The Instigator
AdvancedAtom
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
thejames
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Macro evolution: Possible or not?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 69915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

AdvancedAtom

Pro

I am arguing for macro evolution. I would like to start by saying that micro and macro evolution are one in the same, the only difference is the scale and time period, many micro evolutions go in a macro evolution. In order for macro evolution to not work you would need a different kind of DNA, one that is impervious to frame-shift, mutations and gene duplication, evidently only one DNA exist, the one which allows these things. Macro evolution is verified in the fossil records, DNA, embryos, anatomy (in things such as vestigial organs and unintelligent design) and ring species ( if you define macro evolution in change of species). I would like my opponent to either create an argument or focus on the ones I have put above.
thejames

Con

Rebuttal of initial points

The mechanism for macro evolution vs micro is completely different. Micro evolution is a selecting of information to be expressed which was already present. Macro evolution requires new information to added or created through mutation. Micro evolution has been observed countless time. Macro evolution has never been observed in terms of new information resulting in the creation of single to multicellular organism or the development of a feather or scale.
In order for macro evolution to not work you would need a different kind of DNA, one that is impervious to frame-shift, mutations and gene duplication, evidently only one DNA exist, the one which allows these things.
You are assuming that DNA"s tendency to mutate therefore means that macro evolution occurred.
At best, the things you listed only fail to disprove evolution. This does not mean they necessarily provide proof for macro evolution. In order for the fossil record to provide proof of evolution it would need to display many times more transitionary fossils than distinct kinds. This is not observed. DNA similarities could indicate a common ancestor or it could indicate a common designer. By embryo
I assume you are referring to Ernst Haeckel"s Recapitulation theory? The one which states human embryos display an evolutionary past? This theory was disproven while Haeckel was still alive. If this is in fact what you were referring to, it only shows how desperate some people are for evidence of evolution.
Similarly to the Recapitulation theory, the idea of vestigial organs has been largely disproven. It was once though that the tonsils, appendix, tailbone and vellus hairs had no use and were therefore vestigial of an evolutionary past. All these structure have been shown to have important uses since. The supposed hip bone present in whales is the attachment site for muscles used in reproduction. This is evidenced by the fact that they different between male and female whales.
From what I have read of Ring species, the do not provide any special evidence of evolution and can be explained easily by Intelligent creation.

Argument against Macro Evolution

The evidence, in my opinion, is far stronger in supporting an intelligent creation. The astounding complexity of DNA and its coding processes could not evolve due to its irreducible complexity. For example, DNA has tiny machines in place which are used to replicate DNA. The problem for a naturalistic explanation of the evolution of DNA is that the tiny machines themselves are made of proteins which require DNA to create. So which came first?
The theory of abiogenesis has been a complete failure. The simplest cell observed today has over 250 genes, over half a million base pairs. Simply put, even the simplest living organisms are far too complex to have evolved by chance.
The main argument I would like to make is that naturalistic origins, including evolution, is not science. Science by definition requires observation and demonstration. This is not the case with evolution, a-biogenesis or cosmology. The origin of anything has not been observed unless humans were the one to create it. In this sense, creation is more scientific. We have observed humans create software code similar in nature to DNA. If life is ever created in the lab it will only prove that intelligence is required to produce life.
Debate Round No. 1
AdvancedAtom

Pro

What I was trying to point out with the frame shift and gene duplication that genetic material is able to increase, meaning macro evolution can take place and that organisms are not limited to a certain amount of genetic information. Micro evolutions can build up, in the end creating a large difference from the original organims (macro evolution). Micro and macro evolution use the same mechanisms of evolutionary change: " Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation." - evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

The fossil record is not able to be complete or even close to complete, the conditions have to be so precise for an animal be preserved and must remain that way for a very long time, but we have found a large amount of transitional fossils, http://rationalwiki.org... This link shows some of the transitional fossils we have found. Also we can see that the further down we go, "further into the past", we can see life forms get simpler and simpler, the further back we go.

"DNA similarities could indicate a common ancestor or it could indicate a common designer. " That admittedly could be true, but allow me to talk about the the second genome, chimps have one more chromosome than we humans do, the second chromosome, so if evolution is correct there should be a point on humans were the 2 chromosomes fuse together or meet, and we have found this point where the two chromosomes fuse, which is also evidence for macro evolution.

Rna Seq : Through variation in RNA sequences we can distinguish organisms on approximately the species level and trace evolutionary relationships. (this would take a lot of writing to explain, read number 2 in this article) : http://microbe.net...

About the embryos i was talking about the similarities of them, yes, where many traits of one type of animal appear in the embryo of another type of animal. For example humans having little gill like structures when they are embryos and how the eyes start to develop on the side of the head then move to the front or how dolphin embryos have little leg buds. After searching google, i am not surprised only creationist sources deny this, when all the scientific websites i have seen agree with this, I did find this video, which shows a model of the baby fetus growth, and is explained quite well in my opinion : http://www.bbc.co.uk....

There are vestigial structures, like wisdom teeth ( i don't see why you say they are not vestigial) Our mouths are too small now to hold all these extra teeth, which will now become problems, luckily for us evolution is sorting that out, nowadays many modern humans today don't get wisdom teeth at all (35% to be specific) or the membrane that is at the corner of your eye, which is in fact a third and forth eye lid which birds still have today. The appendix primary function WAS to digest leaves, it does have a small function in the immune system, yes. And unintelligent design i mean things like the blind spot in the eye due to the receptor cell in the wrong place. The Laryngeal nerve in giraffes: This is a nerve that goes from our ears to our brains, but not directly to our brains, it has to go down pass the heart and then back up to the brain, which is obviously a problem when you have a long neck like a giraffe, it can be perfectly explained by evolution, but if you could start from scratch it would be easily avoided. The human lower back is poorly adapted to the vertical position: The spine curves near the hips, which causes back pain, and gravity doesn't help the problem.

Now i get onto your points...

Irreducible complexity: The question you asked is a good question. We have discovered a process we now call chemical evolution, when chemicals are left with an energy source they interact with each other and create more complex molecules as time goes on, we have also found that chemicals have the remarkable ability to self assemble into complex orderly structures, we have also found some that self assemble into long strands very similar to DNA found in life. But of course scientists still have many questions to answer. Many tests have been created in labs demonstrating that life is "fuelled" by chemical reactions.

Abiogenesis: I see the problem, it is just you are comparing simple life forms today with the first life form. Today even the simplest life form is extremely complex compared to the first life form,the first life form was probably very, very simple far more simple than anything we have today. "Living organisms are far too complex to have evolved by chance." Now, evolution is not a thing that happens by chance, chance does play a role in it, by mutations, but evolution is not chance based, it all has to do with which organism is more suited to survive and natural selection, it is pretty interesting stuff, the creation of first life may have been chance, but it evolving to better suit environments isn't chance.

Evolution is not science: I thought we were talking about evolution not life being created? Evolution is able to be observed and testable, we are able to see natural selection at work, and we are able to recreate it creating different organisms, for example, did you know broccoli, cabbage, coli-flower, Brussels spouts and kale all originated from a weed found on the shores of the English channel? But i see where you are coming from, you want to observe and test giant changes, well as i said macro evolution are many micro evolution, so we can observe parts of macro evolution, and we are able to see back in time with fossils, and see that organisms get simpler the further back we go, which is what evolution would suggest, and we can compare DNA and RNA seq, so we can observe things like that, but i think what you want is to actually see it happen in front of you, but not seeing it in front of your own eyes, doesn't mean it cannot be observed. Creationists do not define macro evolution in the same precise way that biologists do, allowing them to continually shift the goalposts as to what qualifies as macro evolution, thus allowing them to reject any and all evidence presented to them. Biologists generally define the boundary as change above the level of species, and there have been directly observed instances of speciation as well as many examples of recent speciation in the wild.

( one last question that has nothing to do with evolution, you don't have to answer it)
Are you so sure that life cannot be created from non life that you think we should stop looking for aliens on other planets?
thejames

Con

Micro vs. Macro Evolution Clarified

I should admit I made a mistake when I stated the difference between micro and macro as being based upon mechanism. Their definitions do not hold to this distinction and are instead are entirely based on scale and population.
The point is that macroevolution requires new information where as microevolution does not.

Does a beneficial mutation require new information?
No. For example, the advent and use of antibiotics has resulted in antibiotic resistant "superbugs". Resistance to an antibiotic requires a mutation, in the bacteria, which alters the target of the antibiotic. While this allows the bacteria to survive, it alters the normal functioning of the bacteria"s systems and ultimately makes the bacteria less virulent.

Statement Rebuttals
Your statement on mutations is nothing but an un-referenced claim. Yes DNA can mutate in a few different ways but the assertion that therefore macroevolution took place is fallacious. Again, non-sequitur. You have provided no examples of increased genetic information.

"Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation." - evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01"

The above was misleading. You left out rest of the mechanisms of change.

The Fossil Record

The process of evolution would logically require many transitional forms for every distinct kind but this is not even close to represented in the fossil record.

What is the test for determining a transitional fossil? Can it be falsified? How can you prove that the bones we find in the dirt are the ancestors of anything? Science requires falsifiability. If something cannot be falsified (transition fossils) then it cannot be considered science.

"Also we can see that the further down we go, "further into the past", we can see life forms get simpler and simpler, the further back we go."

This is a pre-supposition. It is assumed that fossils at different layers have different ages of millions of years.

Genetics

"if evolution is correct there should be a point on humans were the 2 chromosomes fuse together or meet"

Why wouldn"t a different number of chromosomes in humans falsify evolution? Wouldn"t the same number of chromosomes be predicted? There is no reason for those two chromosomes to fuse other than keeping the evolution theory alive.

Ribosomal RNA

The author of the article is assuming all RNA differences are due to mutations. While I don"t doubt mutations have occurred and been recorded in the RNA of different species, it is still an assumption to say all differences are due to mutation.

"The genes that encode the components of the ribosome originated in a common ancestor, and may be directly compared"
This is an obvious pre supposition that these genes can be compared in terms of relatedness due to a presumed common ancestry.

Embryology and Vestigial structures

For the sake of convenience, ill list all the vestigial structures mentioned and then explain their actual function.

Human embryos have "gill slits" [1]

Eyes develop on side of head
This shows nothing more than a superficial resemblance to any number of animals other than fish. : http://www.bbc.co.uk.......

Dolphin embryos have "leg buds"
[3].

Wisdom teeth
Teeth are not vestigial, we have a pretty obvious use for them

Plica semilunaris of conjunctiva "third eyelid"
"In humans, the plica functions as the opposite of a fornix; that is, if the conjunctiva were to directly join the eyelids to the globe, the globe and eyelids would both be restricted in movement. The fornix provides for a fold of conjunctiva that may be extended or retracted as the globe moves." [2]

Appendix
As you stated, the appendix does serve a role in immune function and is therefore also not a vestigal structure.

The only structure which could possibly be used as evidence for evolution is a true vestige, something which has absolutely no function. None of the structures you mentioned fit this example except possibly the buds present in dolphin embryos. I think this is far better explained as still present inforation for a second pair of fins [3]. Regardless of the number of vestigal structures, these do not give an explanation of how the massive complexity of life came about. Vestigal structure (if they exist) are an example of losing information of function, not of gaining as is required to even begin proving the grand claims of evolutionists.

Unintelligent Design

Blind spot in eye

The blind spot in the inverted retina is due the light receptors being wired seemingly backward. While this may seem like a poor design, it serves the important purpose of protecting the retina from radiation damage (heat and light). [4]

Laryngeal Nerve

Quote taken from Recurrent laryngeal nerve by Jonathan Sarfati. [5]

"In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route."

Back problems [6]

Irreducible complexity:

"But of course scientists still have many questions to answer."
This quote makes it pretty obvious that life coming from non-life has been pre concluded.

"chemicals have the remarkable ability to self assemble into complex orderly structures, we have also found some that self assemble into long strands very similar to DNA found in life."
I noticed you provided no reference for this statement

Abiogenesis:

"Today even the simplest life form is extremely complex compared to the first life form, the first life form was probably very, very simple far more simple than anything we have today"

No reference given. I guess its up to me to imagine this simplistic early life form. Classic pseudo science, conclusion is pre assumed and the rest is left to be filled in, entirely with imagination if necessary.

Evolution is not science:

Evolution is a good example of bait and switch. The assertion is that the incredible diversity we see today is the result of random mutation. To prove this wild claim, evolutionists will cite examples of natural selection and mutation in which no new information is produced and meanwhile ignore the giant burden of proof of mutation giving rise to new information and increased complexity. Like I mentioned earlier, microevolution happens all the time without requiring new information. Macroevolution on the hand cannot occur without this new information.

"broccoli, cabbage, coli-flower, Brussels spouts and kale all originated from a weed found on the shores of the English channel?"
Did you know you need to provide references for your claims.
You will notice in the case of coli-flower and kale and cabbage that they are all still plants. None are examples of greater complexity. All the information for those varieties was already contained within the original weed. Another bait and switch.

I see no reason to believe life could have spontaneously generated on other planets when it has never been demonstrated or observed on earth. This is not science.

Evolution will remain pseudoscience until there is observation of increased information and complexity arising from a mutation. Natural selection, vestigial organs, beneficial mutations are all examples of a reduction in information and complexity. The bait and switch may work on school children in public schools but it is still not evidence.

[1] "Gill slits" by any other name"

http://pigeonchess.com...

[2]
The Conjunctiva"Structure and Function
DARLENE A. DARTT

http://www.oculist.net...

[3] Dolphin With Four Fins May Prove Terrestrial Origins

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

[4] http://creation.com...

[5] http://creation.com...

[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
AdvancedAtom

Pro

Well we have seen organism that have gained genetic information and a beneficial mutation as well: "If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information. We know this because researchers have now got to the point where they have read out (sequenced) every last bit of the DNA in some bacteria. This means that it's possible to do before-and-after measurements." - http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org....

"Yes DNA can mutate in a few different ways but the assertion that therefore macroevolution took place is fallacious." First of if you read the title it isn't about if it took place it is about if it is possible for it to take place. And an increase of genetic information happens by several kind of mutations, notably duplication and polyploidy mutations and also frame-shift, we know this already, (last link also explains this)

We won't be able to find the amount of fossils you want, don't get me wrong we have found A LOT, but we will find them all, and we don't need them all, "How can you prove that the bones we find in the dirt are the ancestors of anything?"
We know by DNA, the more similarities the closer we are related, in some instances preserved DNA is found which we can use to compare DNA , and i would like to change my statement a little when i said that DNA could be evidence for a common designer, it could but only if the designer in questions is very illogical, there is no reason to give animals similar DNA to us and make us appear related to them, why did he give us and chips about 98% of the same DNA? He might as well just gave us the same DNA, ( and if your one that thinks we are his special people maybe you should rethink that, since we are similar and related to animals). Like how we know Neanderthals and humans are related : http://humanorigins.si.edu...

"If something cannot be falsified (transition fossils) then it cannot be considered science.": In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn't match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they're right.

""Also we can see that the further down we go, "further into the past", we can see life forms get simpler and simpler, the further back we go."
This is a pre-supposition. It is assumed that fossils at different layers have different ages of millions of years."

Well first we can date rocks to get there age, and if they are not millions of years old, then surely we should find fossils where they shouldn't be, for example, we shouldn't find a Silurian fossil with a Paleocene fossil. The geographic distribution of species is exactly as we would predict through evolution.

"Why wouldn"t a different number of chromosomes in humans falsify evolution? Wouldn"t the same number of chromosomes be predicted? There is no reason for those two chromosomes to fuse other than keeping the evolution theory alive." No, it wouldn't falsify evolution, this is actually a success for evolution, that we found the exact location where 2 chromosomes meet, it is actually a slam dunk for common ancestry. And actually there is more evidence of human evolution that there is that the T-Rex actually existed.

The chromosomes likely fused via recombination, which is a process that allows strands of DNA to exchange in areas where there is great homology in DNA sequence. The actual genetic basis for the reason why we are the most mentally and physically complex organisms remains to be determined, but chromosome #2 diffidently helps to make us genetically different than other organisms. Chromosome fusion is a natural random (and in some cases non-random) aspect that occurs in every organism and has been used for genetic engineering in both lower and higher organisms.

"The author of the article is assuming all RNA differences are due to mutations. While I don"t doubt mutations have occurred and been recorded in the RNA of different species, it is still an assumption to say all differences are due to mutation." Now the rRNA function is very highly "conserved" or maintained by natural selection but due to mutations there is a very slight differences in their composition in the sequences of the genes that encode them , which we are able to see, Each component of the ribosome is, generally, EXTREMELY SIMILAR across all of life, but we can "read" the differences and distinguish organisms on approximately the species level and trace evolutionary relationships, so this way is a good way to trace evolution, of course it is not 100% exact, but it doesn't need to be for us to see the approximate results.

""The genes that encode the components of the ribosome originated in a common ancestor, and may be directly compared"
This is an obvious pre supposition that these genes can be compared in terms of relatedness due to a presumed common
ancestry."
Common ancestry is a conclusion that we have made from the evidence we have collected, like dna, micro fossils and rock samples, i hope you understand that some assumptions are needed, like we don't "know" the law of relativity is true, or that a God exists, or dark energy exists, or even that everything wasn't created yesterday and all our memories and every document were also created yesterday, we can only look at the evidence given to us and create a possible conclusion . Many things in science require assumptions, there will always be a barrier between what is real and what we persieve.

"Eyes develop on side of head
This shows nothing more than a superficial resemblance to any number of animals other than fish. : http://www.bbc.co.uk...;

Yes and we think those other animals descended from fish as well.

Dolphin Leg Buds:
ok I was wrong: "The dolphin's extra fins are "an ancestral characteristic that has reemerged for some reason"

Wisdom teeth:
They were used for eating leaves, but now our mouths are too small to have them, so they can get stuck and become infected and a problem, which is why normally we just take them out, but, i say again evolution is dealing with the problem and now some modern humans don't get them.

Blind spot

First of i like how you used a creationist website.
Yeah, i am starting to question the reliability of that, apart from it being a bias website, after looking on Google i cannot find any scientific websites that agree with that.

Back pain:

Great... Sorry i fail to see how this helps intelligent design, and of course people that exercise more would have greater back pain, the shape adds to this problem, actually i bet the shape is the cause of back pain due to exercise, if our back didn't bend that way, it is quite possible the back pain would not be created as easily. http://www.lower-back-pain-toolkit.com...

Abiogenesis:
""Today even the simplest life form is extremely complex compared to the first life form, the first life form was probably very, very simple far more simple than anything we have today"
No reference given. I guess its up to me to imagine this simplistic early life form. Classic pseudo science, conclusion is pre assumed and the rest is left to be filled in, entirely with imagination if necessary."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
The conclusion is not pre assumed we came to this conclusion with the limited evidence we have, and the knowledge that everything is made of chemicals and chemical reactions "fuel" life. We have also created some artificial enzymes his exciting new work not only offers new insights into the origins of life on Earth. No more space to type... Well crap.
thejames

Con

The article you linked to gives no sources. How can you say a creation website (with sources provided for all its claims) is biased and somehow consider an article with no sources at all to be legitimate? I was able to find this: "The above is from a 1995 Usenet posting by Tim Ikeda (email adress omited), UC-Berkeley Plant Biology." but I was unable to find any original document detailing the methods or results by following this information.

The fact is, everyone is biased. Thats why the scientific method was developed in the first place and why sourcing claims is so important. I will address the issues with claiming increased information when you give a reliable example of it happenning.

Is macro evolution possible? We define what a species is, which in turn defines macroevolution. The resolution depends on what you are referring to by "macroevolution". Are you referring to the possibility of a population diverging and being subjectively categorised as a seperate species or to the possibility of all life coming from a single cell. Their's a pretty massive difference but people still believe that the former proves the latter.

Is the claim that all complex life came from a single cell scientific or religious?

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Have we observed and demonstrated scales evolving into feathers? Have we observed the development of bones? Have we observed and demonstrated a single celled organism developing into a multicelled organism? Have we observed life arise from non-life?

Do you believe all these things happened?

The fossils we have found certainly do not prove evolution. The fact is, there is a distinct lack of transitional fossils. You may say its because they just didnt happen to fossilize or that they were vacumed up by fsm and I may say they never existed, but ultimately, its all conjecture.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

"How can you prove that the bones we find in the dirt are the ancestors of anything?"
"We know by DNA"

DNA has a half life of only 521 years [1]. So in 1000 years only 25% of the remaining DNA is left. DNA is completely unreadable after 1.5 million years and there would likely not be a single bond left after 6.8. The most recent "transitional fossil" on the wikipedia list is at least 2.9 million years old. Archeopteryx is 150 mya.
I stated earlier that the idea of transitional fossils is unfallsifiable and therefore unscientific. Does this become evidence against the scientific nature of evolution now that your DNA test has been refuted?

"there is no reason to give animals similar DNA"
All life needs a certain level of similartity for the sake of metabolic compatibility. Cows eat grass and we eat cows and plants communicate with pheremones and biologic waste is a great fertiliser. It is unlikely this would be possible if all life weren't appearingly "related".

Radiometric dating presumes the amount of radioactive material present at the outset and that ther has been no contamination.

"Why wouldn"t a different number of chromosomes in humans falsify evolution? Wouldn"t the same number of chromosomes be predicted? There is no reason for those two chromosomes to fuse other than keeping the evolution theory alive."
"No, it wouldn't falsify evolution, this is actually a success for evolution, that we found the exact location where 2 chromosomes meet, it is actually a slam dunk for common ancestry."
Or a slam dunk for a common designer. This is nothing but another unreferrenced claim. Chromosomes are not known to fuse like this and there is no reason it should have happened.

"And actually there is more evidence of human evolution that there is that the T-Rex actually existed."
How is that even calculated? I'm not suprised this statement is unreferrenced since it makes no sense. Evidence isn't just generic 'stuff' that is all equal when weighed.

"The chromosomes likely fused via recombination, which is a process that allows strands of DNA to exchange in areas where there is great homology in DNA sequence."
No reason for this to happen other than chance. Just something else to be explained with 'long ago and far away X, Y and Z and Q etc. happened for no particular reason'.

"The actual genetic basis for the reason why we are the most mentally and physically complex organisms remains to be determined"
I have an explanation, but you probably won't like it.

"Chromosome fusion is a natural random (and in some cases non-random) aspect that occurs in every organism"
Unreferrenced.

"and has been used for genetic engineering in both lower and higher organisms."
Yeah I bet it has.

"Common ancestry is a conclusion that we have made from the evidence we have collected, like dna, micro fossils and rock samples"
So if I were to provide historic evidence that people had this conclusion before DNA was discovered...

"i hope you understand that some assumptions are needed, like we don't "know" the law of relativity is true, or that a God exists, or dark energy exists, or even that everything wasn't created yesterday and all our memories and every document were also created yesterday"
You are right, athiests do have a tough time justifying their faith in induction. The existance of relativity and dark matter is a debate for another time. Their is a difference between an assuming induction to justify logic and assuming common ancestry in order to interpret evidence to then prove common ancestry. It's the ciiirrrcllle of liiiife.

"Yes and we think those other animals descended from fish as well."
Oh no. You believe ALL animals descended from fish. So if I can find an animal whose eyes do not develop laterally, would that be evidence against your theory? You can't have it both ways. You can't say animals with eyes that develop laterally are proof of a fishy ancestor and ignore the rest.

What if the percentage of people with all their wisdom teeth began to increase? Would that be evidence against evolution or is this evidence unfalsifiable?

"First of i like how you used a creationist website."
Do you distrust creatiost websites because they actually provide sources for their claims?

"i cannot find any scientific websites that agree with that."
I'm guessing this is your personal definition of science.

My back hurts because the lounge I'm sitting on is too close to the ground. Is this also evidence of evolution? The lifestyle factors involved in back pain are massive variables which make your conclusion of evolution being the cause completely unscientific and arbitrary. My back hurts so I'll skip explaining what a variable is.

The conclusion that abiogenesis happened in the past is unscientifc because it has not been observed or demonstrated.

Biological evolution is just the end process needed to explain how we got here naturalistically. I understand that the debate topic is only about macro evolution but I would like to note that before any evolution can take place the origin of the universe, physical laws, elements, and the earth all need to be explained naturalistically as well. Evolution is only one part of the overarching religion of naturalism, in which everything is unguided, meaningless and without value or importance.

If evolution and naturalism is true, do human being have any intrinsic value or dignity? Whats wrong with rape if it helps you pass on your genes? Is racism not justified and encouraged? Does right and wrong exist at all?

[1] http://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by thejames 2 years ago
thejames
Micro evolution occurs by the mechanism of natural or artificial selection. As finches with particular beak shapes being selected for by survival advantage or canines being selected for desirable traits. In natural selection, the genetic information is already present. All that is occurring is particular expressions of that information is being selected for. In other words, an organism will have far more total genetic information (genotype) than is being expressed outwardly (phenotype) and it is this information which is selected from.

Macro evolution is when (supposedly) a genetic mutation occurs which introduces new information. This works on a completely different mechanism. Where micro evolution (admittedly a misleading term) only selects from information already present, macro evolution is the process by which new information is produced. For example, a reptile with genetic information to produce scales then mutating a gene to produce feathers would be an example of macro, since this is information which was not already present.

The problem with macro evolution is that mutations are very rarely, if ever, beneficial. So no, micro and macro evolution happen by completely different mechanisms. Natural selection results in a reduction in total genetic information (think trying to breed a greyhound back into a wolf) where as macro evolution by its nature requires the addition of information (like a reptile mutating all the information to produce feathers) Micro = reduction, macro = addition.

Savvy?
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
This Micro vs Macro debate stuff is nonsense. All evolution happens on the micro scale. A change in a gene. Over the course of time, these many "Micro" steps will become a "Macro" step. This Micro nonsense is only here because the creationist cannot pretend bacteria or viruses don't evolve. So they say, "yes we agree with Micro evolution, but we reject Macro." Guess what, it is the same, 1000s of micros equal large changes since the first. Not hard. The creationist mindset on this, "accept what we can no longer deny (micro), deny what we cannot except (macro)."
Posted by AdvancedAtom 2 years ago
AdvancedAtom
There is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (micro evolution) from ultimately resulting in a macro evolution.
Posted by AdvancedAtom 2 years ago
AdvancedAtom
@Leo.Messi Yes, but many, many micro evolutions go in one macro evolution. After a large amount of small changes the organism will be completely different.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
lol micro evolution is not the same as macro-evolution.
micro-evolution is slight *limited* adaptations to the environment while macro-evolution is when a species evolves into a completely different creature.
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
- Who has the BOP?

- & which is the Resolution: the possibility of Marco Evolution? Or its actual happening? You have to decide, otherwise, the Resolution will turn out to be a Truism, & nobody wants to debate a Truism.
Posted by AdvancedAtom 2 years ago
AdvancedAtom
Your right Kvasir, my bad, I am very new to this, I have only had this account for about an hour.
Posted by Kvasir 2 years ago
Kvasir
So what is the debate here? Macro evolution is not optional, you can't be Pro or Con. If this debate is about the existence of macro evolution then please specify so.
Posted by GreenFuture 2 years ago
GreenFuture
Please use ribosomal RNA sequencing techniques and results in your argument it is a very strong proof for what you are talking about
No votes have been placed for this debate.