The Instigator
guyonthecomputer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lazarus_long
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

Macro Evolution

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,594 times Debate No: 1826
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (9)

 

guyonthecomputer

Con

How many of you believe in macro evolution? Yes there are many of you and many of you who don't know what macro evolution is. Macroevolution is the only thing that does not make sense. I know you all who disgree with me believe in science and facts, I know you are reading this or are being read this. There are many types of Evolution, starting of with these words,
1:Microevolution, makes sense, this is what it is,

"minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time"

2:Macroevolution is,

"evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups"
(I got these definitions from Microsoft word)

Okay, Macro evolution is what make apes turn into humans. This is what you an I know as a "theory".
Micro evolution makes sense.
ex: A tadpole to a frog.

Okay, the person who is debateing me I want you to answer these questions.

1: Can a explosion or a bomb make anything other than chaos?

2:If the big bang started spinning before it exploded, how come planets spin in different directions different then the explosion?

3:What are the chances of life on this earth for humans?

4:Where did a mans conscience come from?

5:Lastly, how come animals stopped (macro) evolving?

Bonus:Which came first? the chicken or the egg?
lazarus_long

Pro

Let's start by clearing up exactly what my opponent seems to intend as the topic of this debate. From his opening remarks, we read:

"Macroevolution is the only thing that does not make sense."

and then later:

"There are many types of Evolution, starting of [sic] with these words,

1:Microevolution, makes sense, this is what it is,

'minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time'

2:Macroevolution is,

'evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups'
(I got these definitions from Microsoft word)"

From these, we need to note two important things: First, my opponent is making the common mistake of treating a dictionary as though it were an adequate substitute for a basic science textbook. Secondly, he is attempting to make the common (among those arguing for creationism, at least) argument that there are actually two "kinds" of evolution - which they (and no one else, really) refer to as "micro" and "macro" - and while he apparently has no quibble with the "micro" version, the "macro," (for some reason that we are never really given), simply "does not make sense." My opponent suffers from a number of other misconceptions regarding evolutionary theory, to the extent that he really winds up setting up a "straw man" argument with which he wishes to do battle. An example, with two mistakes for the price of one, is:

"Okay, Macro evolution is what make apes turn into humans. This is what you an I know as a 'theory.'"

First, no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that "evolution is what makes apes turn into humans," although this is certainly a common misconception among people who simply are too ignorant of evolutionary theory to know better. The other error, and one which is at least a serious, is the sort of misuse of the word "theory" that we so commonly see among those arguing the creationist side of this issue.

In science, a "theory" is actually an explanation which has stood up to testing and is widely accepted as at least one plausible model to explain observed evidence. In short, outside of the observed evidence itself, "theory" is as good as it gets in science; it is NOT something, to paraphrase Isaac Asimov's famous observation, that "we merely made up one night while drunk," which is how those who do not understand the scientific method would like to make it out to be.

And the plain truth is that the evolutionary model or "theory" - which actually comprises a number of real "theories" such as natural selection - is extremely well-tested, well-established, and is the ONLY model which the scientific community currently sees as an adequate explanation for the observed data. By the way, "evolution" is actually NOT a "theory," but rather the observed fact which the theories were created to explain. We see, both in the living world and in the fossil record, overwhelming evidence of changes occuring in life-forms over time, both on the short-term scale and over the longer term. I will present examples of this later in the debate.

There is also no scientific distinction to be made between the supposed "micro" and "macro" versions of evolution. The creationist camp likes to believe that this distinction exists, and is basically the difference between changes within a species, as opposed to changes which result in a new species. It is very difficult, however, to see how such a distinction can truly be made. First, the notion of "species" is an artificial one in the first place. We like to categorize animals into "species," most commonly based on whether or not interbreeding is possible, but this distinction is actually a very fuzzy one within the animal kingdom. Some that we consider different "species" routinely interbreed and produce fertile offspring; others interbreed and produce sterile offspring, while still others do not successfully interbreed at all even though we consider them to be very closely related.

For that matter, what would there be a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution other than the time scale over which the SAME process, in both cases, operates? No one has ever proposed that such a thing as "macro" evolution takes place in a single generation - evolutionary theory does NOT assert that, say, a zebra might give birth to a horse - but why would we NOT expect the cumulative result of many, many tiny changes (so-called "micro" evolution) to be a new species, given sufficient time? Just because it would be inconvenient for one particular religious group's view of the world? Unfortunately for them, we have seen precisely this sort of thing occuring, so again to simply rule it out as "not making sense" is not only illogical itself, but flying in the face of evidence.

My opponent concludes his opening remarks with several questions. Several I will not attempt to answer here, until and unless he can show how they relate to the topic of this debate (specifically, his questions 1 - 4). His final question, though, at least seems to have some relevance, if it is again more than a bit naive:

"5:Lastly, how come animals stopped (macro) evolving?"

Who says that they have? Simply because we do NOT see the evolution of new species in the span of a generation or so? No one has ever claimed that this would happen, so it's again a straw man argument. Animals ARE continuing to evolve (and in fact, there are numerous examples to be found, particularly among species which reproduce rapidly and therefore have gone through a large number of generations within a fairly short and recent time span). But we've only been really observing such things closely for a relatively short time; recorded human history spans perhaps ten thousand years at best, with only the last few thousand having anything remotely close to the sort of recorded detail that would be necessary to draw conclusions on this question. The serious study of biology spans an even shorter time - arguably only a few hundred years. We would hardly expect to see signs of significant evolution among the higher lifeforms (including practically all vertebrates) in that time.

Oh, and by the way:

"Bonus:Which came first? the chicken or the egg?"

The egg, obviously. There were egg-laying creatures - dinosaurs, for example - long before there were chickens or even birds in general.
Debate Round No. 1
guyonthecomputer

Con

guyonthecomputer forfeited this round.
lazarus_long

Pro

lazarus_long forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
guyonthecomputer

Con

guyonthecomputer forfeited this round.
lazarus_long

Pro

lazarus_long forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
1: Can a explosion or a bomb make anything other than chaos?

For about a billion years after the Big Bang, the universe WAS chaos.

2:If the big bang started spinning before it exploded, how come planets spin in different directions different then the explosion?

Our planets orbit a third-generation star, and none of the dust that formed our solar system came directly from the Big Bang.

3:What are the chances of life on this earth for humans?

Do you mean, what were the chances that humans would have evolved? If so, who can say? I don't think anyone knows that.

4:Where did a mans conscience come from?

No one knows that. It's not evidence against evolution.

5:Lastly, how come animals stopped (macro) evolving?

Like lazarus said, they haven't.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
guyonthecomputer -

You should probably do a whole lot more reading up on evolution before you get into this debate. A tadpole growing into a frog is NOT an example of microevolution. That's the natural life cycle of a single species.

An example of microevolution would be the Gray Tree Frog, which is a hybrid that has evolved into a new species from two other distinct species of frog.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution doesn't address the origins of the universe AT ALL. All it says is that species change over time. That's it. There is nothing about it that conflicts with a Biblical interpretation of the creation of the universe, because evolution doesn't seek to explain the creation of the universe.

Apes did not turn into humans - humans and apes share a common ancestor (another classic misconception about evolution).

Your questions are all rather ignorant.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Fred 9 years ago
Fred
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Mrjiggums 9 years ago
Mrjiggums
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by KevinL75 9 years ago
KevinL75
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
guyonthecomputerlazarus_longTied
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:03