The Instigator
Muted
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Macro-Evolution is correct

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 2 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,155 times Debate No: 26594
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Muted

Con

We will debate the resolution that Macro-evolution is a fact. Although I do not like to distinguish macro- and micro-, I will do so for simplicity"s sake.
There will be no semantics.
These are the definitions:
Macro-Evolution: "Broad-scale evolution, also referred to as macroevolution, refers to evolution at a grander scale. It focuses on the progression of species or entire clades from a common ancestor to descendant clades over the course of numerous generations." [1] "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift that results in the formation of all living species from single celled organisms due to the increase in genetic information resulting in new genes." (My collation of many definitions, the phrasing differ, but the essence remains)
Fact: 1. Something that actually exists; reality; truth: 2. Something known to exist or to have happened: 3. A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: 4. Something said to be true or supposed to have happened: 5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. [2]
To reduce ambiguity, I will define several more words found in the definitions themselves.
Reality: 1. the state or quality of being real. 2. Resemblance to what is real. 3. A real thing or fact. 4.Real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs. 5. Philosophy. a.Something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. b. Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive. [3]
Mutations: 2 The changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form which may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes: [4]
Natural Selection: The mechanism for evolutionary change in which environmental pressures cause certain genetic combinations in a population to become more abundant; genetic combinations best adapted for present environmental conditions tend to become predominant. [5]
Genetic drift: Random changes (Note: Mutations) in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation; especially in small populations, can lead to the elimination of a particular allele by chance alone. [6]
Clades: A group of organisms believed to have evolved from a common ancestor, according to the principles of cladistics [7]
Genetic information: The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of DNA or RNA. [8]
Genetic code refers to the genetic information stored within the genome. (I do not need to provide a reference for this)
I will just add the definition of correct: Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. (Google definition)

The BoP is on me to show that Macro-evolution, which I will refer to simply as evolution, is NOT correct. I will have to present arguments against the notion that evolution is a fact, and Pro will present arguments for the notion that evolution is a fact.

1. http://animals.about.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
5. http://www.mhhe.com...
6. http://www.emc.maricopa.edu...
7. (Google definition of Clades)
8. http://www.biology-online.org...
Lordknukle

Pro

I accept this challenge with the definitions that my opponent has set forth. My opponent also has the BOP.

Also, as a side note, it is pertinent to note that proving that macro-evolution is correct is synonymous with proving that the processes that make it up, as my opponent defined, are correct and valid (mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift). The proving of these processes logically follows to prove macro-evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Muted

Con

I flatly deny agreeing to that note made by Pro. Accepting that note would imply that I agree to the fallacy of composition [1].

I will make two arguments to show why evolution is not correct. The first would be about genetics, and the second would be about paleontology.

I. Genetics
I.a. Mutations and the evolution connection.
The cause and effect of mutations have been widely studied. I will concentrate mainly on the effects of mutations.
The net effect of all mutations is harmful to an organism"s genetic information. Stanford, J. C. has pointed this out in his book Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome. He also noted that mutations can be either degenerative or beneficial and that there is no such thing as a "neutral" mutation.
Let me put this in simple English. Suppose the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel" has a mutation in that one of its letters was changed. The information would still probably be interpretable. If there were more than a few changes, however, the information would not be understood. The situation is clearly more complicated for frameshift mutations, additions, and deletions and I will not go into them, but I think the analogy is sufficient for Pro to understand the concept.

The situation, however, is more complicated than that. The average number of mutations created from generation to generation is around 100-200 [2]. This is reproductive mutations.
Out of every cell division, there is around ~3 mutations per human cell division. This effectively means that within the evolutionary time-scale, we should have been dead 100 times over [3]. Even if, granted, natural selection selected against degradational mutations, there would be almost no beneficial mutations to select for. Sanford has noted that

I.b. "Junk DNA"
Junk DNA is the section of the DNA that does not code for proteins. It was mostly thought of as "useless" portions of the genome. Until very recently, junk DNA theory was upheld, and still is upheld in some circles [4].
Evolution predicts that some portions of the DNA would become useless (Information not from [4]) and therefore the genome would reflect this. Therefore, when scientists first discovered noon-protein DNA codes, they assumed immediately that what they were seeing was the leftovers from evolution.

The ENCODE project has shown this to be false [5]. Junk DNA is actually the regulatory portion of the DNA. Some of the purposes of the regulatory DNA determines the organism"s body plan, how much enzymes are produced, and in what quantity.

There is further evidence that mutations leads to cancers, disease, and other things which I will, hopefully, expand on in the round. The dangers of mutation indicate that species would have died long before they could have evolved sufficiently to create new species. (The giving of a new name to a population of organisms does not mean there is a new species. In fact, wrongly identifying "new" species of dinosaurs seem to be a fad. [6][7] show that half of all the dinosaurs have been wrongly identified and given new names.)

In conclusion for this section. There is simply no evidence from the genome that evolution could have occurred.

II. Paleontology
II.a. The Opisthotonic pose
This pose is illustrated in the picture [8].
In [9], the authors conclude that this could not be the result of postmortem water transport because they did experiments on quail. "It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem muscle spasms resulting from various afflictions of the central nervous system that cause these extreme postures. That is, the opisthotonic posture is the result of "death throes," not postmortem processes, and individuals so afflicted assumed the posture before death, not afterward. The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes."
This year, scientists did an experiment by placing chicken in cool fresh water and the chickens exhibited the pose [10]. There is contradiction between the two studies, but salt may have played a role.

Besides all of these, water sediment is almost always found with the fossil [11]. How could there be water sediment if the dinosaurs died from meteor impacts? Evolution is unable to give an answer.

II.b. Transitional fossils
In order not to fall for the fossil gaps fallacy, where after finding one fossil, the skeptic claims, "Aha! Now there are two gaps!" I will note that there is many transitional fossil candidates. The one I see most often is the example of the Tiktaalik.

Tiktaalik is supposed to be the transitional organism between fish and tetrapods. Tiktaalik supposedly came from 375 mya. However, tetrapod tracks from 18 mya before that have been found [12]. This is inexplicable via evolutionary theory.

General Conclusion: I must thus conclude that the facts opposes evolution. If the facts opposes evolution, then evolution is not correct. I await your response.

1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
2. http://www.nature.com...
3. http://www.sciencedirect.com...
4. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... (See here a blog blasting the ENCODE projectand supporting "junk DNA")
5. http://www.genome.gov... (Also see this semi-comprehensive non-technical news article on the subject, http://www.guardian.co.uk..., and a more technical one: http://www.sciencemag.org...)
6. http://www.nature.com...
7. http://www.psjournals.org...
8. http://www.stemftw.com...
9. http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org...
10. http://www.newscientist.com...
11. http://www.jstor.org...
12. http://www.nature.com...
Lordknukle

Pro

Lordknukle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Muted

Con

After spending hours to write out an original argument, The man forfeits. How shameful!
Lordknukle

Pro

King of too late to start something now so peace.
Debate Round No. 3
Muted

Con

Very well, we could redo this debate some other time.
Lordknukle

Pro

Damn obummers.
Debate Round No. 4
Muted

Con

Not my fault americans voted in Obama!
Lordknukle

Pro

Am I becoming a fascist?
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Account not active yet can post comments?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Well, because or not because of me, it is still your turn.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Not because of you, fucktard.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
The man runs to deactivate his account!
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
LordKnukle, that simply means you have not read enough evolutionary literature. I gave citations to sources that would help you understand the link between evolution and junk DNA, and the tetrapod argument is an argument against conventional dating method reliability, on which all curreent "dates" are based. Your "LOL" indicates that you do not understand that.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Creationists have a tendency to do that.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Lol, half of your arguments have nothing to do with the validity of evolution, but instead with new scientific discoveries that either shift the time frames of evolution (tetrapod) or do absolutely nothing to address it (junk DNA).
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I'm perfectly fine, Magic. Thanks for your concern, by the way. I will reply to you just before starting with Knukle. Most of my other debates have concluded. I have only four/five left right now in the debating period.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Man Muted. You're going to drop dead of a debate overload. You're like in 7 debates. I couldn't do that.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Hmmm...Yeah...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
MutedLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
MutedLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF