See evidence here http://www.space.com...

im tired and will teach yor later
No votes have been placed for this debate.