The Instigator
somerandomvideocreator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gurghet
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
49days09hours17minutes36seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 347 times Debate No: 103798
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

somerandomvideocreator

Pro

Macroevolution = belief that animals from different vertebrate groups (mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians) had a common ancestor

NOT evolution within a species
gurghet

Con

Just to be clear I will use the following definitions for the words in the debate title.
theory = hypothesis (according to http://www.dictionary.com...)
scientific fact = theory (according to http://www.dictionary.com...)

Let the debate begin!
Debate Round No. 1
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

hypothesis: "a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

We use macroevolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. We cannot observe macroevolution in action, but we can observe microevolution, evolution on a much smaller scale.

Therefore, while macroevolution is a hypothesis, it is far from confirmed.
gurghet

Con

I guess you will use the word hypothesis then? Agreed, the other word then is "scientifi fact" ok?

Well, you say that microevolution (evolution on a much smaller scale) can be observed, well that _is_ macroevolution (belief that animals from different vertebrate groups had a common ancestor) which is a subset of evolution (belief that all life had a common ancestor) on a much smaller scale.

So if we can observe smaller scale macroevolution, and expand it to a bigger scale, we get macroevolution.
Debate Round No. 2
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

We can observe microevolution, certainly. If we use microevolution to assume macroevolution, that might be extrapolating the data a bit. The more you assume, the more uncertain the idea becomes.

For example, is 100 degrees Fahrenheit hot? It probably is, but it depends on where you are from. What about 99? 98? The more you decrease the temperature, the shakier the idea is until we reach 0 degrees Fahrenheit, which is pretty cold.
gurghet

Con

Yeah extrapolating data gets shakier when you go long distances. The thing is that nobody went too far.

You can pick any animal or living thing and find species that are very close, either by morphology or molecular biology.
Debate Round No. 3
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

I would like you to explain your point fully.
gurghet

Con

Pick any animal. I"ll pick whales for you. You have a continuum around them of similar animals, by both morphology and molecular biology.
By looking at the diagram in http://evolution.berkeley.edu... you can go from whales to hippos in some 20 million years.
You can do that with many living extinct or living animals. Of course also for bacteria and fungi and plants and viruses. You may find some isolated beings here and there, but it"s mostly a continuous flow from one species to the other.
Debate Round No. 4
somerandomvideocreator

Pro

Okay, so I guess it is possible that macroevolution is true, but that does not mean that it is true.

Take the Sun and planets rotating around the Earth. It was an okay explanation, but not true.

This is why I said it was a theory, not a fact. It might be a good explanation, but that does not mean that it is necessarily true.

Overall, you showed that macroevolution was feasible.
gurghet

Con

It's hard to debate while not agreeing on the definition of ambiguous words, I will use the terms defined in the 1st round.
I will also interpret your word theory in the sense of hypothesis and your word fact for the scientific meaning of theory.
A good explanation, while not necessarily true, is called a theory (fact in your terms) when it has a great (but not necessarily absolute) explanatory and predictive power.
We may never know with absolute certainty if macroevolution is 100% true, still it is a theory (fact in your terms) because it is consistently used to make prediction about biological findings.
The planets rotating around the Earth stopped being a theory when it failed to explain the phases of Venus. The new theory, heliocentrism, can account for Venus' phases, and thus geocentrism is now a discarded hypothesis.
If tomorrow we find evindence of more than one ancestor, or we get findings that, after torough examination, contradict macroevolution, it will cease to be a theory (or at least it would become a controversial or weak theory).
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 months ago
KostasT.1526
Con's arguments were kind of a letdown. Had he tried a bit more, he could have easily won the debate, in my point of view.
Also, please use the term "theory" correctly. It is not that difficult, and it helps avoiding the "evolution is just a theory" misinterpretation.
Posted by Spud 4 months ago
Spud
The title of this debate is making me cringe inside. Mate, if you don't even know that a scientific theory differs from the "theory" that we use in everyday usage, you need to pay more attention in science class.
Posted by Surgeon 4 months ago
Surgeon
Equivocation fallacy on the word "theory" for a change! Please look up the proper definition of a scientific theory, as compared to the common garden use of theory by the GP meaning an "educated guess". They do not mean the same thing.

Also note the macro evolution is merely micro evolution on a larger timescale, rather like seeing evolutionary branching in a strobe effect as opposed to every single transition. If you accept micro evolution, you have to accept macro evolution. Any attempt to accept one and deny the other is mendacity, pure and simple.
Posted by byaka2013 4 months ago
byaka2013
noun, Biology.
1.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

Change the definition to that and I will debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 month ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
somerandomvideocreatorgurghetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con by default!