The Instigator
Spud
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DNehlsen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Macro-evoluton is valid

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: 8/20/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,852 times Debate No: 103612
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (79)
Votes (0)

 

Spud

Pro

Note: Because my last opponent dropped out after posting his first round, this is a copy and paste from previous debate

Evolution is defined as change of allele frequencies over successive generations and the saubsequent diversification of life due to various factors.

Endogenous retroviruses, avida simulation and phylogentics make up some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory.

Rules: start off with 3 arguments max. Absolutely no gish galloping.

If you're going to take part in debate, do not forfeit rounds. If you are unable to make an argument, post your argument as "forfeiting round," I will do the same, and then we can continue debate.

Note: The definition given above is what evolution is. Regardless, if someone wishes to debate against the notion of "macro-evolution" feel free to accept the debate. The definition is mainly only there to stop people talkling about astrophysics or other irrelevancies to this topic. I'm not one to get bogged down over mere definitions about what evolution actually is and prefer to get straight into the science as soon as possible.
DNehlsen

Con

To begin with, I would like to thank my opponent for the invitation for this debate. I look forward to a positive and fruitful discussion.

I am a Christian Creationist, who believes the Bible is the inerrent word of God. While I do not reject the idea of an Old-Earth interpretation of Genesis, I do lean more towards being a Young Earther. Regardless of how old the Earth is, I believe that evolution is absolutely insufficient to explain where we are today.

To open, I feel it necessary to make one observation. I believe in 'Micro-Evolution.' I think the term variation is more appropriate. Two dogs having a puppy and making a 'mix' is observable. We can know and see that animals can change to this degree. This does not, however, explain goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, or Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution postulates that given enough time a rock could become living, or a dog could become a cat. This is a very important distinction to be made as we continue.

My opponent requested that I list no more than three primary arguments in my opening statement. As such, I will provide my three biggest objections to evolution.
  • Everything needs a start, and evolution is no exception. Where did it come from?
  • The Theory of Evolution does not sufficiently provide an explenation as to how one can gain genetic information.
  • The Fossil Record does not support the theory of evolution.

Everything needs a start, and evolution is no exception. Where did it come from?
Omne vivum ex vivo...All life is from life. The Law of Biogenesis states that Life can only come from other Life. This law is accepted almost universally, though sometimes reluctantly, as there has never been any study of test to indicate otherwise.

“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.”
J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, p. 94.

Until proof is developed to show that life can come from anything outside of life, I believer there is a major hole in the theory. The naturalist, however, has no explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. Ignoring life for now, where did Time, Matter, and Space come from?

The Theory of Evolution does not sufficiently provide an explenation as to how one can gain genetic information.
Evolution has no basis for explaining how we evolve. Macro-Evolution postulates that given enough time one kind, by means of small mutations, will become something different. This, however, is simply illogical.

We never observe mutations providing new information. It can only work based upon what is already present.

“There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species.”...
“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.” Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung p. 1157.

Most mutations are harmful, or even lethal, to the subject of the mutation. In the event that a mutation is beneficial, it is not due to new information but due to circumstance.

I don't see how it is logical to assume that aquired characteristics gained after birth could be inherited by offspring. Unless evidence could be presented showing otherwise, this means several assumptions within evolution are incorrect. For instance, it is held that giraffes had their necks because they had to reach long distances to get the top leaf. We would agree it is illogical to assume a muscular human will automatically have muscular children.

Natural Selection can select from information already present, and ensure that the best designs survive, but it does not explain how the designs got there, how they get more complex, or how information is added.

Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill. (with new information.)

The Fossil Record does not support the theory of evolution.
If Evolution were true, we would expect to see a couple of things in the fossil record. In reality, however, the record is missing many of the key ingredients expected.

For instance, we have yet to identify any transitional fossils. We have fossils we can make some assumptions on, but we do not have any conclusive evidence for transitions in the record. There is a massive gap between forms of life whose cells have nuclei, and those that don't. Links are missing between different plant groups, between insects, (their invertebrates and vertebrates) between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, as well as between apes and other primates. There are not simple missing links here, but missing chains! For more on that: http://www.creationscience.com...

Not only are there missing chains in the fossil record, or 'evolutionary tree,' but this 'tree' doesn't even have a trunk. At the very bottom of the fossil record life appears suddenly, complex, and diverse. Evolution postulates small changes led to complexity, but this simply isn't what is found. Fish, Wirms, Coral, Jellyfish, and Mollusks among other complex species are found at the bottom. This doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. We can't even figure our where insects come from based on the records.
http://www.creationscience.com...

I also want to breifly discuss Polystrate Fossils which are found within the fossil record. These are fossils which cross two or more sedimentary layers. There are many trees in different layers standing straight up. There are other fossils which are upside down! I find it hard to believe one could say these are vastly different ages when there are trees which fossilized withing several different layers. Dead trees don't stay up for long, and upside down ones don't stay up at all.

To me, it seems apparent that the fossil record does not represent millions and billions of years.

In Conclusion, I do not find Evolution to hold water personally. Understanding human limitation and fallibility, (Isaiah 55:8-9) I expect that I'm not right on everything I've brought up or am talking about. Because of this, I look forward to my opponents rebuttal with great anticipation. Thank You for your attention thus far.

Debate Round No. 1
Spud

Pro

Introduction

Con asserts that he believes in micro, but not macro evolution. For this discussion, that is fine. However, already we see extremely large misconceptions with Con’s introduction.

The first mistake is that Con confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution is a scientific theory which explains the diversification of life. Abiogenesis on the other hand, is a hypothesis which aims to explain the origin of life.

Con also re-hashes a rather infamous statement from Kent Hovind. Despite what Kent has to say on the matter, evolution does not teach that evolution says we came from rocks. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life originated from chemicals and reactions between said chemicals. Something not being alive does not automatically mean a rock.


Con’s first argument

Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pasteur, yes. However, I’ll quote this from the Talk origins archive:

“What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections.” [1]

Once again, Con is conflating two things which have very, very little to do with each other. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of relatively simple life-forms from polymers and the such. It does not state that life can come from rotting meat. These are two entirely different matters.

Con’s second argument

“Information” is a nebulous term which can mean pretty much anything creationists want it to. Whilst I do not usually like to get into defining terms for obvious reasons, it’s exasperating that we have to do this. Ambiguity in a discussion such as this, is not a tactic you want to utilise Con. However, the famous E-Coli experiment has shown that a specific population of said E-Coli has been able to ingest citrate around generation 30, 000 [2]. There was a new nucleotide combination which appeared to give rise to the ability of the E.Coli to ingest citrate. For all intents and purposes, that nucleotide combination can be defined as “new information.” As vacuous a word that is in this discussion, that can be applied here. Your proclamation is incorrect.


With reference to Con’s argument regarding mutations, he conveniently forgets that there are 3 types of mutations (in this context anyways) – deleterious, neutral or advantageous. Con is also twisting the evidence to suit his preconceptions. Whilst I will concede that deleterious mutations outnumber advantageous mutations (deleterious mutations can cause cancer from a variety of factors), these are very specific causes. Whilst these cancers or disorders can be hereditary, the most common type of mutation is in fact neutral. Blonde hair [3] and blue eyes [4] are examples of commonly found neutral mutations in humans. Now, if you look to the journal of [3], you’ll find that this quote:


“Human KITLG (mouse Kitl) encodes a secreted ligand for the KIT receptor tyrosine kinase and has an essential role in the development, migration and differentiation of many different cell types in the body, including melanocytes, blood cells and germ cells15. Null mutations affecting Kitl or Kit are lethal in mice, and hypomorphic alleles cause white hair, mast cell defects, anemia and sterility16–18. A noncoding SNP (rs12821256) located in a large intergenic region over 350 kb upstream of the KITLG transcription start site is significantly associated with blond hair color in Iceland and The Netherlands.”

In other words, a mutation that does not work for KIT or KITL in mice are lethal or harmful, however that gene is also responsible for the development of blond hair. And unless it needs to be pointed out, null mutations are not a common occurrence. You can find a much more general summary of the findings here [5].

Con's claim that most mutations are deleterious, is quite frankly, ridiculous. You’ll only find the claim of “most mutations are deleterious” in outdated material or in creationist websites. I’m hazarding a guess that you got this from the latter.

We don’t assume that acquired characteristics inherited after birth could be inherited by off-spring. This is not a case of assumption; this is a case of likelihood. We use Punnett squares to determine the likelihood of recessive or dominant genes occurring in offspring.

No-one says that muscular parents will produce muscular children. That’s an absurdly superficial look at this, as muscles can be developed by training. Being muscular is not a gene expression. However, fast or slow basal metabolic rates (BMR) can be inherited from parents. That does not mean that parents with high BMR’s will always produce offspring with high metabolic rates; merely that these parents have a higher chance of passing on their high BMR to offspring. I honestly don’t know why Con is even bringing this up to be honest. Con accepts micro-evolution, and this is most certainly what people (even creationists) would consider to be micro-evolution.

Con’s Third Argument

There are in fact a very large amount of transitional forms, however I suggest we focus on just one. How about Australopithecus Afarensis? Specifically, let's talk about Lucy (AL 288-1). This find forms one of the more important transitional forms as Lucy's pelvis structure, vertebrae and femur strongly suggests bipedality [6].

There are missing branches of evolutionary progression, correct. The fossil record is by no means perfect. The circumstances for fossilisation are very specific and only a small segment of all life on Earth has been fossilised. Our knowledge is imperfect because of this, but I have to say… So what? Yes, our knowledge is imperfect, however, that is not any sort of reason to throw out a scientific theory which has much evidence to back it up.

Also, Con’s claims about “complex” animals starting at the bottom, is redundant. Yet again, we have an example of you using vacuous wording. This really is starting to get a bit tiresome. Relatively speaking a worm (have no idea what worm you’re talking about in all honesty) is less complex than what can be found in layers above the worm Con is talking about. This goes for Con’s other animals he brought up as well. Con pointing fingers at labelling specific organisms as “complex” is not an argument.

I would also like to bring up that Con is citing creationist sources. Which is not a good thing. Creationist sources are absolute garbage. A creationist website is inevitably going to be incorrect; that's just the nature of creationism unfortunately. Whether that be Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, 6000years.org, AllAboutScience, or any other number of other inept creationist websites out there, they all have one thing in common. They are incompetent when it comes to discussions about science. All of them.

Because we have so much to go over, Con’s “polystrate trees,” will be left until later on in the debate - either in round 3 or 4. I also ran out of room to discuss Con's use of "kinds," to classify animals, so that will have top be brought up later.

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[2] http://www.pnas.org...

[3] https://www.livescience.com...

[4] https://link.springer.com...

[5] https://www.livescience.com...

[6] https://iho.asu.edu...

DNehlsen

Con

The first mistake is that Con confuses evolution with abiogenesis.
I am not confusing anything. The Theory of Evolution is designed to explain why we have the world we have today. If it is going to do this, it must also be able to explain where it came from itself. I'll get more into this later.

...evolution does not teach that evolution says we came from rocks.
Earth is a terrestial planet, which means it's primarily rocky. If you follow what evolution teaches, it says that the earth played a part in our supposed evolution, both directly and indirectly. We therefore, over a long process, came from a rock, as it played a role in the formation of our present state.

Reply to first argument rebuttal
The point of the matter is that we do not observe anything that indicates life could come from natural process. The purpose was not to say that life came from rotting meat, but that we simply don't observe life coming from anything outside of life. We know spontaneous generation does not occur, and there is no evidence of the abiogenesis hypothesis. If there is, I invite my opponent to share.

Reply to second argument rebuttal
My opponent provided an article that discusses the evolution of some bacteria in a test. This is an example of micro-evolution, and I agree that this occurs. We do not, however, have any evidence to assume that these subjects will ever be anything more than bacteria. As my opponent freely admits, it was a new nucleotide combination. We know that these new combinations occur resulting in micro-evolution. This does not explain how mutations provide completely new information, though, since this is simply recombination of existing information.

My opponent claims I forgot there are 3 types of mutations, yet I addressed and recognized all three types he goes on to mention.

"Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill."

Regardless of how these mutations affect the subject, or how they are percieved to be, they are still all just mutations. If I were to lose my arm, and I could therefore not be handcuffed by the police, one could say this is beneficial to a situation. This does not mean that losing my arm is new information. To say that uphill, or advantages, mutations are proof of new information is like borrowing yourself out of debt.

When I said that most mutations were deleterious, that was a mistake that I retract. I had meant to say that most mutations were not advantageous, which we've established is accurate. That information was not found from either outdated material or creationist material as it was a mistake in type.

My reasoning for bringing up inherited attributes was simply to address some misconceptions made by evolution. In past debates, I've heard that "mutations aren't our only means of gaining grounds. In fact, we know the giraffe has a long neck because it had to stretch it's neck to get to the top branch." I was simply covering the detail in the event that it may arise. As it is clear, however, my opponent would not propose something of the sort, so I will retract the statement as it is now irrelevant to the discussion.

Reply to third argument rebuttal
Claims that fossils of primitive, apelike men are overstated at best. For example, we know 'Piltdown man,' 'Ramapithecus,' 'Nebraska man,' 'Java man,' 'Peking man,' and 'Homo Habilis,' just to name a few, were all hoaxes or incomplete stories. Lucy is no exception. Australopithecines have bodily proportions that are, as far as we can tell, not intermediates of men and apes. {1} Studies of the inner ear showed many similarities to other apes but the same couldn't be said about humans. {2} Lucy in particular likely swung from trees, unlike what is commonly proposed. {3} Several other reasons help reach the conclusion that the Australopithecines is simply an extinct ape. {4}

1 - Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.

2 - Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999

3 - “For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.” Sir Solly Zuckerman

“This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971

4 - “... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”

“Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...” Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979

“At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986

Since we brought up apemen, can we appreciate the fact that we find bones of present-day man out of place in the fossil record, before they are supposed to be around?
  • George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891
  • Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971)

When I used the word complex, I was referring to species with more complexity than what we would expect to find so low. This includes finds which are found much lower than the species they elegedly evolved from. The record isn't just incomplete, it's chaotic.

My opponent pointed out that I use creationist sources. This is only partically true. If you read the sources presented, the vast majority of quotes are from hostile witnesses, who would rather do nothing more than disagree with the point I'm presenting. Also, making a statement like "all creationist sources are garbage" is both fallacious and ignorant. This also doesn't take into account the fact that many of my own sources do the very same thing. I put this topic together using only secular research. If I were to bring in christian science, which may be more bias towards evolution, it would be much easier for me to tear evolution apart. For the sake of fairness and anti-bias, however, I have chosen to use secular studies, near exclusively.

Debate Round No. 2
Spud

Pro

Introduction

You are confusing something. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. I’ve already gone over this.

Your ridiculous straw-man that we came from rocks is not what evolution teaches. If you want to assert that evolution teaches this, find me a credible scientific journal which states that we come from rocks. If you cannot do this, then you’re just repeating Kent Hovind’s asinine straw-man which was popularised in 2001.

As for evidence of abiogenesis, this is not one subject I'm all too familiar with. However, I don't even need to provide evidence for abiogensis as the topic of abiogenesis is not being discussed. We are supposed to be discussing evolution, not abiogenesis. Your silly mistake of conflating evolution and abiogenesis is not my problem.


First argument

You used the example of spontaneous generation, and then acted as if this is relevant to the topic of abiogenesis. That’s your own fault for doing that. Whilst I do not like having to go over terms time and time again, I have to do this constantly because your exceptionally sloppy wording. The only thing that was disproven was that evolved life-forms cannot spontaneously generate from rotting flesh. What was not disproven is the notion that chemicals could give rise to life. You are using “life can’t come from non-life” as an umbrella statement to try and force abiogenesis into the same bag as spontaneous generation, and that is… Well, it’s just dishonest. Abiogenesis is not what was disproven; spontaneous generation was.

Argument 2

No, it’s not micro-evolution actually. The ability to ingest citrate is a major factor in what separates E.Coli from Salmonella. E.Coli cells could not grow on citrate under oxic conditions, and after generation 30, 000, this was no longer the case due to a rare mutation; there were Cit+ variants being introduced. Not being able to ingest citrate is a key factor which pretty much defined E.Coli, and Lesnki’s experiment shows that a core characteristic of E.Coli was flipped on its head.

Con also (wrongfully) claims that there was no new “information,” since this was a simple recombination of nucleotides. Below is a quote from [1] (I’ve substituted the superscript from quote with a “to the power of” sign, so that it’s readable when argument is posted – the rest of quote remains unchanged).

“We observed no Cit+mutants among 8.4x10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9x10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations.”

I would like Con to answer how this was merely a simple recombination when there wasn’t any evidence of this potentiating mutation in the ancestral cells, especially since samples from every 500 generations of E.Coli were frozen in order to allow Lenski and cohorts to go back and look for evidence of such a mutation. I believe “checkmate” sums up this situation well.

I’m looking back over your argument for round 2, and I see no mention of neutral mutations. So that’s wrong. You did neglect to mention neutral mutations, and instead only focused in on beneficial or deleterious mutations.

Con yet again shows his gross misunderstanding when discussing evolution. Having your arm own cut off is not a mutation. It doesn’t even work as an analogy because mutations occur via copulation. Mutations don’t occur because you had your arm cut off.

Con has admitted his mistake in claiming that most mutations were deleterious, so no further comment on this subject is required. My point is made.

I find it odd that Con has come across this argument, “mutations aren't our only means of gaining grounds. In fact, we know the giraffe has a long neck because it had to stretch it's neck to get to the top branch” for evolution. That is Lamarckian evolution, something which has been disproven for many, many years. This conversation would have been relevant in the early 1900’s, though I am currently reading through a journal [2] which goes over why Lamarckism was still popular amongst French scientists even into the late 1900’s. I won’t be able to read the entirety of this journal in time for my argument though, so let’s just say that I give that Neo-Lamarckism was popular amongst French scientists until the mid-1980’s, as this journal argues. You are still 20 years out of date in the most generous scenario.


Third argument

Yes, there have been hoaxes. Thing is we admit that these are hoaxes. The hoaxes you brought up have been shown to be hoaxes and are not considered evidence of evolutionary theory. Two can play the game with the hoaxes though. Remember the Ica stones? This conversation leads nowhere. And no, Lucy was most certainly not a hoax. Where’s your evidence that Lucy is a hoax in the same way that Piltdown man was a hoax?

No Con, there is no argument about Lucy’s bipedalism. There is an argument about Lucy’s arboreality. A specimen can be bipedal and yet still live in trees at the same time. You focusing in on Lucy’s ability to live in trees does not automatically refute Lucy’s ability for bipedalism. if you have evidence, show a credible, peer-reviewed journal. i don't care for quotes which are allotted to a single scientist. You want to sway my stance, quote a journal.

“Since we brought up apemen, can we appreciate the fact that we find bones of present-day man out of place in the fossil record, before they are supposed to be around?”

You gave references for this, but whjen I look this up I can only find idiotic creationist websites repeating the same thing. I woulkd like a link to the original source you got this from if you may.


Further arguments I need to make

Con uses “kinds” to classify animals. "Kinds" is not a thing in biological taxonomy, which has been a thing for nigh on 3 centuries when Systema Naturae was published in 1735. If you use Linnean taxonomy (which consists of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus & species), that would be acceptable in a lay discussion. There are of course other classifications such as There are Subphylum, Class, Infraclass, Cohort, Magnorder, Superorder, Suborder, Parvorder, Superfamily, Subfamily etc."Kinds" is not an acceptable term to use for numerous reasons. You are nearly 3 centuries behind the scientific consensus on this Con. 300 years!

As for your "polystrate trees," this has been a creationist claim which has been refuted so often, it's a wonder why you lot keep on bringing this up. I will be using Acadian Geology: The Geological Structure, Organic Remains and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island - Third Edition [3] as a source to refute your claim for this. The relevant pages are pg. 179 - 202.

First of all, "polystrate trees" aren't the correct term; Lycopodiophyta is the correct, modern umbrella term for these. The reason I object to your naming convention is that it is misleading. “Poly” means many and “strate” refers to strata. The name implies that these lycopods go through multiple layers of strata which is incorrect. They don’t go through multiple layers of strata.


In other words, these lycopods are found in swamp deposits… Hum de la hum. Now, question. What are swamps and bogs infamous for? I’ll let you know, because obviously you haven't figured this one out. They flood. Regularly. No-one says that swamp deposits form over billions or even millions of years! Swamp deposits take mere decades to form! Because of how often these floods occur in swamps, mud layers are created over the last mud layer and this is how these lycopods are found the way that they are.

[1] http://www.pnas.org...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net...

[3] https://archive.org...

DNehlsen

Con

You are confusing something. Abiogenesis =/= evolution.
If you are going to propose evolution you also need to explain where it came from. One can't just say 'this theory makes sense' without also explaining how that theory could possibly relate to reality.

find me a credible scientific journal which states that we come from rocks.
https://www.livescience.com...
https://www.livescience.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

We are supposed to be discussing evolution, not abiogenesis.
So we're not also discussing the origin of evolution? I feel as though the origin of something is just as important as the thing itself. I don't think the origin can be justified, and that's a huge reason by evolution as a theory is invalid.

Argument 1
The Law of Biogenesis was simply a building block for my argument. We know that life does not rise spontaneously, and there is no evidence that it rises in any form. Is it therefore ridiculous to say that the Law of Biogenesis could be expanded to encompass all nonlife? Until evidence can be presented that any kind of life can come from nonlife, I find no reason to assume it could. This is a big problem for the evolutionist, who wants to justify our existence by naturalistic means.

Argument 2
It is important to note that E. coli already had the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among many other required factors). The genetic changes here are indeed complex, but the key event here involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter.

Lenski’s experiment demonstrates that the vast majority of fitness benefits are actually due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. A possible exception to this tendency is the evolution of citrate utilization in aerobic conditions; however, no novel information was gained in this instance as this ability was the result of previously existing information being rearranged and used in a different way.

Next you say I never even talked about neutral mutations.
"Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill. (with new information.)"
As you can see, this is simply untrue. As I've already admitted, when I addressed downhill mutations that also included these neutral mutations as well. So even if I never really did address neutral mutations it would only be because of a grammatical mistake.

Having my arm cut off works as an analogy, because it represents me losing information, or losing a part of me, and as a result gaining an advantage in a specific scenario.

You are still 20 years out of date in the most generous scenario.
If I've heard an argument I've heard an argument. It doesn't matter if it's been proven wrong or not. I feel as though evolution has been proven wrong, yet here I am discussing it here with you today. Even if you think something is proven wrong that doesn't mean people don't believe it and it also doesn't mean you're correct. I was covering extra ground, which should be encouraged.

Argument 3
Many of the examples I've provided were in textbooks for years and years after their dismisal as evolutionary evidence. My point is that many of the alleged Ape-Men have been continuously proven wrong yet still taught. I believe Lucy is no exception. I provided my evidence that Lucy was a hoax in my argument.

In regard to Lucy I gave you several quotes from different leading scientists and their findings. If the scientific community wants to push an agenda like evolution it's hard to find factual evolution from them. That is why you must refer to individuals who are experts in the field for information. The people I quoted are evolutionists, who would like nothing more than to prove me wrong, but they also don't have a relentless agenda and refuse to lie in light of the evidence they see.

The quotes I gave also aren't allotted to 'a single scientist.' They were actually from a half dozen scientists, many of whom have written entire books on the topic of Lucy. (Some of which I have read.)

In regard to the human fossils, both of my citations are from books. Also, I wouldn't expect to find much information on it from a secularist, as it kind of flies in the face of everything they teach. It's not a very well known concept so to bring it to light would only hurt their agenda.

Argument Against 'Kinds'
I use God's method of classification, not mans. Why would I expect a book written about 3500 years ago to use the same classification system modern men use? For reference, a Kind is generally at the Family level, but not always.

Argument Against 'Polystrate Fossils'
My opponenet is simply incorrect here. Polystrate Fossil is the correct term, as we find trees crossing over different fossil layers. We find this to have occured in places such as the Grand Canyon, which isn't too swampy last I checked. My opponent also ignored my reference to upside down trees which have been deposited into multiple layers.

Since this argument got brought up, we should also talk about animals. Several animals have been found in multiple layers; Many examples of this can be found.
Andrew A. Snelling, “The Whale Fossil in Diatomite, Lompoc, California,” Technical Journal 9 no. 2 (1995): 244–258.

Evolutionists tell us all kinds of areas take millions of years to form such as Grand Canyon. The problem is these Polystrate Fossils are found in a lot of places. While they are found in swamps, they're also found nearly everywhere else: Various states, Mountain Ranges, different Biomes, Enviorments etc. The places these Fossils are found is quite diverse honestly, and 'Swamp Flood' does not sufficiently answer.
Debate Round No. 3
Spud

Pro

Introduction

For the umpteenth time, evolution =/= abiogenesis. If abiogenesis was shown to be incorrect, that holds absolutely no relevance to the theory of evolution. As an example, you might as well say that the prevailing theory in cosmogony (the Big Bang), should also explain a hypothesis such as mantle plumes. It’s an absurd position to take really.

I would like to point out that Con did not provide journals on this matter. Furthermore, the links that Con gave do not even support his claim that life came from rocks. What those links say is that life may have travelled to Earth via meteorites. It does not state that the life on said hypothesized meteorite, actually arose from said meteorite. These are two very different things, and as we can see, Con has a rather bad habit of conflating two different things and then acting as if his conflation correct.


We are not supposed to be discussing abiogenesis because abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis; evolution is a scientific theory. They are not one and the same and your conflation of these two show-cases fairly sloppy work.


Argument 1

Your argument regarding the law of biogenesis was disingenuous. Rotting meat =/= chemical reactions. No matter how hard you try, you cannot get around the fact that what was being disproven was the notion that organisms can arise from rotting meat, and not chemical reactions. You are simply trying shove chemical reactions underneath the umbrella term of “non-life.” No more really needs to be said on the matter as Con’s foundational argument is based on yet another erroneous conflation.

Argument 2

No it didn’t Con. Under normal conditions, E.Coli cannot ingest citrate. When oxygen is present, E.Coli cannot ingest citrate. I would also like to bring to attention that Con has not answered my question I asked of him in the previous round. And that question is how this potentiating mutation was merely a recombination of nucleotides, when there is no evidence of this potentiating mutation found in the frozen samples of E.coli. If this was a mere recombination of nucleotides, we would have found evidence of this in the frozen samples. This is important because this experiment is actually an example of how evolution can cause a new function to arise, as there is absolutely no evidence of this mutation in ancestral cells - which for all intents and purposes is classified as “new information.”

As for “downhill mutations,” I took that to mean deleterious mutations. It does not make any sense at all for “downhill mutations” to mean neutral mutations. Once again Con, your exceptionally sloppy wording is your downfall.

No, you losing an arm doesn’t work as an analogy, because mutations are the result from a combination of genes via sexual (or even asexual) reproduction. Losing an arm because you had it cut off, is not being talked about with mutations.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Lamarckian evolution has been falsified. There are no current, credible scientific journals which defend Lamarckian evolution. None. Once again, this would have been an interesting discussion in 1910. This is not a discussion that is relevant to modern biology because we are not still stuck in the early 20th Century.

Argument 3


Con admitted mistake with sources - please refer to comments for clarification.

I cannot read this one. It seems as if it’s a part of the archived section of Nature and not available for personal use. I would like to know how Con read this source, seeing as I’ve been going around in circles trying to read this.

This one I was able to read and I’m already finding blatant holes in Con’s argument just by reading the abstract. To the audience, you will be able to read this journal if you look to the end of my round and look at source [6].

“Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo Erects. In contrast. The semi-circular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of extant great apes. Among early Homo specimens, the canal dimensions of Stw 53 are unlike those seen in any of the hominids or great apes, whereas those of SK 847 are modern-human-like.”

Even worse for you is this quote from pg. 648:

“Among the fossil hominids investigated, the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human semicircular canal morphology is Homo erectus. Hence, if the enlargement of the anterior and posterior canals is functionally related to modern human-like obligatory bipedalism, then at least in this respect the vestibular apparatus of the australopithecines was not adapted to this type of locomotive behavior. These observations support studies of the postcranial fossil record which have concluded that H. erectus was an obligatory biped, whereas A. Africanus showed a locomotor repertoire comprising facultative bipedalism as well as arboreal climbing.”

Con, you acknowledged that you made a mistake in the comment section with regards to your sources. That is fine. Not great, but as long as you admitted your mistake, that was all that needed to be said. However, your “fixed” sources don’t paint a good picture either. I can’t read the first one, and the second one doesn’t even support your notion that evolution is wrong. It actually gives evidence as to why certain species (H Erectus) are fully bipedal or why certain species (A. Africanus) is partly bipedal with arboreal capabilities as well. Do you not read the original sources which you’re citing?

Argument against kinds

“Kind” is generally at the Family level, but not always? Well, that’s some brilliant weasel words, considering that us humans are classified as Great Apes and that we belong to the Family of Hominidae. Con insists on using vacuous words such as “kinds” in order to move the goal-posts to wherever he feels like. Unfortunately, this is a common creationist tactic and this makes Con approximately 280 years behind the scientific consensus. Con might as well have chosen to ignore classical mechanics; it would have got him the same result. We have advanced quite a bit in the past 300 years, yet Con refuses to catch up with the current era, and would much rather act as if the past 280 years of progress in biological taxonomy never occurred. I don’t think anything else needs to be said on this matter; my point is rather clear.

Argument against “Polystrate Fossils”

No, I’m really not. “Polystrate Fossils” only comes up in creationist circle-jerks. And Wikipedia as well I guess, but Wikipedia really isn’t that reliable.

Even Ian Juby knows what they are technically called [1] – [3]. He still refers to these as “polystrate trees,” sometimes, but even someone as inept as Wazooloo can get something as basic as this right.

Furthermore, Con is apparently completely unaware that environments change over time. We can find instances of where the Stigmaria roots (from Sigillaria) can go through layers of coal. This was discussed on pg 179 of Acadian Geology – the first page of chapter 12. And guess what? Coal is formed at the bottom of swamps [4].

Lycopods going through layers of mud is usually how these occur, and these often happen in swamp deposits because of how often they flood. If you look to pg. 191 -192 of Acadian Geology, J.W Dawson gives an explanation of how these are usually found

I would also like a source for Con’s claim of a lycopod going through a layer of strata in the Grand Canyon. I will touch on Con bringing up Andrew Snelling's "journal" in later rounds - no more space

[1] http://ianjuby.org...

[2] http://ianjuby.org...

[3] http://ianjuby.org...

[4] http://www.planete-energies.com...

[5] https://archive.org...

DNehlsen

Con

evolution =/= abiogenesis
Evolution is a nice theory, but you must explain where it comes from. That is all I'm asking, and you've yet to show me how it is irrelevant to this discussion.

What those links say is that life may have travelled to Earth via meteorites.
me·te·or·ite
noun
plural noun: meteorites
  1. a meteor that survives its passage through the earth's atmosphere such that part of it strikes the ground. More than 90 percent of meteorites are of rock, while the remainder consist wholly or partly of iron and nickel.
Ninety percent rock? Huh...interesting. I never said life arose from the rock itself. What I did say is we came from rocks, which secularists believe had a part to play in our evolution. Evolution teaches that we came from rocks, while not in whole at least in part.

abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis; evolution is a scientific theory.
I honestly don't care about Abiogenesis or whatever theory you want to use. I want you to show me how life could ever arise by natural process, which you haven't done.

Argument 1
As already stated, we know life can't arise spontaneously from nonlife. Why should we assume it can arise at all from nonlife? We simply don't observe life arising by natural process.

Argument 2
To quote from my last argument:

It is important to note that E. coli already had the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among many other required factors). The genetic changes here are indeed complex, but the key event here involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter.

I feel as though this answers all of the questions you brought up.

As for “downhill mutations,” I took that to mean deleterious mutations. It does not make any sense at all for “downhill mutations” to mean neutral mutations. Once again Con, your exceptionally sloppy wording is your downfall.
I said:"Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill. (with new information.)" I don't see how you could possibly misunderstand this. I explicitly stated that horizontal mutations involve no new information. There is absolutely nothing sloppy about this.

As I went on to say, there was a case in which I said the down-hill mutations dominated the common mutations. When I said this, I simply meant that the mutations were not uphill. I made note of this 'mistake,' although the only fault is in the interpretation. If you can only move neutrally or down, you'll still be going downhill eventually. Never will you go up, or stay the same, with the options of neutral or down.

No, you losing an arm doesn’t work as an analogy, because mutations are the result from a combination of genes via sexual (or even asexual) reproduction. Losing an arm because you had it cut off, is not being talked about with mutations.

Analogy
noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
  • a correspondence or partial similarity.
    "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
  • a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
    "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
If I made an analogy of a literal mutation as "the result from a combination of genes via sexual (or even asexual) reproduction," it wouldn't be an analogy anymore. It would just be a hypothetical scenario. The entire point of an analogy is that it takes the essentials and it explains it using another form. The loss of an arm represents the loss of information, or a deleterious/downhill mutation.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that Lamarckian evolution has been falsified.
Now you're just arguing to argue. I've already stated I agree with this statement. I agree science has falsified Lamarckian evolution long ago. This doesn't change the fact that I've still heard evolutionists use it.

Argument 3
I cannot read this one.
For the citation being referred to here, please see the comments section. The item I cited is a book. As such, one way to get this item is to buy it and read it. It's in my library.

This one I was able to read and I’m already finding blatant holes in Con’s argument
The item referred to is cited in the comments.

It actually gives evidence as to why certain species (H Erectus) are fully bipedal or why certain species (A. Africanus) is partly bipedal with arboreal capabilities as well.
The primary purpose of this citation was to address the point of the inner ear. While the other points may be contradictory to my point, this is not unexpected. One might make a quote from Darwins 'The Origin of Species,' but this does mean that said person would endorse everything inside the book. If it did, this would be a shame because we know some of the details mentioned in there are outdated. The evidence in the quote provided is not conclusive on the matter, and in no ways disqualifies the point I was making. Other sources I presented present qualms with many of the points presented here.

Argument against Kinds
As I've stated, the Bible gives us a form of taxonomy to use. I would not expect this to be fully compatible with our taxonomy systems today. If we are to accurately determine what the Bible says on a subject, we must also try to understand the context and meaning of the terms it is using. Since the foundation of my claim comes from the Bible, from the idea that God created all of these animals and their categories, I must use the system of classification he gave for us. We do our best to evaluate where this line should be, most agree around the Family area, but this is not completely compatible. If you see this as a 'creationist tactic,' it is not for our own reasons.

Also, simply because we sometimes relate to older systems so we can understand what they mean, this does not mean that we are behind the scientific conensus. I will use the current system of taxonomy where it is relevant. God, however, supercede human knowledge. Therefore, we must rely on his definitions when we are handling his word and matters such as origins.

Argument against Polystrate Fossils

No, I’m really not. “Polystrate Fossils” only comes up in creationist circle-jerks. And Wikipedia as well I guess, but Wikipedia really isn’t that reliable.
Then I would like to hear a secular perspective on them. Wikipedia usually has citations for everything they say, so it's as accurate as it's sourcework. Wikipedia, honestly, is no less reliable than the debate we're having right now.

In part three of the journal my opponent quotes, the conclusion says the following:

It is at least as likely that a world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis made this whole formation in a relatively short amount of time, each strata being laid down by enormous tides travelling by the site twice daily. In fact, the two sea bed strata fit the explanation of a global flood better than the hypothesis of many flash floods. The volcanic ash deposits interspersed among the strata would also fit the global catastrophe model as undoubtedly there would have been tremendous volcanic activity going on during this time.

The author also asks three questions that an evolutionist would have to answer at the end. All three of these questions are explainable by the Biblical Flood as recorded in Genesis. These trees remain at least an issue to the evolutionary theory.

The link below discussed this matter in more detail, explaining some of the places these are found, and how this is actually a big deal to the evolutionist.
http://apologeticspress.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Spud

Pro

Introduction

I have constantly shown how abiogenesis is irrelevant. Evolution deals with the diversification of life, abiogenesis deals with the origins of life. These are unrelated to each other. If evolution was disproven, it would not have any effect on abiogenesis and vice versa. You stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything I tell you, is not a valid refutation.

If you say that we believe we came from rocks, the direct implication of that is to say that we think life arose from rocks. That was Kent Hovind’s straw-man which he popularised 16 years ago in that infamous 2001 talk, and that is still a straw-man in 2017.


Argument 1

I believe I have given sufficient reasons as to why Con’s conflation of abiogenesis with spontaneous generation and acting as if spontaneous generation is somehow an indication that abiogenesis could not happen, is unwarranted.

Argument 2

No it doesn’t answer it. You repeating your own made up assertion does not make it true. Every 500 generations of each population of E.Coli were frozen and there was no evidence of this potentiating mutation in the frozen samples of E.Coli. There was no evidence of this potentiating mutation in the ancestral cells. None whatsoever. No matter how much you assert this is the case, it does not make it true.

Your sloppy wording is the reason for misunderstanding. No-one who knows a damn thing about evolutionary theory users the sloppy language that you are using. We do not say that a species can evolve downhill or that a species can evolve horizontally, nor that a species can evolve uphill. These are completely vacuous words. Once again, I do not like nit-picking over the choice of words, but your extremely sloppy use of the English language and the way you use these terms, forces me to come down on you like a tonne of bricks.

If you are to make an analogy, you need to make sure that said analogy is analogous. In other words, your analogy still needs the core elements of what is being explained (in this case mutations), for it to be a competent analogy. The very premise of mutations is that these occur via copulation and the mixing of genes causes offspring to have different genes to the parents. If your analogy doesn’t have any element of this in it, then your analogy fails.


Argument 3

Your first source is not a book, it’s a journal; however, this is archived on Nature and I cannot access it to double-check it. You won’t be able to get this in your local library. You can access the journal if you’re in university, but you cannot access it if you’re not affiliated with an academic institution.

As for your second source, that was your fault for acting as if the entirety of that journal supported you. Nothing you said in relation to this source, implied that you disagreed with it. You can use sources you don’t agree with as an example. For instance, when I brought up Ian Juby, I said quite specifically that even someone as inept as he is, could get thee correct naming of your so called “polystrate fossils,” right. The implication there is that I hold the man in utter contempt, so when you quote further about Ian Juby’s foolishness about the Noachian flood, that is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. On the other hand, when you bring up the scientific journal you did, you acted as if that journal supports the stances you hold. No further context, no nothing. You shot yourself in the foot here.


Argument Against kinds

I think Con’s statement on this, speaks for itself really. He doesn’t care for accuracy when discussing science. Con only cares about being as nebulous as possible because it suits his arguments. Even if that means lagging behind the scientific consensus by centuries, Con sees absolutely no problem with it. No further statement is necessary, I’ve already made my position clear.

Argument against “polystrate fossils.”

I’ve actually already given a secular source for these claims – that was J.W Dawson’s Acadian Geology which was published 140 years ago. I even gave you the relevant pages you would need to look up when I made statements about why these lycopods are found the way that they are. And you want to know why this is a secular source? J.W Dawson was a religious man, but in his scientific works, he separated his religious beliefs from the scientific works he undertook – which makes that secular. He believed that there was no contradiction when it came to science and his religious beliefs, but when it came to the science, J.W Dawson was able to do something you could not even dream of doing. And that is separating personal religious beliefs from scientific enquiry.

Your right. Even Wikipedia is a better source than the rebarbative tripe you’re using as “sources.” Andrew Snelling’s “journal” was comedic to read (more on that later). However, the same cannot be said of my sources I have been relying on. I’ve used one lay example which discusses coal formation and I used Ian Juby as an example to show that even a creationist could get something as basic as the naming convention of your sop called “polystrate trees,” right. But the rest of my sources have been credible, peer-reviewed journals.

Furthermore, Ian Juby’s incompetent articles on his website website is not a journal. I never said nor implied that Ian Juby’s silliness are even in the same playing field of a scientific journal.


Finally, I would like to touch on Con citing Andrew Snelling’s quote on quote “journal.” I put that in quotations, because what Con has cited is not a credible, scientific journal. It’s merely the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of a creationist. This has not undergone peer-review and it most certainly is not a journal. Let’s draw up a comparison shall we? Con has referenced a credible, peer-reviewed journal [1]. And now let’s compare that to Andrew Snelling’s garbage [2].

It doesn’t take a genius to see the difference in complexity and academic rigour in between these two works. Andrew Snelling has written a poorly worded essay which can be grasped by most 15 year olds.

Andrew’s article lacks complexity, and if the basic nature of this article wasn’t bad enough, Snelling seriously talks about the biblical frame-work and a Noachian flood in a work that is supposed to be about geology. I don’t even have to refute the points made in this poorly written drivel; all I have to do is point out that Snelling’s nonsensical ramblings are purely made from an ideological perspective. This is not science


Conclusion

Judging by Con’s previous debates, I was expecting something a little bit better than… Whatever this is supposed to be. All throughout this debate, Con has made erroneous conflations, he has shown himself to be decades (and even in certain cases centuries), behind the scientific consensus, he has misrepresented the findings of scientific journals and refuses to acknowledge the findings of scientific journals I have brought up (especially the journal going over Lenski’s E.Coli experiment)

To exacerbate the issue, when Con is told just how far he is behind the scientific consensus, Con doesn’t appear to care. Instead Con actually insists on referring to the Bible for scientific discussions (i.e biological taxonomy), despite there being nearly 300 years of scientific advancement in this area. I could go on but I think the point is made.


I thank Con for investing time into this debate, though I personally was expecting a much better performance from Con.


[1] https://www.detectingdesign.com...

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

DNehlsen

Con

That was Kent Hovind’s straw-man which he popularised 16 years ago in that infamous 2001 talk, and that is still a straw-man in 2017.
You keep attributing this comment to Kent Hovind, so I looked up some of his discussions and listened in. Hovind said we came from a rock they had a part to play in the creation of the 'primordial soup.' Hovind made no strawman, he simply took what someone said to him and emphasized a single part. I'm honestly not too sure why you've argued about a stupid quip like this for so long, yet refuse to acknowledge my questioning about the origin of evolution.
https://youtu.be...
Note: In this debate Kent said we came from soup and a rock. In other debates he only uses the word rock, with all the surrounding details remaining consistent.


Argument 1

Evolution deals with the diversification of life, abiogenesis deals with the origins of life.
What exactly is evolution diversicating? This is probably one of the biggest qualms against evolution, yet my opponent simply refuses to make any sort of response. For Evolution to be valid, it must at the very least have something to exist. We are discussing the Theory of Evolution as a whole here, and the origin of this evolution is just as valid as the product.

My opponent then goes on to say my indication that abiogenesis is unwarrented. Life of any kind coming from nonlife has simply never been observed. I've made this point, and this entire debate it has gone unchallenged. The original quote I brought up discussed spontaneous generation, but this was only the entryway to the point I made above. Repeatly I stressed this, and my opponent simply refuses to answer. This could possibly be because he has no answer.

Argument 2
You, yourself, stated the following:
Under normal conditions, E.Coli cannot ingest citrate. When oxygen is present, E.Coli cannot ingest citrate.

This is exactly what I said.
...E. coli already had the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions

How can you pretend like I just made this up? You agreed with me here. This information was already present, simply supressed. I'm simply confounded by my opponents blatant contradiction here.

No-one who knows a damn thing about evolutionary theory users the sloppy language that you are using.
I'm not a scientist. I will use whatever words I deem fit to describe the phenomenon I'm trying to describe. With the exception of a few slight grammatical slip-ups, there is absolutely no reason this should be an issue. I find the terms 'downhill' and 'uphill' to provide a good mental picture of the absurdedy of progressive evolution.

Once again, I do not like nit-picking over the choice of words
Really? I mean you've only spent more time discussing my word choices than the points I was making. Despite any word choices, my points were clearly understandable.

The very premise of mutations is that these occur via copulation and the mixing of genes causes offspring to have different genes to the parents.
If I put all of these elements into my analogy, it would no longer be an analogy. At this point, it would be a hypothetical scenario. Please explain why I need to include sex (copulation) into my analogy in order to make my point? My analogy was addressing the point of information. The loss of an arm is a loss of information. This is as clear as it could possibly be. Again, you're spending more time critiquing my analogies and wording than the points I've made.

In regard to Argument 2, my opponent has provided no evidence that brand new, or novel, information can arise by mutation. He seems to have agreed with me that in his example the new effect already existed but was simply supressed by enviorment. After this, my opponent brought up no other example, and spent his time debating semantics.

Argument 3

book
noun
a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

This is indeed a book. Again, why are you debating semantics? And yes, you are correct. I don't think you'd be able to find it in a local library. Universities and Colleges will carry it though.

As for your second source, that was your fault for acting as if the entirety of that journal supported you.
I didn't. I made a point enclosed by brackets, {2} and I put my entry in the corresponding citation. I don't recall ever saying the entire journal supported my point of view.

For instance, when I brought up Ian Juby, I said quite specifically that even someone as inept as he is...
but even someone as inept as Wazooloo can get something as basic as this right
This is the quote my opponent is referring to. I did not take Wazooloo to refer to Ian Juby. I suppose one could count that as my mistake. But since my opponent is so keen on talking semantics, I could also make the point to complain about how poor his wording was here, using a term other than the subjects name which isn't known to everyone to refer to someone.

In regard to Argument 3, my opponent didn't really bring up anything else about the fossil record. We discussed some of the different supposed connections to man, but my orginal points about the missing links in almost every species were never addressed. My points about the trunk not existing, among some other arguments, were simply never discussed. The subject was changed to Lucy. The majority of my points about Lucy, however, were ignored to attack some sourcing, grammar, and semantics. The vast majority of my qualms against Lucy were never addressed. Therefore, as far as I can tell, my opponent did not adequately respond to my arguments here.

Argument Against Kinds
I care deeply for scientific accuracy. Science isn't God though. So if I'm going to look at something from the perspective of God, I need to use his terms to make sense of what he said. Outside of the discussion of origins I am happy to use modern taxonomy. The problem, however, is we don't even know that modern science is 100% accurate. We can only make theories based on the best of our abilities. I used 'Kind' to refer to beings which God created separated. Modern science does not have a 'created separately by God' category.

Argument Against Polystrate Fossils
I do separate my religious beliefs from my science. In fact it's science that led me to God to begin with. I have absolutely no issue doing just what my opponent claims I could never dream of doing. He must then explain how I came to faith by means of science. If science preceded my faith, then my faith cannot guide science.

There are some scenarios in which perspective is everything. We have the same evidence, and sometimes that evidence is in favor of both theories. Because it fits in with both theories, it's up to the observer to draw his own conclusions. This is where I allow my religious leanings to guide my science. Science doesn't contradict religion.

One thing I would like to note on Andrew Snelling, is his reference listing is 50 items long. Many of these refer to other journals and scientists. His sourcing is much more valid than that of my opponents, who commented relentlessly on how professional his sourcing was. My opponent then said "I don't even have to refute the points made...[In the article]" I think this comment alone disqualifies everything my opponent has said on the matter. You can spew your opinions on the material, but your say so without proof, or referencing a single comment of his, means nothing.

Conclusion
In this debate, I'm a tad disappointed. The first three arguments I made were meant to be quick jabs followed up by several other arguments. My opponent, however, insisted on spending this debate arguing semantics.

Unfortunately, the 8,000 character limit really diminished the quality of this debate, as I feel neither debater could adequately present his points with such constraints.

I would like to thank my opponent for the discussion, the observer for his time, and the voter for his respect.
Debate Round No. 5
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spud 2 months ago
Spud
Bit of a pity that Debate.org is essentially a dead website nowadays. If there was a large enough audience, I probably would have won because of how well did at intellectually spanking Con.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: CreationGuy// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Both did an excellent job in the debate, but Con provided some excellent arguments and stayed on topic unlike pro who kept on bring objections and didn't really stay on the topic at hand.... It was an overall interesting debate between the two.... it was nice to see the different arguments that could be made for/ against both sides of the argument....

[*Reason for removal*] Staying on topic is not a sufficient reason to award conduct. It may be part of the reason a voter chooses to award arguments, but unless one of the debaters is insulting or forfeits a round, the voter is not allowed to award conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by Spud 4 months ago
Spud
@DNehlsen If you fully supported modern biological taxonomy, you wouldn't resort to your puerile classification of organisms on a vacuous word such as "kinds." Your "kinds" offers *nothing* of value to modern biological taxonomy. It doesn't replace it, and it doesn't even work as a place-holder for limitations of our current classification system as you say it does, because "kinds" does not offer any explanatory power. None. It has absolutely nothing going for it, because modern biological taxonomy does not fit with your childish brutalisations of taxonomy. This is not how classification systems work anymore. Get with the times and stop lagging behind the scientific consensus by centuries. It'll do wonders for your intelligence, and it'll lower my blood pressure.
Posted by DNehlsen 4 months ago
DNehlsen
I've already told you I fully support our system of taxonomy. But it doesn't tell us what God originally created, which is the origin of the different kinds. It's simple...yeah...but it explains what I'm talking about perfectly. Lines that will never be crossed by animals in a billion years of mutating.
Posted by Spud 4 months ago
Spud
@DNehlsen There is no single word because such a rank does not exist in biological taxonomy, because that is not how biological taxonomy works. We do not assign a single rank to a population of organisms. Instead, a group of organisms are classified by numerous different ranks and this gives tremendous explanatory power.

For instance, this is how humans are classified: Domain: Eukarya; Kingdom: Animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Subphylum: Vertebrata; Class: Mammalia; Infraclass: Holotheria; Cohort: Placentalia; Magnorder: Epitheria; Superorder: Archonta; Order: Primates; Suborder: Haplorhini; Infraorder: Simiiformes; Parvorder: Catarrhini; Superfamily: Hominoidea; Family: Hominidae; Subfamily: Homininae; Tribe: Hominini; Subtribe: Hominina; Genus: Homo; Species: sapiens; Supspecies: sapiens.

This gives a damn more accurate approach than to just label a group of populations a "kind." Your baseless drivel for "taxonomy" doesn't cut it in the 21st Century. You can hate the science for being so meticulous, you can hate it for contradicting the literal interpretation of your precious holy book, but you cannot get around the fact that your simplistic use of "kinds" to classify populations does not cut it. It offers no explanatory power and is merely an ad-hoc rationalisation to protect your literal interpretation of the Bible. You are outclassed here.
Posted by DNehlsen 4 months ago
DNehlsen
Okay. Tell me what word would have as accurately gotten my point across...it doesn't exist.
Posted by Spud 4 months ago
Spud
Modern biological taxonomy is used to classify and distinguish between different populations of organisms, as well as show a population's relation to other ranks. So your "classification" of using "kinds" to distinguish between different populations of organisms, is redundant. "Kinds" does not offer a replacement for biological taxonomy, and nor does it fill in a place where biological taxonomy shows its limitations.

You didn't claim it was scientific, but you participated in a debate about science and used words that a toddler would use in a debate that is supposed to be about science. You do that, you set yourself up to be intellectually wrecked by your opponent. You want to debate science, get ready to play with the big boys or go and play in the sand-pit with the other intellectual light-weights.
Posted by DNehlsen 4 months ago
DNehlsen
I mean they have different purposes. Modern taxonomy is used to classify. God used the word kinds to distinguish between the original animals. I don't know what the original animals where, so I can't tell you exactly what to expect. What I can tell you, is that those kinds are there, and we do see those limits.

I don't really see your issue to be honest. I'm not using it and claiming it's scientific taxonomy, I'm saying "certain animals will always stay within certain boundaries. The Bible referred to these boundaries as kinds' I still use modern taxonomy, and I still do separate my religion and science. But, modern taxonomy doesn't have a word for this phenomenon, so I'll use the one scripture does.
Posted by Spud 4 months ago
Spud
@DNehlsen The hell it's applicable in that way. Modern taxonomy might not be perfect (no scientific theory is), but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than your pitiful "kinds."

And yet instead of using modern biological taxonomy and the ranks that are associated with it, you instead use "kinds," purely because of your holy book. This is what I mean when I say that you cannot separate your beliefs from science. Other respectable Christians are able to do it, but you flat out refuse to.
Posted by DNehlsen 4 months ago
DNehlsen
I used the term because it's applicable in a way modern taxonomy would not have been. I was referencing the Bible, so one would expect me to use the same classification that it did.

You say I'm 300 years behind, yet I have absolutely no issue using modern taxonomy. I just think there are some concepts modern taxonomy doesn't address fully.
No votes have been placed for this debate.