The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Macro-evolution Never Occured

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 1 vote the winner is...
18Karl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 74433
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

radz

Pro

Biological evolution is what happened AFTER biological life came into existence.

Biological evolution does NOT tell us HOW the first life began. Rather, it can ONLY tell us what happened AFTER life began.

This debate challange is concerned on the premise that macro-evolution never occured. In other words, speciation in the macro-evolution level never happened.The fact is that macro-evolution is a mere scientific hypothesis ( i.e. Educated GUESS). Up-to-date, there are still NO mechanism that explains HOW a new gene is added into a genome.

On the other hand, micro-evolution did occur. We have a plethora of evidence from nature that micro-evolution happens ( antibiotic resistance etc.).
18Karl

Con

FRAMEWORK

This is a fact debate. We are debating "macro-evolution." Henceforth, we have to start with several definitions, which will be lengthy, but necessary. Firstly, this is not a religious debate-this is a factual debate on macro-evolution. The opposition may base his/her stance on religion and Genesis. However, an argument from the Bible as a "alternative development story" than that of Macro-Evolution ultimately do not assert or negate the case in anyway, unless sufficient proofs are brought out for it. Secondly, this is not a debate about the origins of life. Abiogenesis is not the main contention of this debate. The main contention of this debate is the concept of macroevolution i.e. can life evolve from one species to another?

Macro-Evolution is henceforth defined "evolution on a scale of separate gene-pool," often characterized by the separation of the species from its latest "common ancestor." Hence we have all the right to assert that if macro-evolution were possible in one scenario, then macro-evolution is possible in all scenarios, for the motion here states that macro-evolution never happened, which meant that in this world, macro-evolution never happened once.

The Burden of Proof of Side Proposition is henceforth to prove (a) that historical macro-evolution is false, (b) that even if historical macro-evolution is false, macro-evolution is impossible, and (c) refute all evidences inductive of leading to the conclusion that macro-evolution never occurred. The Burden of Proof of Side Opposition is to simply prove that (a) macro-evolution has happened, which may result in the need to prove that (b) historical macro-evolution has happened, and (c) that all evidences that lead to the macro-evolution conclusion is affirmed.

ARGUMENTS

a.) Observed Macroevolution

In 1905, Hugo DeVries, a noted biologist, delivered a series of lectures on species and varieties. In it, he did note the appearance ofOenothera Gigas. He also noted the fact that the Oenothera Gigas has "never reverted to the [Oenothera] lamarckiana," the mutant that he bred to create the O. Gigas. [1] He noted that O. Gigas on average had "broader, greener [leaves whose] blade more sharply set off against the stalk." This is important, as the parent O. Lamarckiana had much of the same features as the O. Gigas, but they were unable to interbreed. This suggests very clear evidence that the O. Gigas was an actual speciation of the O. Lamarckiana. This is not the only observed example of macroevolution. Goatsbeard were first introduced to the United States in the 19th Century. The three types of goatsbeard introduced (T. dubius, T. pratensis and T. porrifolius) often bred with each other, resulting in the new speciated hybrid called the T. miscellus, which can reproduce with its own kind. These T. miscellus were often sterile, allowing for quick spread of the species. [2] In sentient beings, we can note that the anole lizard has gone through at least 400 speciations, with more being ascribed to it everyday. According to a paper written by Losos, the "nearly 150 Caribbean species are descendants from as few as two initial colonizing species from the mainland." [3] These three instances of observed macro-evolution seriously point out that this was also historical.

b.) Biochemistry

It is a well-known fact that human and chimpanzee genome are very similar, but different. The degree of difference has never been more than ±5%. As Varki reports, the "difference between the [human and chimpanzee] genomes is actually not
1%, but 4%—comprising 35 million single nucleotide differences." [4] This suggests that we have a common ancestor whose genomes were actually wholly similar, some type of Pan Prior between the two species.

c.) Fossils

Fossils represent the best evidences for macro-evolution. Archaeopteryx is an observed transitional fossil that incorporates reptile-mammal differences. The toes of Archaeopteryx had bird-like qualities i.e. they were opposable, whilst the maximilla (mouth and jaw) of the Archaeopteryx was not horn-covered. [5] Although the Archaeopteryx
(Fig. 2) may be seen as a spontaneous addition to the evolutionary timeline, we can easily see that it is not. The Archaeopteryx is preceded by one speciation, called the Velociraptor. The evolution of the Velociraptor could be seen as a random mutation, which did soon lead to modern day birds. Velociraptor had "had two large hand-like appendages with three curved claw," similar to many modern birds, yet it, unlike birds, did not have the ability to fly. [6] The random mutation that led to each evolution is also apparent in whales. Large amounts of evidence points to the fact that whales once had legs. Noting the fact that whales were mamals who swam in a different manner than other fishes (whales move their tails vertically, whilst fishes moved horizontally), scientists were able to shed some light on the evolution of whales. Early whales were genetically close to the Georgiacetus, an underwater mammal, much like a manatee, that feasted on squids and such. These proto-whales, found in the "Tethys Ocean," now between Asia and India, were found to be quite like whales, and at the same time, quite different from whales. For example, although they swam like whales, they lived above the environment in what a modern whale would live in. [7] Whatever the case, modern whales have vestigial pelvis hidden under their thick skin. [8]

Fig. 2: Archeoraptyx



d.) Molecular Evidences

There are some genes which exist in nature that all living things need to function. These are called ubiquitous genes. Cytochrome c is an example of this gene. Via tracking the amount of amino acids in this gene, the amino acids in each gene appears at differing places. It should henceforth be expected that, since the cytochrome c genome in some animals are closer than others, those animals evolved from common ancestry (are more closely related than other animals). An example of this is the monkey-cow and monkey-fish cytochrome c relationships, which suggests, "The cytochrome c of monkeys and cows is more similar than the cytochrome c of monkeys and fish. [This shows] that monkeys and cows art more closely related than are monkeys and fish" as the variance of the gene are more closely related with each other. [11] Apart from this, retroviruses also provide us with a great evidence for evolution. Retroviruses are virus-DNA that are hereditarily passed on.The retroviruses suggest some sort of common ancestry as the viruses are passed species to species, then generation to generation.

Fig. I: Retrovirus Through Species



This clearly shows that the 1% of our genome that is filled with retroviruses, which can only be passed on hereditarily, are similar to those of a gibbon, yet we, in our genome, have other retroviruses that are not found in gibbons etc. This clearly suggests common ancestry.

REFUTATIONS

a.) New Gene added to Genome

The opposition has said that "there are still NO mechanism that explains HOW a new gene is added into a genome." Emphasis on the no-because, nope, this proposition is not true. There are many ways in which a gene could mutate. For example, the hybridization of the horse and donkey has caused the zorse to appear. The zorse is a sterile hybrid animal whose genome is a combination of that of a horse and a donkey, resulting in a particularly disturbing phenotype as a result of two dominant alleles. [9] Apart from this, exposure to other more dangerous materials and the inability for a DNA to accurately copy itself are other explanations of a natural cause for mutation. [10]


b.) Mere "Scientific Hypothesis"

Firstly, macro-evolution is no longer a mere scientific hypothesis, but rather, a tool and (some would argue) a "law" which bases biology. A scientific hypothesis assumes that the result of the hypothesis can still be falsified i.e. the proposition's proof is not already presented. The numerous views based upon what is scientific and what is unscientific can always be prescribed to evolution, or macro-evolution, to show that it is scientific. More will be said on this next round.

THE MOTION IS NEGATED!

CITATIONS:

[1]
http://www.gutenberg.org...
[2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
[3]
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu...
[4]
http://genome.cshlp.org...
[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[6]
http://www.livescience.com...
[7] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[8]
http://www.livescience.com...
[9]
http://mentalfloss.com...
[10]
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[11]
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...
[12] http://www.talkorigins.org...


Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

The debate challenge of Pro proposes that macro-evolution never happened. On the other hand, Pro believes that micro-evolution happened and is still happening.

Macroevolution = theory
Microevolution = fact


The debate challenge is deliberately an educational one. Indeed,it is neither about the origins of life nor religious in its scope.

Refutations

1. Observed Microevolution

What Con believes to be an observed Macroevolution is actually an observed Microevolution.

Let us elucidate this further, Macroevolution is basically talking about new species.

This new species arise because of new genes.

Now science up-to-date fails to tell us the origin of new genes in a genome.

This is the reason why macroevolution is a theory and not a fact like microevolution.

i.) Raphanobrassica (rabbage) is an example of microevolution and not macroevolution.It is a bigeneric hybrid by Polyploidy.

Allopolyploidy results when the sets of chromosomes are derived from two or more distinct, though related species.However, the hybrid species display merely a new combination of pre-existing parental traits encoded by pre-existing genes.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

ii.) Scientists have observed transposons copying and splicing rapidly, which contradicts evolution's traditional scenario of slow and gradual change.Rapid transposon activity appears to be controlled by specific cellular programs and thus is not a product of mutation plus selection, nor is it part of evolution as it has been described.

Reference:

Kalendar, R. et al. 2000. Genome evolution of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) by BARE-1 retrotransposon dynamics in response to sharp microclimatic divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97 (12): 6603-6607.

iii.) Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA,but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.

Reference:

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

iv.) The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA. "The human genome contains a complete set of instructions for the production of a human being…. Genome research has already exposed errors |mutations| in these instructions that lead to heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration."These diseases are crippling, often fatal, and many of the affected pre-born infants are aborted spontaneously, i.e., they are so badly damaged they can't even survive gestation. However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.

One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.

Reference(s):

Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publishing, 26.

Nora, J. et al. 1994. Medical Genetics: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: Lea and Feliger, 3.The Human Genome Project.

Announcement from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, May 6, 1993.


http://scienceblogs.com...


Conclusion:

There is still no scientific consensus on any biological mechanism for microevolution. The reason why the debate challege speaks of an emphatic "no" in regards to the mechanism for macroevolution.


2. Biochemistry

A specie shares a common lineage within the microevolution level.

This is best explained by epigenetics.

Epigenetics is the wherein [heritable traits] genes are either on [active] or off [inactive] in expression depending on the instance of its occurence whether favorable or not [through new combinations of genes and not through new genes]. This explains natural selection by adaptation in the microevolution level.

Reference(s):

http://www.whatisepigenetics.com...

http://discovermagazine.com...

3. Fossils

The supposed transitional fossils are not "transitional" fossils at all.

The reason is that all of the supposed transitional fossils are fully formed and hence, it is obviously not transitional.
    • "All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94
    • "The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte
    • "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist
    • "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley


It is a scientific fact in Molecular Biology that irreducible complexity is the main factor that makes us understand why the fossils showed up fully formed.

Reference:

http://www.evolutionnews.org...

4. Molecular Evidences

The results of the most in-depth human genome study to date, called the "ENCODE" project, revealed that 80 percent or more of the human genome appears to have some use in the set of human body tissues they investigated.1 This contrasts starkly to the evolutionary claim that "roughly 45 percent of the human genome is made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam" or "junk DNA."

Reference:

The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.

The reason why both chimpanzees and men have such similar-looking transposons in similar chromosomes could be because the sequences were programmed to serve similar biological functions. Or, they could have followed similar biologically significant patterns when they were being copied and inserted, for reasons that are no longer discernible.

Since transposons did not come from ancient viruses, but are instead essential parts of genomes, they can no longer be used to support the belief that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Reference:

Wells, J. 2000. Icons of Evolution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.


Arguments:

We have a scientific proof that the chicken precedes the egg in existence.This is clearly not macroevolution.

Reference:

http://www.nbcnews.com...


18Karl

Con

EXTENSION

a.) Observed Microevolution

Firstly, the opposition has clearly disregarded "evolution on a scale of separate gene-pool" definition for his own (non-existent) definitions of macroevolution. Observed microevolution is clearly a fact-both sides actually acknowledge this. However, the opposition has clearly not acknowledged any of my arguments on the O. gigas and the complete Mendelian separation that it has experienced from the O. Lamarckiana. The opposition has not acknowledged that (a) the creation of a new species does not often postulate a huge jump, and (b) that the sense in which "theory" is used is more accurate to that of "theorem."

Let us deal (b) first. Accordingly to Biologist Jaime Tanner, "in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." [1] There are many currently accepted "scientific theories" that are often accepted without much debate around them. Apart from those who wish to be absurd, the heliocentric theory, or the Copernican view of the Universe, is a theory that is accepted with much less debate that what goes on right now. [2]

Now let us deal with (a). The opposition states that "new species arise because of new genes." This is true, but the opposition then goes on to say that "science up-to-date fails to tell us the origin of new genes in a genome." Upon further anlaysis, the opposition has then completely ignored the possibility of gene duplication. Gene duplication is "[genes that are] once-identical genes can undergo changes and diverge to create two different genes." [3] This often happens by many methods: one of them is called "Ectopic Recombination," which basically happens when an unequal-cross over of genes causes a difference in the DNA size in the chromosome. [4] Studies on this method of new genetic additions by Jianjhi Zhang shows that for bacteria M. pneumoniae, 44% of the genes have been duplicated viaectopic recombination. [5] Evolution by gene duplication is quickly becoming an interesting theory in which many scientists are now investigating into.

Comments on 2nd Excerpt

The opposition cites Kalendar's "Genome Evolution of Wild Barley" when clearly the whole paragraph is directly copied and pasted from Creationism.org, which does not cite Kalendar's paper. In fact, Kalendar's paper "examined the role of the BARE-1 retrotransposon in genome diversification in individuals at the Evolution Canyon microsite, Lower Nahal Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel." Species were not artificially cultivated from a set time, but "collected at six stations located along a 300-m north-south transect across the NFS (North Facing Slope) and SFS (South Facing Slope) of Evolution Canyon." The results concluded that "the SFS [plants have] larger genomes than the NFS [plants]," which does not in anyway prove that "transposons copying and splicing rapidly" could cause rapid evolution. Even if this is true, and some papers seem to uphold this view (ex. Ellison 2015), this would still be a proof of macroevolution. [6]

Comments on Other Excerpts

They are not in anyways directly related to the BoP of the opposition, and henceforth, must be disregarded.


b.) Epigenetics and Biochemistry

The opposition's understanding of "epigenetics" is abit shaky. Epigenetics studies "a change in phenotype without a change in genotype." [7] Here is where the opposition's arguments fail; biochemical evidences, however, shows that the genotype of a species suggestscommon lineage. The opposition holds that epigenetics "explains natural selection by adaptation in the microevolution level." Epigenetics also explains how the environment effects the phenotype of the individual, whilst the genotype is often similiar. The human being and the chimpanzee is the best example-since they live in highly different societies, the human has developed the ability to be rational and the ability to discuss rationality. However, the chimp has no such ability, perhaps due to the fact that chimp language is still primitive. The phenotype of the two species are different, yet the genotype is very very similar-96% in fact.

c.) AoA and Transitional Fossils

The opposition here does not in anyway refute the Archeoraptyx and Georgiacetus examples. The opposition's case is based mainly on a series of quotes. I call this "argument from authority." Let me deal with the only non-fallacious statement in the whole argument, then deal with the Sophistical arguments later. The opposition says that "it is a scientific fact in Molecular Biology that irreducible complexity (abb. IC from now) is the main factor that makes us understand why the fossils showed up fully formed." Is it? Firstly, IC is scientific
iff a creator is scientific. I will not get into the question of a creator. I will simply respond to this with the following: "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Just because we don't know does not mean we need to appeal to other things to make the theory sensical. [8] Secondly, the arguments from authority do not prove much. It just proves that this is all the opposition can muster against the actual evidences presented.

d.) Molecular Evidences

Firstly, the opposition assumes the Lamarckian mistake-the environment does not change the genotype of the individual in anyway (although it might do so in a specie when bad variants are eliminated). To assert that "chimpanzees and men have such similar-looking transposons in similar chromosomes [is] because the sequences were programmed to serve similar biological functions" brings some programmer into the picture. Apart from that, this is simply not true; Gupta and Lewontin (1981) observed that different genotypes donot undergo genotypical changes due to environment; they simply react differently to the change. [9] Apart from this, the mere usage of the word "transposon" seems to make it clear that transposons are "genomes," so to say. However, a transposon is a DNA sequence that can change its position within the genome; these make up the "~35 million single nucleotide differences" between the Chimp and Human genome. [10] Again, these differences do not prove that macro-evolution never happened. The opposition has yet to respond to the retrovirus argument and the cytochrome C arguments, which make up the core of the "molecular evidences" in which I have presented.

REBUTTALS

a.) Evolution as a Mere Scientific Hypothesis

Some comments have been made about this in EXTENSION a.). However, I would like to contribute more into the discussion of the true meaning of theory in science. The opposition says that "Macroevolution = theory." The opposition, however, commmits a straw-man. Scientific theories are not normal theories. For example, when I say "Schopenhauer's arguments are just a theory," I would often mean that he attempts to give an a priori explanation of the world. However, when I say that "heliocentrisim is a scientific theory," I (as would many scientists) often means that it has passed a substantial amount of revision.


Firstly, evolution is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is often a prediction that is falsifiable; for example, "the increase in the extension of a rubber band would directly increase the average velocity of an object" is an hypothesis. However, the fact that force is proportional to acceleration is a scientific theory derived from the Newton's 2nd Law. A scientific theory is often a theory that makes predicitions that (a.) empirically falsifiable, (b.) well-supported by many strands of evidences, and (c.) consistent with pre-existing empirical observations.

An example of a widely accepted scientific theory is the theory of General Relativity and Special Relativity. Both of these theories initially made empirically falsifiable predictions (GR predicts that the perhilion of Mars will slightly miss the moon, in stark difference to the Newtonian prediction, and this happened) and were well-supported by many strands of pre-existing and currently existing evidences. No one would doubt the falsity of general relativity, although some hope for a unification between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The "just-a-theory" objection often means that the opposition is willing to say that gravity is not real (as it is based on Newton's Theories), the the Big Bang never happened etc. On a basis of consistency, this would fail.

The resolution is negated!


CITATIONS:

[1]
http://www.livescience.com...
[2] http://www.vibrationdata.com...
[3] http://www.medicinenet.com...
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[5] http://www.umich.edu...
[6]
http://www.pnas.org...
[7]
http://www.whatisepigenetics.com...
[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9]
http://www.jstor.org...
[10]
http://genome.cshlp.org...

Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.This is true to microevolution but not to macroevolution.

Macro-evolution is an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis). It's a probable scientific explanation of how diverse sorts of biological specie exists. Basically, this is the second phase of biological evolution being the micro-evolution the first phase.

It is said that Microevolution ( i.e. The first phase of biological evolution) will inevitably undergo macroevolution ( i.e. Speciation of an organism dramatically results into a completely different specie than its ancestor) as time goes by.

Con's definition of macroevolution as "evolution on a scale of separated gene pools" is a mere theory in itself.Everything in macroevolution speciation is just a theory.Evolutionists scientists say that microevolution will inevitably undergo macroevolution with just one variable: time.

This is the mathematical formula that explains macro-evolution:

Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation + sufficient time = Diversification and Speciation.

The crux of the argument is TIME and indeed, a long one that none of the scientists can observe. Science works on induction and hence, because macro-evolution cannot be observed science could only speculate about it.

Science works on induction. It can only know what it can only observe with the human senses. This is naturalistic per se. This is what we call scientific.

On the other hand, philosophy seeks to explain things on the basis of logic and reason.

Consider this classic example:

Up-to-date, there is no scientific evidence that the macro part of biological evolution exists. We do not yet have a scientifically known mechanism in biological science wherein a new gene is added into a genome. Scientists would only used a "long time" a priori knowledge plus " micro-evolution scientific mechanisms" in order to come up with this scientific hypothesis of macro-evolution.

To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the world that meets three requirements: it is supported by evidence, is testable and falsifiable, and can be used to make predictions.

My original argument is that macroevolution never happened and that it is merely a theory.As I have expounded on earlier, the reason why macroevolution is just a theory is due to the fact that everything it has comes from microevolution plus sufficient time.

Refutations

Con's argument:

O. Gigas was an actual speciation of the O. Lamarckiana.

Pro's response:

Hugo De Vries (1848-1935) demonstrated from his research on the evening primrose that dramatic new varieties and traits can arise suddenly without explanation. He and others believed that these macromutations finally gave evolutionists a mechanism for producing new genetic traits. Further research found De Vries's changes were not due to mutations, but unequal chromosome numbers in evening primroses that cause hybrid plants to appear, producing new varieties.

The idea of macromutations was briefly resurrected in the 1940s by University of California Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. He concluded that the origin of major new animal and plant varieties was due to "hopeful monsters," single mutations involving large and complex changes. We now know that hundreds or thousands of mutations are required to produce all the changes needed to evolve a new animal order. Additionally, no satisfactory mechanism for macromutations has been proposed by modern neo-Darwinists.

Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear -- neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information. "Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues" (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death. Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, the honor society for scientists, added that "many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation(purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!' I say" (Margulis, 2006, 194).

Con's argument:


Kalendar's paper "examined the role of the BARE-1 retrotransposon in genome diversification in individuals at the Evolution Canyon microsite, Lower Nahal Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel." Species were not artificially cultivated from a set time, but "collected at six stations located along a 300-m north-south transect across the NFS (North Facing Slope) and SFS (South Facing Slope) of Evolution Canyon." The results concluded that "the SFS [plants have] larger genomes than the NFS [plants]," which does not in anyway prove that "transposons copying and splicing rapidly" could cause rapid evolution. Even if this is true, and some papers seem to uphold this view (ex. Ellison 2015), this would still be a proof of macroevolution.

Pro's response:

Con should have stated WHY did he think that transposons are still a proof of macroevolution.

On Gene Duplication

Gene duplication does occur.It occurs within the microevolution level.

Reference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

http://www.britannica.com...


In fact,just like mutation, epigenetics, genetic drift,transposons,etc., it only occurs in microevolution.To insist that gene duplication is a mechanism of macroevolution is to insist the unproven theory of macroevolution! (Go back to the earlier argument on this round)

"The vast majority of mutations eventually arising in the duplicates are harmful, meaning they result in function loss; the duplicates would need to stick around for generations before acquiring helpful mutations."

Reference:

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

On Epigenetics

Epigenetics does not support speciation in the macroevolution level.


Epigenetic changes, or chemical markers on DNA that can turn genes on or off, may play a role in natural selection.It involve the addition of chemical tags in an organism's genome without actually changing the genetic code.

Both the DNA nucleotides and the proteins that DNA is wrapped around (called histones) the genes can be chemically tagged by different types of controlling molecules that determine how genes are turned on and off. Thus, the epigenetic regulation of the genome can produce differences in traits without actually being related to changes in the DNA sequence itself. What's even more amazing is that these changes can be inherited over multiple generations. Thus, epigenetic changes unexpectedly facilitate variability and speciation within the gene pool.

Lamarckian view of inheritance (a belief that acquired, rather than genetic, characteristics, can be passed on) is vindicated by epigenetics only in its sense that acquired characteristics can be passed on.This is without any reference to new genes but only of new combination of preexisting genes.

Reference(s):

http://www.livescience.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://discovermagazine.com...

On Biochemistry

Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than "98.5% identical," a commonly quoted statistic.

More recent studies have shown that the true genetic divergence between humans and apes is probably closer to 5%.

Reference:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

On the Fossils

Pro's authoritative argument stands unrefuted.The argument from authority which Pro has shown does not negate the facts presented.The fact is that it fully supports the facts!

Con said that I.C. is scientific if a creator is scientific.I will not get into the question of a creator. I will simply respond to this with the following:

Likewise, I will not get into the question of a creator. I will simply respond to this with the following:

Macroevolution is scientific if the way it is interpreted is scientific.

Well, it is not. Macroevolution is interpreted via microevolution.The reason why macroevolution is just a mere theory as explained earlier.

It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy (Dr. Grady S. McMurty, 2011).


18Karl

Con

EXTENSIONS

a.) Mutation and Macro-Evolution

We have a direct and clear definition of "macroevolution" i.e. "evolution on a scale of separate gene-pool." The excerpt quoted here (which is directly from the Institute of Creation Research) talks about how the O. Gigas is actually a "a large number of small mutations [which creates] macroevolution." Even if this is true, the opposition has totally ignored the fact that all O. gigas varieties studied by DeVries were unable to create the O. Lamarckiana, often signifying that a new species has transformed (and not just a insiginificant mutation). The opposition then goes on to assert that "mutation accumulation does not lead to new species." Let us analyze this claim further. From the same book that the opposition (or rather, ICR) quotes from, we then see that "entire sets of genomes...are acquired and incorporated by others" is the true cause of speciation and divergence. [1] To Marguilis's second quote, she also affirms (in the same statement) that "all populations grow at rates more rapid than their immediate environment sustains. What Darwin called natural selection is simply this fact of elimination: Never do 100 percent of the offspring survive to reproduce 100 percent."[3] Independent species could arise via many other factors apart from that of "mutation." Factors such as geographical isolation, plague etc. could also lead to speciation.

Apart from this, a paper from Nosil (2010) attempted to study "how gene flow, hybrid incompatibility, selective advantage, timing of origination of new mutations and an initial period of allopatric differentiation affect population divergence." Using a relatively strong statistical model, Nosil soon found out that fixation of alleles (i.e. alleles becoming dominant) was possible "when (i) incompatible mutations have similar fitness advantages, (ii) less fit mutations arise slightly earlier in evolutionary time than more fit alternatives, and (iii) divergence occurs prior to secondary contact," which directly contradicts the relatively unsupported conclusion that mutations do not lead to speciation. [2]

PS: Macromutation

Macro-evolution does not in anyway assume macromutations whatsoever. The opposition says that "no satisfactory mechanism for macromutations has been proposed by modern neo-Darwinists." This is because evolution does not work by huge leaps; it works by taking small leaps. The opposition's account of macro-mutation also dwinds on argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence does not necessitate the evidence of absence. In fact, the only major observed instances of macro-mutation are not speciations

For example, phenotypic changes (wings/no wings) in Drosphillia does not always necessitate speciation; they are still all drosphillias. They just have differing phenotypes. [10]


b.) Gene Duplication and Macro-Evolution

It has been affirmed by the opposition that "gene duplication occurs within the microevolution level." Firstly, neither of the sources provided to support this claim actually provides evidence that gene duplication is exclusively micro-evolutionary. In fact, Hobbs's paper states that "these results indicate that processes of recombination and genetic exchange contributed to variability," indicating the speciation was a macro-evolutionary possibility. Even if this is so, we could even go further. Studies have shown that at least 15% of flowering plant speciation and 33% of fern population are directly speciated via gene-duplication. [4] In sentient beings, drosphillia gene-speciation fills in the ad hoc missing link. Accordingly to a study by Ting (2004), shows that that OdSH gene, which arose as a gene-duplicant of the ucr-4 gene in Drosphillia, causes direct sterility between both types of hybrid drosphillia. [5] This result is consistent with Phadnis (2009), which shows that a similar gene causes "sterility...in F1 hybrids between the Bogota and USA subspecies of Drosophila pseudoobscura." [6]

c.) Fossils and "Science"

This is where the most absurd extension resides. Can we call the aggregate totality of the quotes presented by the opposition "facts," or should we say that it is something someone simply said? This is where the basis of the opposition's arguments fails to make any appeal whatsoever. They are merely arguments from authority.

We are told that "macroevolution is scientific if the way it is interpreted is scientific." The substantiation for showing that macroevolution is pseudo-scientific is simple: "Macroevolution is interpreted via microevolution." Even if this is so, if macroevolution and microevolution are interdependent on each other, and since one is scientific, shouldn't the other one be so?

The opposition says that "Science works on induction." This positivistic statement is clearly false. Science, from the logical positivist paradigm, works on induction-but from the widely accepted Popperian doctrine, science is a result of deduction. Science works based on a hypothesis which is falsifiable-all independent variables are attempt to falsify that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is falsified, then the hypothesis is rejected, and vice-versa. Where does induction come into this?

Again, the "just-a-theory" refutation is an absurd refutation. Macro-Evolution is supported by a plethora of evidence, is both verifiable and falsifiables, and has made accurate predictions. Henceforth, it is a scientific theory-not theory which the opposition seemingly understands it.

d.) Epigenetics

The opposition says that "epigenetics does not support speciation in the macroevolution level." This is funny, since I never used epigenetics as a evidence for macro-evolution. Nevertheless, epigenetics does not in any way challenge macro-evolution. Although epigenetics at fist glance does seem to provide a challenge to Macro-Evolution, could we not look at soft inheritance as merely another aspect of F1 mutation? As Haig (2006) argues, "
Epigenetic inheritance expands the range of options available to genes but evolutionary adaptation remains the product of natural selection of random variation." [7] For is it not clear that even if non-DNA changes are added on a genome via environmental factors, the original genome itself was a random variation of the original species? This directly challenges the opposition's (ulterior) claims that epigenetics is making macro-evolution unlikely. Apart from this, Lamarckian inheritance is not fully supported via epigenetics. For although changes in genotype due to environment is present, Lamarckian inheritance postulates transgenerational phenotypic and genotypic changes in F2 generations. [8]

e.) Mendelian Genetics

The opposition states here that "the Laws of Genetics are conservative." To a point, they are-however, Mendelian genetics (the Law of Segregation etc.) does not provide any evidence for the origins of genes. Quite simply, Mendelian genetics is a tool for determining the phenotype of a gene. What the opposition says here does in no way refute my case whatsoever.

f.) Transposons

The opposition says that "Con should have stated WHY did he think that transposons are stilla proof of macroevolution." Indeed, it would have been clear from that fact that since transposons always results in a reorganization of an allele, it would necessarily follow that new alleles would be evolved from transposons-this new allele creates mutation to ultimately achieve speciation. If the opposition thinks that this argument is too "a priori" for him, a paper by Kloeckener-Gruisem in 1993 notes that in "the plant Antirrhinum...the expression of nivea is now under the control of a different gene [as a result of transposons]." In the same paper, it was noted that "[these transposons] led to an unusual pattern of gene expression: increased levels of enzyme activity in one organ, decreased levels in another, and almost unchanged levels in a third organ," which signify a change in allele behaviour. [9]

g.) Bio-Chemistry

Again, the opposition states here that "more recent studies have shown that the true genetic divergence between humans and apes is probably closer to 5%." Locutions de minimis non curat praetor; what the opposition has asserted is that humans and chimpanzees do have common ancestry, as the opposition has recognized that genome similarities between the two are ±5% divergent, yet (±5%) 95% same in genotypical ratios.

CITATIONS:

[1] https://books.google.co.th...
[2] http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
[3] http://www.americanscientist.org...
[4] http://newsinfo.iu.edu...
[5] http://www.pnas.org...
[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] http://www.oeb.harvard.edu...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.pnas.org...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...



Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

On Mutation and Macro-Evolution

Pro presented pure science.Con needs to read Pro's whole response:

Hugo De Vries (1848-1935) demonstrated from his research on the evening primrose that dramatic new varieties and traits can arise suddenly without explanation. He and others believed that these macromutations finally gave evolutionists a mechanism for producing new genetic traits. Further research found De Vries's changes were not due to mutations, but unequal chromosome numbers in evening primroses that cause hybrid plants to appear, producing new varieties.

The idea of macromutations was briefly resurrected in the 1940s by University of California Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. He concluded that the origin of major new animal and plant varieties was due to "hopeful monsters," single mutations involving large and complex changes. We now know that hundreds or thousands of mutations are required to produce all the changes needed to evolve a new animal order. Additionally, no satisfactory mechanism for macromutations has been proposed by modern neo-Darwinists.

Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear -- neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information. "Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues" (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death. Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, the honor society for scientists, added that "many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation(purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!' I say" (Margulis, 2006, 194).

Unless Con rebut what was presented, it cannot be said that the response is null and void but only as it is, remained unrefuted. Is there any unscientific in what was presented? Heaven forbid.

On the Transitional Fossils and Science


The supposed transitional fossils are not "transitional" fossils at all.

The reason is that all of the supposed transitional fossils are fully formed and hence, it is obviously not transitional.



      • "All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94





      • "The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte





      • "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist





      • "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley





Instead of disagreeing with the scientists that is in agreement with my proposition, Con should rather have presented at least one transitional fossil that is without any shadow of doubt a transitional fossil acknowledged by a scientific consensus.

On Epigenetics and Biological Evolution

In epigenetics, some evolution (change) may not depend on genes (unit of heredity) per se bur rather, on the epigenome (chemical markers) that turns on and off genes.This is basically new combination of genes (reshuffling = epigenetics) and not new genes coming into existence (macroevolution).

Epigenetics occurs under natural conditions as well as by free volition of a sentient specie (e.g. homo sapiens sapiens).

The change that happens at the epigenetic level is inheritable ( can be passed on from one generation to the next).

Reference(s):

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu...

http://discovermagazine.com...

http://www.livescience.com...

On Gene Duplication and Macro-Evolution

Speciation does occur within the microevolution level.Pro agrees.

But Con assumed that the studies he cited is macroevolution at work.This is a logical fallacy of Non-sequitur.

In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genesR13;mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creatureR13;merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

Truly, speciation never occured within the macroevolution level.

What do you think about this scientific research? Tell me Con, is this unscientific?

Reference(s):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.

On the Transposons

Con's argument:

"Since transposons always results in a reorganization of an allele, it would necessarily follow that new alleles would be evolved from transposons-this new allele creates mutation to ultimately achieve speciation. If the opposition thinks that this argument is too "a priori" for him, a paper by Kloeckener-Gruisem in 1993 notes that in "the plant Antirrhinum...the expression of nivea is now under the control of a different gene [as a result of transposons]." In the same paper, it was noted that "[these transposons] led to an unusual pattern of gene expression: increased levels of enzyme activity in one organ, decreased levels in another, and almost unchanged levels in a third organ," which signify a change in allele behaviour."

Pro's response:

Indeed it is because HOW could a reorganization of an allele would inevitably cause new alleles? (macroevolution).The scientific literature Con proposes only and merely spoke of a change at the microevolution level.The reason is that transposons are essential parts of genomes and new combination (or may we borrow Con's word " reorganization ") is the change that transpires at transposon level.

Reference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Bio-Chemistry

Con cannot escaped the fact that a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.


Reference(s):

Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.

Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry in the macro-evolution level.

We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium.

Yes.Humans and chimps may be similar but that does not mean that they came (origin) from a common ancestor in the macroevolution level.Common genome does not mean "of common descent".How much more is similar genome? It cannot be of common descent!


18Karl

Con

EXTENSIONS

a.) Gene Duplication and Macro-Evolution

The opposition calls my case a non-sequitur, saying that the conclusion does not follow, and that speciation occurs on a micro-evolutionary scale. This is the crux of absurdity; macro-evolution and speciation are ONE AND THE SAME! Referring to the definition of evolution on a separate gene basis, a small mutation, which leads to a separation of species, could ultimately lead to what is called speciation. Hence, what the opposition says is science-and science that supports macro-evolution. What the opposition said here is also a huge blow to his argument-for his reason to supporting the denial of macro-evolution is to call macro-evolution micro-evolution!

Secondly, the opposition says "fruit flies [Drosphillia] could not evolve." The opposition (or rather, the Institute of Creation Research) however fails to understand what they are saying themselves. The opposition cites a paper by Tautz (1998). However, on further inspection of this paper, this paper studies the divergence of a gene that causes hunchback conditions in fruit flies. [1] Moreover, the opposition ignores the fact that many fruit flies have been observed speciating. A paper by Coryne (1989) found "that mating discrimination and postzygotic isolation evolve at comparable rate," prompting researches to conclude that "the genetic distance required to attain species status, i.e., to reach a "total isolation" value is 0.85," indeed asserting that the fruit-fly can indeed speciate and henceforth evolve. [2]

b.) Mutation and Macro-Evolution

Pro says that "found De Vries's changes were not due to mutations, but unequal chromosome numbers in evening primroses that cause hybrid plants to appear, producing new varieties." Clearly, this still ignores the fact that the O. Gigas were unable to create any O. Lamarckiana. In fact, the O. Gigas and the O. Lamarckiana cannot be considered true macro-mutational changes. They were still evening primroses. Pro says the case was not refuted. Perhaps Pro is standing on his head-I have presented Nosil (2010) in direct opposition to the mutation-speciation hypothesis. Pro wants more. Pro will have more. In reviewing speciation research since the creation of new genetic advances, Nei (2011) say, “the genomes of flowering plants are fundamentally polyploidy,” which is not wrong, as at least 30% of all plants are products of polyploidization. [3,4] This suggests that at least 3 of every 10 plants once had the same number of chromosomes, but soon, some plants doubled, diverging from their original plants to becoming new separate species whatsoever-a type of genetic mutation. This directly refutes the “mutation and no speciation” hypothesis of the opposition.

Moreover, mutation is not the only tool that could cause speciation. Isolation is another factor one needs to consider. The opposition did not seem to pick this up. The London Underground Mosquito is an example of this-some Mosquitos were trapped underground, and recently speciated in such a manner that makes it genetically dissimilar enough to be called a species. [5]

c.) Transposons and 'Homology'

The opposition affirms that "the scientific literature Con proposes only and merely spoke of a change at the microevolution level." This is simply absurd-is not the addition of new alleles a direct tool for the creation of new phenotypes and genotype? Does this not necessarily lead to speciation, and macro-evolutionary changes in the long term level?

Pro then assumes that the greatest blow to my case is the fact that ">98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect." De minimis! What the opposition then goes on to say is that "Common genome does not mean "of common descent." How much more is similar genome? It cannot be of common descent!" Apart from the horrid grammar (which shows that the opposition actually wrote this, not copy and pasted it from somewhere), this is simply false. Why is it so then that, even if epigenetical factors come into influence, that humans and mouses have a 60% genomic similarity, yet huge phenotypic irregularities and divergence from each other? [6] The opposition says that "[the genome structure] of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium." The opposition would be glad to know indeed of the existence of the Wallace Line, which separates a species of bat away from each other. To the East of the Wallace Lines, Marsupials are dominant; to the West, placentals are dominant. The opposition would be glad to find that the geographic isolation of both of them has speciated the Bats into two species, even though phenotypic similarity between them were huge. [7]

We may henceforth conclude that phenotype does not necessarily lead to similar genotype, as the opposition affirms in his original argument (which states that genotypic similarity does not necessitate common ancestry). This ultimately creates the explanation for genotypic similarity unsound.

d.) Epigenetics

The opposition says that macro-evolution is new genes coming into existence. What is this but not a total attempt to destroy and undermine the true definitions of this debate? Macro-Evolution is evolution on the scale of separate gene pool levels-which does not presume the spontaneous existence of new genes whatsoever (although it does assume the change of an old gene to create another version of the old gene). The opposition's attempts at understanding epigenetics is purely absurd. The opposition says that "Epigenetics occurs under natural conditions as well as by free volition of a sentient species." Are you saying that my desire of a tail will create a tail? Or my desire to be a monkey will make me a monkey? This is absurd-although epigenetic changes can happen as a result of our actions, we cannot make tails whatsoever.

Epigenetics does not challenge Macro-Evolution in any way whatsoever-all epigenetic changes could be viewed as the creation of other variations, which is all normal in the cycle of evolution and life.

e.) Fossils

I will tackle this in a (a.) sophistical manner, and then (b.) in an synthetical manner. The opposition (a.) firstly starts off by saying that "Con should rather have presented at least one transitional fossil that is without any shadow of doubt a transitional fossil acknowledged by a scientific consensus." Pro should have "without any shadow of doubt" read my first argument, which details the development of the Archeoraptyx and several other transitional fossils. Apart from this, this is an argument from "populace." "Since x disagrees with y, and since 9,000 other people disagree with y, y is wrong" is an invalid formation of any argument whatsoever. Moreover, Pro says that the fossils "are fully formed and hence, it is obviously not transitional." What is Pro trying to say here? By saying that they are spontaenous is obviously a illogical thing to do. The fossils we have only present a very, VERY tiny minority of all life that has ever existed on this earth of ours-we should not henceforth assume full perfection at the records that it shows.


NEVERTHELESS,
by (b.) observing the changing phenotypes for ancient birds and ancient whales, would the opposition not argue that they look fundamentally different from today's beings? That is because they were fully formed for their time! For example, the Attercopus is often considered to be a distinct ancestor of current day spiders. The Attercopus produces silk instead of spider-webs, a clear indication that the Attercopus's phenotype differs from the phenotype of the Spider, yet they were some important similar phenotypes, like the Attercopus and the modern Spider both have eight legs. [8] The fossil record is in no way complete; but in the case of the Attercopus, we can trace their phenotypically similar cousins to the Jurrasic period, where the first modern spiders first came into existence. [9] We are henceforth given a timeline-incomplete, yet abled enough for comparisons to be made about evolution. Indeed, it can be certain that fossils indeed give enough evidence for supporting macro-evolution.

CONCLUSIONS

The opposition's case fails on many respects. Apart from fallacies commited, the BoP of the opposition has yet to been filled. The resolution is negated on this respect!

CITATIONS:

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.jstor.org...
[3] http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org...
[4]http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...

[5] http://phylointelligence.com...
[6] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[7] http://www.researchsea.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

Gene Duplication and Macroevolution

Con was very wrong in his assetion that speciation is equivalent to macroevolution because both macroevolution and microevolution talk about changes in allele frequency.The only thing which varies is the temporal scales.

This blunder of Con made him to assert that what I mean by "fruit flies could not evolve" is that fruit flies cannot speciate.The way Con thinks it is not very right because Pro has already and indeed, has always argued that speciation does occur albeit only at the microevolution level.

Microevolution is about variation within the species and thatvariations have limitations. That limitation is within the genetic information of the species.

For example, the new species raphanobrassica is a speciation at the microevolution level.The species in question is still undoubtly within the taxonomy of flora (kingdom plantae).

Why some of the ancient animals different from todays' animals? The reason is that microevolutionary changes did occur.

On the other hand, macroevolution is about big, huge and super changes as the name per se shows.

The example of this is shown in the acronym FARM ( from fish to amphibian to reptiles to mammals) and as has been already shown in the previous rounds, this is a mere philosophical a priori theory integrated in science by means of microevolutionary facts.

It is agreed upon by both Pro and Con that Gene Duplication is a reorganization of an (preexisting) allele.It is clear that Gene Duplication does not cause new genes but only new combinations of genes.Therefore, we can conclude that Gene Duplication does not cause speciation at the macroevolution level.

Mutation and Macroevolution

By 1918,American Geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller had collected sufficient evidence in Drosophilia to be confident that De Vries' s mutants were not due to actual changes in the genes but rather were the result of recombinations and anomalies in the segragation of choromosomes...the transformation of O. Lamarckiana wasn't caused by a new mutation at all; instead, it was caused by a sudden expression of a group of cryptic ressesive mutations that has been accumulating for generations on a pair of balanced lethals.

Reference:

https://books.google.com.ph...'s%20changes%20were%20not%20due%20to%20mutations&f=false

Trasnsposons and Homology

Con asked:

"Is not the addition of new alleles a direct tool for the creation of new phenotypes and genotype? Does this not necessarily lead to speciation, and macro-evolutionary changes in the long term level?"

Pro's response to Con's twofold questions:

Yes and Yes. The addition of new alleles is a direct tool for the creation of new phenotypes and genotype.This wouldnecessarily lead to speciation, and macro-evolutionary changes in the long term level BUT have you or have any scientist up-to-date know any biological mechanism that is without controversy clearly producing new alleles? Enough of the theories on macroevolution.The original argument of Pro is still standing still.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

"A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg " ~The Selfish Gene (1976).

In the theory of macroevolution, the answer is the egg but in real science, it is the chicken!

Reference:

http://www.nbcnews.com...

What this shows is that "all species" do not share the same "common ancestor."

Up-to-date, no scientists know what the first species are.But scientists now know that a fully formed species might have been in existence preceding its offspring.

These three species are three distinct species with their own genetic information very different from each other:

Species 1: G. Gallus
Species 2: C. Lupus
Species 3: B. Taurus

Evolution does not talk about the origin of the first species but rather, it merely and only talks about of what happened after the species came into existence.Therefore, we cannot theorize that "all species have a common ancestor."Rather, what we can only conclude (based on scientific evidence) is that every species has their own common ancestry and not that "all species have a common ancestor."

Mammals from mammals and not mammals from reptiles.

Birds from birds and not birds from reptiles.

Amphibians from amphibians and not amphians from fish.

Epigenetics

Con misapprehended the argument of Pro. Even Con himself equated speciation ( which highly involves the "coming of new genes into existence") with macroevolution in the very same round.

Con asked:

Are you saying that my desire of a tail will create a tail? Or my desire to be a monkey will make me a monkey?

Pro's response:

Con needs to know that in the science of Epigenetics, the theory of use and disuse is an essential part.Modern Genetics have sufficient scientific evidence on this.

In Epigenetics, phenotype affects genotype.This means that voluntary acts and voluntary use is part of Epigenetics.

Reference(s):

http://content.time.com...

http://www.livescience.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fossils

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings (Fedducia, 1993).

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton, suggesting that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

CONCLUSIONS:

Con did not refute the original proposition as you yourselves can read in this debate challenge.Pro had a critical analysis on this type of educational flatform of discussion as well as a cogent argument in this debate challenge.

The resolution is that macroevolution never happened.
18Karl

Con

18Karl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
The Process of evolution is single, ongoing, proven process of constant change through mutation and subsequent selection processes. Micro- and Macro- are means of dividing the timescale at a point of speciation; they are artificial means of applying organization to the process. Macroevolution does not entail the instantaneous change from one species to another (i.e., cat to fish). Note that the term "species" is not solidly defined in science, either, because nature does not abide by our definitions, our definitions are subjective to nature.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
RFD:
Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited the final round. No significant Spelling and Grammar errors by either participant.. Pro appears to misunderstand the meaning of "scientific theory" and what macroevolution actually is, which is address by Con (see next comment) The majority of arguments in this debate are being argued from these differing definitions (mostly macroevolution), so the arguments are practically ad nauseam. Both participants argued well and provided supported arguments, but Pro did not fully refute all arguments and rebuttals presented by Con. For instance, regarding the fossil record, Pro's argument was logical fallacy, argument from authority, so the resolution is not proven. Arguments to Con. Both participants cited plenty of sources, but Pro's sources were weaker, as he more often relied on lesser sources such as blogs and wikipedia. Con makes an accusation about Pro copy/pasting from Creationism.org, which Pro does not defend. However, no proof was provided so this bare assertion is dismissed. Sources to Con.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
Please stop copy and pasting.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
btw will u fkin stop copy and pasting. Paraphrase. Don't paste whole excerpts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
radz18KarlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: =RFD in comments=