The Instigator
Double_Helix46
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
davemark07
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Macro-evolution & the Bible are not reconcilable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,427 times Debate No: 26012
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

Double_Helix46

Pro

Hello!

I would like to debate about whether or not we can reconcile the Bible & Macro-evolution(the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor). In this debate I will use the KJV Bible as my biblical source. My opponent will take the position that evolution and the Bible are reconcilable. They will not procede into semantics that evidence supports evolution or that creationism is not valid. I do not care who my opponent is but my opponent will, by accepting this debate, accept biblical language.

1) Any forfeited round will be loss of conduct points.

2) Going off topic will be loss of conduct points.

3) We will debate 4 rounds.

4) The first round will be just for acceptance for both. In the last round no new arguments will be accepted and if they are brought forward then that should be loss of conduct.We are allowed to rebuttal in the last round.

GoodLuck to whomever accepts.
davemark07

Con

First of all I need to make it painfully obvious that I don't agree with the bible. But in order to debate this I am going to base (for the sake of argument) that the bible is true and that the Genesis order of creation is true and that the story of Noah's Ark is true; despite there being no evidence for that. I will also base this on the Ussher Chronology in that based on a literal reading of the bible the age of the earth is 6016 years old which: there is no evidence for but furthermore there is evidence against this. However for the sake of argument I will begin with the assumption that the Bible is true; but that modern science is also true: in that evolution (descent with modification based on imperfect replication of DNA) is also true. So essentially what I am debating is that in the period of time which is consistent with the bible based on the Ussher Chronology macro-evolution can and does happen. I will also argue that the bible can support macro-evolution in that large-scale changes can occur not only up until now; but that the process extends into the future.

In debating this I don't think it is possible to debate a common ancestor because the bible doesn't teach that (by it's nature it doesn't agree with that): but I can however debate that macro-evolution can be present in a short period of time which is essentially what you mean by saying that 'evolution and the Bible are reconcilable'.

The best of luck in this discussion: and I look forward to your reply; it should be really enjoyable
Debate Round No. 1
Double_Helix46

Pro

I would like to thank, davemark07, for taking up this debate with me.
It seems my opponent will procede in giving us a case with normal Biblical age, while also, giving us a marco-evolution senario. This is acceptable because my case goes much further than that. What are the two concepts we are dealing with here?
The Bible - a doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
As opposed to:

Macro-evolution
- that is the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, inbreeding, and mutation.

Some believe that evolution and the Bible can be united but really that is not the case. I've often wondered how could anyone possibly say that these two concepts can be reconciled. People need to be told up front that the Bible and evolution do not agree. The theory of evolution is matter of fact anti-biblical. This goes to show that by accepting evolution, christians are not allowing the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for them, but science. One of the problems with evolution is that it gives the impression that man is really no different than any animal, planet or any living thing on earth.

All scripture is giving by inspiration by God. If we are to trust God for our future then we should trust Him for our past. This means trusting in Him and His word for the earth's history, our history and His creation of them. How can someone who believes in evolution overcome phrases like, "The evening and morning were the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day and the sixth day." Here it is clear that these are 24 hour days. Though some will have you believe that this could mean long ages. Well if this is the case then how can we believe in God for our future? If we can believe in Him for our future then we should also believe in Him for our past. What we should look at that when God said it, then it comes to pass.

When God established the Ten Commandments, He commanded the Jews to keep the Sabbath day holy (Ex. 20: 8-11). God's creation took six days and then He rested on the seventh, so the Jews were to work for six days and rest on the seventh day. This commandment wouldn't make any sense unless the days were literal.

Evolutionists believe that man has come from "simple" one-celled organisms which evolved into more and more "complex" organisms, from which evolved certain ape-like creatures who after many thousands of years finally evolved into men! Of course, this evolutionary process is said to have taken millions and millions of years!

Creation was made already mature and not over long ages. In Genesis, all the creations that were made, were made mature. We see this specifically with Adam & Eve. Adam was not made as a baby or child, needing to mature but was already created fully grown. Eve also was made fully grown when she was made from Adam's rib. It is natural to assume that all creation was made mature when it was made. All creation was fully developed in its specific function when God created it. If there is reason not to believe this then evidence needs be supplied.

Day 1 begins with the creation of light. God creates by spoken command and names the elements of the world as he creates them. Day 2 creates the firmament, created on the second day of creation and populated by sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, it is a solid dome which separates the earth below from the heavens and their waters above. In day 3 the waters withdraw, creating a ring of ocean surrounding a single circular continent. After this, the last of three acts of separation. Darkness from light, water from water, seas from land and the third day continues with preparations for populating the now orderly world. God does not create or make trees and plants, but instead commands the earth to produce them. At the end of the third day God has created a foundational environment of light, heavens, seas and earth. As said before, in the fourth day, God creates the lights in the firmament. He creates the Sun, moon and stars.

In the fifth day God creates the moving creatures. These next passages are very important to this debate. The passage say's God brought forth the creatures of the sea and fowls of the air. The term brought forth means to 'birth or to produce'. In no way does this suggest that God allowed evolution to create them and evolve them. In day six we have the creation of land creatures, all the lot of them. In these passages it say's the earth brought forth them. The same language as in the fifth day, meaning that the earth birthed them or produced them by God's command.

Then God creates man in His image. The Bible is specific that man was created in God's image, of the dust of the ground (Gen. 1:26, Gen. 2:7), and the woman from man's rib (Gen. 2:21). Are these are not supposed to be literal? God says that they were created that way, they were not evolved. Why would it not give a description like that of man & woman evolving?

Genesis tells us that the creation was created in six days. If the days mentioned were anything other than literal, then that could be viewed as a deception by God. The Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis 1 is yom, the word yom, coupled with a number, appears 359 times and is always a literal day. There are also other words in Hebrew which are suitable for long periods of time (ex. olam or qedem), but none of these words are used.

As we see my opponent has a up hill battle to claim that the Bible can be reconciled with evolution. Evolution requires much time to produce the life we have on this planet but creationism does not. We all seen that in no way does the Bible suggest that evolution was a tool of God or that the Bible mentions long ages of time.

References:

King James Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org...http://www.creationism.org... http://www.reason4living.com... http://user.xmission.com...http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://relijournal.com...

davemark07

Con

Before I begin I must also like to thank Double_Helix46 for not only an incredibly articulated answer; but also for a wonderful topic to debate. I hope to all reading that this is an explanation into the notion of evolution and will hopefully explain some of the misconceptions about evolution.

We must first establish what evolution actually is: I will try an analogy. The language of Spanish originally stems from a "common ancestor" which was Latin. Each parent then gives birth to a child which speaks the same language. However each generation there are some adaptations to the language and it "evolves" into a new language (into Spanish). This can be done was by people spreading to different parts of the world the language "adapted" and was changed so much from before it was unrecognisable and so became a separate language to Latin. It's not Latin parents gave birth to a Spanish speaking child: it is that that 'evolved' from several dialects of spoken Latin to form a new language. Thus meaning it was a gradual change over many generations which developed into a new language.

Now (to draw a parallel with the topic we are discussing) you can believe if you wish that that Latin (on in our debate, life) was created in 6 literal days (by "God') But the origin of the language is not what we are debating. In order for this to be incompatible; then you must not accept that languages (or in our debate: life) cannot change and that new languages (species) cannot be developed. So in the case of our debate: the only way that the biblical account would be incompatible with evolution is that sexual reproduction produced genetically identical offspring to that of its parents (that there is no variation within a species) and that no new species can ever be developed (both of which are simply wrong) and I will discuss both in depth.

To understand this we must first understand sexual reproduction. So when a parent gives birth to an offspring, in sexually reproductive species (almost all plants and animals) the offspring is not genetically identical to their parents. Sexual reproduction is a process that creates a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms. The way this is done is by meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; and fertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes. During meiosis, the chromosomes of each pair cross over to achieve homologous recombination.

Evolution simply means the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations (Hall, B. K.; Hallgr"msson, B., eds. (2008). The simplest way to explain evolution is by explaining using an example. Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley. Let"s imagine an Ensatina salamander gives birth to another Ensatina salamander with slight genetic differences (due to the nature of sexual reproduction) and then over these successive generations accumulate (so they are still consistent with the biblical definition of giving birth to the same "kind"). Now the remarkable thing about the Ensatina salamander is that they are found in the Californian Central Valley: and so two populations of these are geographically separated. What this means is that as the species expanded to the south and west of the valley and progressively changed as they adapted to their surroundings (but still giving birth to its own kind) meaning that it could still interbreed with its neighbours. Now the exact same thing happened when the Ensatina salamander spread to the east of the valley: that progressively changed (but still giving birth to its own kind) meaning that it could still interbreed with its neighbours. However when they met at the southern end of the Californian Central Valley something remarkable was found: that the two groups which were separated at the north of the valley could not interbreed at the "end."

What this is a demonstration of is that of ring species: what this is, is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. This is exactly what evolution predicts; that species do not form by the Ensatina salamander giving birth to a non-Ensatina salamander; but that over time the changes between two groups become too different to each other in that they can"t interbreed and therefore become a new species: which coincides with the biblical definition.

The biblical definition of animals giving birth to a creature of its kind is essentially a crude definition of evolution. Thus; even Christians which believe that the "Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for them" has not been altered: that evolution (and in this case macro-evolution) and the bible are completely compatible. What this means is that there is an element of baraminology (creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds"). This is wholly consistent with evolution in that an animal can never give birth to an offspring which is not of the same "kind" (or to use the scientific term "species"). However this is also what is stated by evolution: that it isn"t that an organism gives birth to a new species (to use the clich"; dogs produce dogs) it is that over successive generations the tiny changes between parent and offspring can be sufficiently different in that they develop into a new species. Evolution will only be viable if an animal gives birth to a member of the same species: if there was evidence of this being breached this would actually be evidence against evolution; not for it.

Based on the nature of evolution does state that "man is really no different than any animal" and in fact humans are animals as you quite rightly pointed out: however even if we interpret the bible literally that man was made in the image of "God" then evolution is still compatible with this, as long as you accept the biological fact that sexual reproduction: the production of a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms and there is a change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

We can observe examples of rapid evolution (in the form of speciation) but this doesn"t always need to be observed in order to fit this in with a biblical reading. Because of the nature of evolution; it is a continual process which doesn"t have a "goal". So what this means is (even taking into account a biblical beginning) this means that regardless of where you begin as the origin of life; macro-evolution is always possible, just on timescales which are not usually accessible to humans (as we are finite beings which are prone to dying every now and then; and given that the average life expectancy of a human on the earth is 67.2 years according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision,) and changes large scale changes to animals in that time is usually difficult to see: as evolution is not as such that these huge changes happen all that often).

I don"t mean any disrespect by this but I can"t help but feel as though this debate may be more about the nature of abiogenesis and not evolution. What I mean by this is that the nature of macro-evolution is simply large-scale changes in populations and it is only that humans are finite being and are only able to physically observe these changes on a small scale (macro-evolution)

Regardless of how the first life was created evolution is a fact. Evolution (descent with modification) has been framed as universal generalization and subsequently formulated as laws of nature. A scientific law meaning a generalized formulation of the recurring observable tendencies of nature
Debate Round No. 2
Double_Helix46

Pro

My opponent offered a very good round 2. I was impressed by his insight. His enormous knowledge in this subject is vaulable. Thank him for this debate and his compliments.


I take it from con's round 2 that he completely concedes the Biblical account in this debate. We went over in the Biblical account that man, beast, the universe and all plant life were specifically and seperately created by God. Con basically gives us his description of macro-evolution and asserts that it can be reconciled with the Bible. Con has left us wondering how macro-evolution has happened yet if it is to be reconciled with the Bible timeline. We should look at now, the age of life from the Biblical account and how macro-evolution can not have took place by that time frame.


Biblical timeline


The Biblical timeline has been researched for a long time. The Bible timeline has been researched that the "first day" of Creation Week starts on the Gregorian calendar in 4101 BC. This exact year starts in 4115 BC on the Jewish Hebrew 364-Day "sacred" calendar. This 364-Day calendar is called "sacred" because it is totally derived from the numbered years in the text of Scripture. The real age of the earth is around 6,012 solar years according to the Bible. The Biblical text clearly states there are 4,096 years from Creation Week until the Birth of Jesus. All of the estimated dates used is in the Bible are based on information found in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. The remaining Bible events are also dated from the Book of Exodus until the events of Easter Week in 30 AD found in the New Testament. The year of 1445 BC, the most accepted year of the Exodus, was used as the Anchor Year for the entire Bible Timeline using a 364-Day Hebrew calendar consistent with the Biblical text. The dates given in the Bible Chronology Timeline are not consistent with current start dates of the Babylonian Exile (588-586 BC) and the restoration date of Solomon’s Temple (515 BC) using unknown sources outside the pages of Scripture.


As we see, the earth, universe and all life within them are only approxamitly 6,012 years old by the Biblical account. This is hardly enough time for macro-evolution to take place. We also went over the impossiblity of the Bible refering to long ages but was refering to literal 24-hour days. We have not reconciled the Bible and macro-evolution yet.


Macro-evolutionary timeline


We should go over the estimated timeline of macro-evolution. The timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet earth. Dates given are estimates based on supposed scientific evidence. In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its occurrence over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world, this is known as macro-evolution. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and spectation over billions of years. Almost all evoltuionist will teach you that the earth is a estimated 4.6 billion years. I offer a timeline below.


The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:


3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),


3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,


2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),


1 billion years of multicellular life,


600 million years of simple animals,


570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),


550 million years of complex animals,


500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,


475 million years of land plants,


400 million years of insects and seeds,


360 million years of amphibians,


300 million years of reptiles,


200 million years of mammals,


150 million years of birds,


130 million years of flowers,


65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,


2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,


200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,


25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.


13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.


Rebuttal


My went about in his previous round to give anologies of evolution. His examples were not even related to the long ages it takes for macro-evolution to occur. Though he did show us the simple form of micro-evolution and that over a certain amount of time those changes result into macro-evolution.


I may be wrong but my opponent also seemed to suggest that two closely related species that do not mate are macro-evolution. That is not correct. If these species can not mate then that would more along the lines of macro-evolution. Though the examples provided are not that case. My opponent's examples are not different than the mating of dog's. (EX.) I have two dog's, let's say pitbull's, they mate and produce puppies. The puppies have different sizes and colors but are still pitbull's. They are no doubt still dog's. One of the puppies mate's with a rockweller. The puppies are no longer pitbull's nor rockweller's but are still no doubt dog's. Over generation after generation these rock and pit puppies mate with many other breeds. After all this mating by their offspring, the puppies are now complete mutt's of many breed's. Though still they are dog's. Now, I take the original male pitbull that began this process and try to mate him with one of the female mutt's of the last litter. By suprise, he wants nothing to do with her. This case is not because he can not mate with her but because by some reason he doesn't want her. It may be her mixed nature or some gene she has that he will not mix with. Though they can breed if wanted too. In fact this is a true fact within nature. Human being's do this and so do many animals in nature. Grant it that many animals just do not care and will mate within any in their species and maybe outside of it. My opponent has simply given us a example of different breed's and not macro-evolution.


My opponent suggested a anology for us but the ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander of the family Plethodontidae. Presently, seven subspecies are recognized, and all occur in California. However, incipient species formation is in its early stages and thus species borders and distinctions remain unclear. The biological complexity of Ensatina argues against a simple taxonomic resolution because the evolutionary realities of diversification in old and persistent complexes require compromises if Linnaean taxonomies are to be used. A new taxonomy may be required when studies in progress are concluded, for the present the Ensatina complex will be recognized as a single taxonomic species. Many salamanders mate and capable of it regardless of the do or not. http://www.ensatina.net... http://www.oocities.org...


Conclusion


We should conclude so far that the Bible and Macro-evolution can not be reconciled by the explanations given. We are not here to debate whether the macro-evolution account is true or that the Biblical account is true. What we are debating here is whether the Biblical account can be reconciled with the macro-evolutionary account. With the picture of only a 6,000 to 7,000 years for life from the Bible compared to billions of years of life for macro-evoltuion, we have not seen reason to link the two as compatiable.


RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED


http://www.biology-online.org... http://www.bibletimeline.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://paleontology.wikia.com...

davemark07

Con

I need to make this perfectly clear from the beginning: this is not a debate into the origin of life; it is about whether evolution is true regardless of how the first life developed. In round 1 it was established "Macro-evolution (the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor)". My perspective is that even if you take a literal reading of Genesis then large-scale evolution can happen due to sexual reproduction creating variation within a population and that speciation is able to create new species. Regardless of how the first life was created evolution is a fact. Evolution (descent with modification) has been framed as universal generalization and subsequently formulated as a law of nature. The origin of life is not relevant to this discussion, it debate is whether one species can develop into another from a common ancestor. This is demonstrably true regardless of how or when the first life developed based on the nature of variety in populations due to mutations and sexual reproduction

I am simply saying that the issue is not whether Genesis is true; just that if this is true then macro-evolution is still compatible. What I mean by this: Genesis is simply the origin of life; this is not evolution but abiogenesis. So what I am arguing is that even if you take this account as if it is true: then macro-evolution is still true because of the nature of sexual reproduction and speciation.

Perhaps I didn"t make myself clear: imagine Genesis is simply a description of the ancestors of life. What I mean by this: instead of being a prokaryote 3.8 billion years ago: but that "God" created organisms which, via sexual selection, was able to develop into new species over a period of generations. So instead of abiogenesis being the origin of life: but that "God" created animals and plants with the ability to change and develop over time, and that these changes and developments can give rise to new species (macro-evolution).

So to make it clear: macroevolution generally refers see larger-scale changes in populations. Lineages can change slowly or quickly. The reason in which most people dismiss evolution is because they have a misunderstand of the nature of evolution and that the large scale effects of evolution (macro-evolution) which is easily observable usually happens over too much of an extended period for humans to see. However what has been observed in that lineage-splitting (or speciation) which is intimately linked with evolution.

Observed instances of speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few examples of observed speciation:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas

However some of the most compelling case of macro-evolution (in the form of speciation) comes from Drosophila (fruit fly) evolution. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

There has also been evidence from Meffert and Bryant (1991) using houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behaviour that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed.

We can observe examples of rapid evolution (in the form of speciation) but this doesn"t always need to be observed in order to fit this in with a biblical reading. Because of the nature of evolution; it is a continual process which doesn"t have a "goal". So what this means is (even taking into account a biblical beginning) this means that regardless of where you begin as the origin of life; macro-evolution is always possible, just on timescales which are not usually accessible to humans (as we are finite beings which are prone to dying every now and then; and given that the average life expectancy of a human on the earth is 67.2 years (65.0 years for males and 69.5 years for females) for 2005"2010, according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision,) and changes large scale changes to animals in that time is usually difficult to see: as evolution is not as such that these huge changes happen all that often).

As I have already explained: the biblical description of being born "after their kind" is exactly the same as what evolution predicts, and that if an organism gave birth to an offspring which was not the same "kind" (species) then that would actually be evidence against evolution and not for it.

Macro-evolution is simply descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). The only difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale. It is that these small changes (which come from sexual reproduction) add up over time and these create large changes. That at no point does a dog produce a non-dog it is simply that over many generations these changes accumulate and then split into new species.

The nature of ring species is that a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. This is exactly what evolution predicts; that species do not form by the Ensatina salamander giving birth to a non-Ensatina salamander; but that over time the changes between two groups become too different to each other in that they can"t interbreed and therefore become a new species. It isn"t that the Ensatina salamander "wants nothing to do with" is not how scientists test whether a species can interbreed; they do it by comparing the their DNA and whether they will be able to produce a fertile offspring.

Simply: the debate is not whether Genesis is the origin of life: it is whether macro-evolution can be reconciled with evolution and due to descent with evolution and time this is always possible, regardless of how the first life developed.
Debate Round No. 3
Double_Helix46

Pro

In this final round I will only rebuttal my opponents argument and clarify on my own. I will remind my opponent that the final round is for rebuttal and the conclusion. Thanks to Con for this debate.

It seems that Con wants us to completely drop the origin of life position. This is impossible if the Bible and it's compatibility with macro-evolution is to be discussed. Macro-evolution by itself does not have to discuss the origin of life but the Bible is a different matter. The Bible begins with the origin of life. The whole description portrayed by evolution from 'micro' to 'macro' involves 4.6 billion years. This is totally different than the Bible itself. We have established and my opponent conceded that the Bible describes life only starting just over six thousand years ago. If you believe the Bible or the full version of evolution this still leaves the two unreconcilable. This debate also includes the Bible and everything inside of it, which includes, the origin of life. So, no, this can not be dropped by us or the readers.

We both described macro-evolution as the gradual change from one species into another species. If we take the Biblical account and life started six thousand years ago then macro-evolution has not has time to happen at a scale described by scientist. If we take it as it can happen given time even though we have only had six thousand years to see it then we are predicting the future that man will evolve into another species. Let's really look at this, if we take the six thousand year account then none of the majority of animals have evolved yet. How could we know that they ever will?

My opponent states that macro-evolution is a fact regardless. Well, if we look at the time scale of macro-evolution and if we accept the Biblical account then, no, macro-evolution can not be took as fact because it has not had time to happen yet. My opponent has wanted us to change the entire debate to macro-evolution and leave out the Bible but that is not the case. No one is denying micro-evolution is true or it can happen within six thousand years but the debate is about macro-evolution. If macro-evolution be true, then we need billions of years for man to be formed and not to mention all the others animals today as well.

My opponent then changed his position into that God created everything just as it say's plainly in Genesis but they evolved into us today. Well, this is impossible and macro-evolutionary scientist would agree here. Macro-evolution needs the time frame given to evolve the life today. No way have we evolved from lesser forms into our forms today within a six thousand year period. No one disagree's here that speciation occurs. No one is saying macro-evolution does not occur. What I am saying is that either the Bible is correct or evolution in full is. The Bible and macro-evolution can not be reconciled with the time frame given inside the Bible.



With respect to O. gigas, the common name for Onagracaea is evening primrose. The US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service currently lists 175 Oenothera names in their Germplasm Resources Information Network database <www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl?Oenothera>, 14 Feb 2007. Note, many of these 175 names are synonyms or obsolete—the number of actual species is considerably fewer. That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited. Boxhorn, J., Observed Instances of Speciation, 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) <www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>. T. A. Brown, Genomes 2, section 15.2.1. Acquisition of new genes by gene duplication <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=genomes.section.8694>.

"Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now. But they haven't." Morgan, T. H. 1910. Sex Limited Inheritance in Drosophila. Science. 32 (812): 120-122. Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 31. Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, 105.

We see my opponent has blended micro, macro-evolution and spectation together as one. He has defined them all as the same thing and simply missed placed those terms numerous times in this debate. Though all are a part of evolution, they all have different meanings. This is rightly so because they all have different names for different meanings and purpose in evolution as a whole.



To conclude, my opponent has tried very hard to prove macro-evolution but has failed to show it can be reconciled within the Biblical account at all. I have included the Bible in this debate for a reason and that was the description of life within the Bible. My opponent has tried to play off the description in the Bible as not important or needed in this debate but I disagree. The Bible shows that life formed just over six thousand years ago and that God formed them himself specifically. He did not use evolution to make them come about. Macro-evolution is in need of billions of years for their present representation of evolution. Let's remember that we need not believe the Bible, we need not believe macro-evolution, we need not deny that evolution happens. What we do need to see is that if the Bible claims one thing and macro-evolution claims another and that both those claims can not be reconciled with each other.

Resolution is affirmed! The Bible and Macro-evolution can not be reconciled.

Vote Pro!

davemark07

Con

Thanks to @Double_Helix46 for a wonderful debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did and I hope those reading it has been able to appreciate it too.

To end, I wish to slightly paraphrase the question: from "is macro-evolution and the bible reconcilable" to "is evolution still happening today? The simple answer is yes: because of the nature of evolution; it is a continual process which doesn"t have a "goal". Regardless of where you begin as the origin of life; macro-evolution is always possible, just on time-scales which are not usually accessible to humans. What this means is; instead of beginning with 4.6 billion years ago and abiogenesis, it simply was skipped forward to eukaryotic life. Whether they were created or developed via abiogenesis is not the point of debate; but whether evolution and the bible is reconcilable.

Evolution and abiogenesis are not entwined: they are not dependant on each other. The gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor has been demonstrated time and time again through the processes of speciation and ring species, and there is ample evidence to support both. However in the case of this argument the "common ancestor" is not the last universal common ancestor, but the biblical account of Genesis. That the common ancestor was not a prokaryote: but was the original created animals (or those which were put on the Ark). Evolution doesn"t have a "time-scale" to develop new species: it is varies in speed on a multitude of factors such as climate and population of the organism.

To counter @Double_Helix46"s question of "How could we know that they ever will [evolve]?" It is because of the same way we know Pluto"s Orbit. Pluto's orbital period is 248 Earth years: when we haven"t even known of Pluto"s existence for that long (as it was discovered in 1930). The reason why we know its orbit (or in our case that evolution is still happening and will continue to happen) is due to the accumulation of evidence which allow us to predict what will happen. That sexual reproduction creates an organism which is different to its parents creating variation within the species. And that over time there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, thus creating a new species.

What I believe @Double_Helix46 is trying to merge the evolutionary timescale upon the Biblical timescale, however that was not the debate we began with. The debate we are having is "Macro-evolution and the Bible"; not Biblical origins of life and scientific origins of life. So in posing the debate of whether large-scale evolution can happen based on a literal reading of Genesis there is evidence to support the fact that this is patently the case.

This is not a debate into the origin of life; it is about whether evolution is true regardless of how the first life developed. In round 1 it was established "Macro-evolution (the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor)". My perspective is that even if you take a literal reading of Genesis then large-scale evolution can happen due to sexual reproduction creating variation within a population and that speciation is able to create new species. Regardless of how the first life was created evolution is a fact. The origin of life is not relevant to this discussion, it debate is whether one species can develop into another from a common ancestor. This is demonstrably true regardless of how or when the first life developed based on the nature of variety in populations due to mutations and sexual reproduction.

I have never "changed my position" I have stated from the start that the Biblical account of Genesis is what I will base my argument on. I never stated that humans have evolved from "lesser forms" I have simply said that due to the nature of evolution it is a continual process which is compatible regardless of how the first life was created.

In regard to Oenothera gigas: I was not describing the evolution of it: I was simply citing a case of speciation in which Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana, thus creating a new species.

As for the paper regarding Drosophila evolution it is dated as coming from 1910: over 100 years ago. From the Creation website which @Double_Helix46 found this piece concluded by saying: "The survivors of 100 years of lab torture are still just fruit flies" which is simply utterly ignorant about the nature of evolution. As I have described; evolution is not that an organism gives birth to a "new species". It is over time new species develop when two groups can no longer interbreed. A more recent paper: Experimental evolution with Drosophila (Burke and Rose 2009) states that "Evolutionary biologists often use Drosophila as a model organism in experiments that test theories about the evolution of traits related to fitness."

The comparison between the bible and evolution: biblical definition; animals giving birth to a creature of its kind. Evolution states that that an animal can never give birth to an offspring which is not of the same "kind" (or to use the scientific term "species"). That it isn"t that an organism gives birth to a new species (to use the clich"; dogs produce dogs) it is that over successive generations the tiny changes between parent and offspring can be sufficiently different in that they develop into a new species of two populations which cannot interbreed. Evolution will only be viable if an animal gives birth to a member of the same species: if there was evidence of this being breached this would actually be evidence against evolution; not for it.

The criteria for evolution to occur are that: animals change over time and these changes develop animals in which can no longer interbreed. This is wholly compatible with the Biblical Account of Genesis because baraminology (creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds"). This is consistent with evolution in that an animal can never give birth to an offspring which is not of the same "kind" (or to use the scientific term "species"). And that over time there can be two populations which can no longer interbreed and therefore become a new species

Penny, Ralph (2002). A History Of The Spanish Language (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 20-21.

Genesis 1: Various Quotes The Holy Bible King James Version: 1611 Edition

N.J Buttefield (2000). "Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes" Paleobiology 26 (3): 386"404

Gray, J. C; Goddard, M. R. (2012). Bonsall, Michael. ed "Gene-flow between niches facilitates local adaptation in sexual populations". Ecology Letters

Hall, B. K; Hallgr"msson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett pp. 762

Wake, D (1997) Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94

Dobzhansky T. (1958) in A Century of Darwin, ed Barnett S A (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA), pp 19"55

Dawkins, R. The Ancestor's Tale, 2004:303

Irwin DE, Irwin JH, Price TD (2001). "Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation" (PDF). Genetica 112-113: 223"43

The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition". National Academy Press. Archived from the original on 7 December 2008

United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision

Bernal, John Desmond (1949) "The Physical Basis of Life". Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A, 1949 62 (9): 537"538
Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates

Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I sodded myself attempting to score on this contest.

Therefore, I removed my earlier vote, and removed myself from the process. Double Helix has posted this debate in the "Forfeited, Unvoted and Vote Bombed" forum, and might have mentioned my debacle there. (I'm not certain, he was cryptic.)

I hope the best for these two.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
comments. :-)
Posted by davemark07 4 years ago
davemark07
The reason why I am making this point is because what you described in your first round: Macro-evolution (the gradual change from one species into another from a common ancestor) is not what you are talking about now. You are now referring to not only abiogenesis but also the entire realm of scientific inquiry in which you made no reference to when I agreed to debate.

What you are saying is whether science can be reconciled with the Bible: whereas when I agreed to debate this topic you made no reference to science: only 'macro-evolution'

So either it was a dishonest/misleading title which meant that it was futile for anyone to debate, or you have changed your perspective since seeing my replies. I honestly don't know which but I find it incredibly dishonest that you proceeded with a wholly different discussion than we agreed before we began.
Posted by davemark07 4 years ago
davemark07
@Double_Helix46 The problem I have with that is that evolution is not the origin of life: that is abiogenesis, evolution however is how the diversity of life developed. As I said: if you would ave worded the discussion to be 'Is the scientific explanation into the origin of life and the bible reconcilable' that is a whole other debate as to whether evolution and the bible are compatible
With the current title (and the title I was basing my debate on) it means can evolution be true according to what is written in the Bible and based on the King James Version it wholly is, as I explained in some great length.
Posted by Double_Helix46 4 years ago
Double_Helix46
@Dave is agree with you but also I do not. You fail to see that the Bible is the debate topic and the origin of life within the Bible. I can not tell to agree or not about it reconciling with Macro-evolution but most certainly either the story of evolution given is billions of years or evolution has not took place yet at a scale as discribed. The argument is up to the voters but, yes, the Bible knowable game before ahdn and that included the Genesis creation account.
Posted by davemark07 4 years ago
davemark07
@Double_Helix46 I am struggling to see how this constituted as a debate:
If the question was: 'Is the scientific explanation into the origin of life and the bible reconcilable' then it wouldn't be a debate as they are fundamentally different and mutually exclusive; if that was the debate then you developed a wholly misleading title
However as I took the question: 'Are macro-evolution and the Bible reconcilable' that is essentially asking: regardless of how the first life developed, is evolution true?
In which case it would not be a debate as that is wholly acceptable because evolution is true; regardless of when you begin; if you begin 3.6 billion years ago with prokaryotes or if you begin 6000 years ago evolution is still true because I explained this at great length
I can't help but feel that you (and also the people who have voted) have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Or if you intended the question to be 'Is the scientific explanation into the origin of life and the bible reconcilable' then I suggest it was a misleading title and the debate is futile because it wouldn't be a debate. Quite how you can't reconcile this is simply baffling because we have seen (what you call) macro-evolution (or what I would simply call evolution) within a human lifetime.
If you accept micro-evolution then you accept macro-evolution because they are the same thing; just based on different time scales.
What I mean by this is: small changes (which come from sexual reproduction) add up over time and these create large changes. Or to use an analogy: you accept that a person can put one foot in front of the other which results in you walking 100 miles.
So can you please explain as you have continued to elude this: why are they not reconcilable?
Posted by davemark07 4 years ago
davemark07
@Double_Helix46 And you do realise that they are not dependant on each other? What I mean by this is, if you disprove abiogenesis that doesn't disprove evolution: you are aware of that?
Posted by Double_Helix46 4 years ago
Double_Helix46
@Dave, yes I do but both are topics for this debate.
Posted by davemark07 4 years ago
davemark07
@Double_Helix46 do you know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution?
Posted by Double_Helix46 4 years ago
Double_Helix46
"They will not procede into semantics that evidence supports evolution or that creationism is not valid."
Is all voters totally ignoring this premise in the accepting round? Creationism is the origin if life and Genesis.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Double_Helix46davemark07Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am correcting a typo that I made, and which was unforgivable. I thank WallStreetAtheist for alerting me to my mistake. This was caused by the straw hole view of this site that is afforded by my iPhone; I became confused as to which party was which. Considering the gravity of this error, I am withdrawing my earlier votes, and removing myself as a judge of this contest. I also want Ro sincerely apologize to the debators for this incompetence.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Double_Helix46davemark07Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm countering the religious hack, annanicole, who did not read the debate, nor even attempt to imitate a good RFD. I'll remove my counterVB if she actually reads the debate and votes like an adult (even though I agree that the two are not reconcilable).
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
Double_Helix46davemark07Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both made excellent arguments for their respective positions.