The Instigator
Kbbond
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativeLiberal101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,027 times Debate No: 65208
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

Kbbond

Pro

Studies in biology and its effects in our lives are based in evolution. Evolution therefore should not be a battle ground between science and religion. It must be accepted and understood. If we argue over the viability of evolution, we may as well argue over the viability of mathematics because evolution is a quantifiable science.
ConservativeLiberal101

Con

Biology is a bigger subject that covers more areas that are more important to the human knowledge rather than evolution. Yeah, it's great to trace the ancestry lineage of humans. You are right then when you dig deeper into biology, ti starts to branch. But the fact that biology is the starting place for these several science topics means that everything in biology makes sense rather than only the light of evolution. Evolution does cover a large area, but it's only one of the four main ideas of biology and the other ideas are main because they encompass a plethora of information as well. You are forgetting about biological systems that deal with anabolism/metabolism, communication of organisms that help them aid their chances of survival and reproduction, and the interactions of several systems with their complex properties. These main ideas contribute a whole lot more to humans' understanding of biology rather than only evolution alone. Evolution really is a difficult subject among the other three main ideas because the information keeps changing with more data, but the others are easier to understand since there is less likely to be a major change in a law, theory, or idea in any other three main ideas.
Debate Round No. 1
Kbbond

Pro

I would argue that Biology is not the starting place for several science topics as physical science forms the basis for biological principles. How does biology describe chemistry or physics? Conversely, physics and chemistry describe factors of biology. You mention metabolic processes as an exemption of evolution, however, metabolic evolution is visible in C4, C3, and CAM plants in which metabolic processes have diverged as a result of their respective environments. Consider also the metabolic pathways between foregut and hindgut digesters and where we find each based on their dietary composition which is reflected by diet quality and efficiency of each type of metabolic pathway. Also, you mention communication and behavior as a mechanism for survival-you are correct. However, communication and behavior is heritable which is a requirement for evolution by natural selection. This also plays into coevolution, as you mentioned complex interactions. Predator and prey systems are constantly evolving antagonistically with each other in order for one to have differential survival, this is a classic example of the Red Queen Hypothesis in which one species is constantly evolving with respect to the other in order to survive- stop and you die. Further, information about evolution does not mecessarily keep changing rather, it is built upon as predictions keep proving to be true, all it would take to buckle evolution is one single fossil out of place and that hasn't happened at all.
ConservativeLiberal101

Con

ConservativeLiberal101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kbbond

Pro

Kbbond forfeited this round.
ConservativeLiberal101

Con

ConservativeLiberal101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kbbond

Pro

Kbbond forfeited this round.
ConservativeLiberal101

Con

ConservativeLiberal101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kbbond

Pro

Kbbond forfeited this round.
ConservativeLiberal101

Con

ConservativeLiberal101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kbbond 2 years ago
Kbbond
Did you even read the article or were you too scared to find out what it said? To sum up the article you were supposed to read, scientists have generated RNA (ribonucleic acid) that replicates and mutates on its own in a similar fashion to what is predicted that happened in the beginning. It has shown to be a "self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution" which is the definition of life. The fact that this was accomplished within a decade is incredible and then you ask, what will these molecules look like after millions of years of undergoing the evolutionary process they are SEEN to be undergoing?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
K........... What does " hint" mean.Just because when you heat up water and it turns into a gas does not mean it now has life.
Posted by Kbbond 2 years ago
Kbbond
"In a Test Tube, Hints of Chemicals Coming Alive"-it is happening Bodie. http://www.nytimes.com...
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
atmas. If the wizards of smart have it all figured out, then bring forth life from non-living matter.

You have the wizards of smart chemists. The wizards of smart physicists. The wizards of smart evolutionists. The wizards of smart biologists. Put them all together and bring forth life.And you can co-ordinate them.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Bodie tends to comment on subjects he has no education for, so his words typically come off as hostile due to his dogmatic beliefs.
I'm impressed that you support evolution and religious beliefs at the same time, it's what all religious folk should strive to do.
Now to the explanation of the origin as a biological question, it ignores the fact that all biological processes are chemical in nature, and all chemical processes result from physics. So the question is actually a multi-discipline one. It requires a collaboration to find the answer. When the "mystical" properties of what we look at are looked at as natural occurrences, it becomes easy to see how life could arise from non-life. Claiming that life is special in some way has no real basis. Especially when we consider that individual atoms are not alive.
Posted by Kbbond 2 years ago
Kbbond
Artificial selection is not natural, natural selection is natural. Your statement is flawed as you are applying a hasty generalization.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
selection isn't natural, so natural selection is false
Posted by Kbbond 2 years ago
Kbbond
I never said I knew everything I needed to know about the origin. Also, I do no have millions of years to spend to try to recreate the scenario so I'm sorry for that inconvenience. Please note also that I said I was not an atheist as the spark of life is a phenomena that is beyond me. I'm simply stating that the fight between evolution and religion is unnecessary. This is meant to be a civil debate and I sense hostility from you, if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the conversation, you do not need to be apart of it.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If the origin of living things is understood , then duplicate what non-living matter did. It should not be that hard to do. You said you know everything needed to know about the origin of life.Your biology god should be able to do it.
Posted by Kbbond 2 years ago
Kbbond
I will also be clear that I am not an atheist as the spark of life is a phenomena that is beyond me, but I am a trained biologist and evolution, to me, is undeniable. That being said though, I cannot just accept that everything was created from nothing by God, when he himself, must have come from nothing as well, where do we draw the line of infinite regression? It is an impossible question and is the reason I seek intellectual debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.