The Instigator
Finalfan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
the_croftmeister
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ready to Debate Evolution?

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: 6/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 35098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Finalfan

Pro

I'm Ready if you are. I will await your response before I mount my defence! Willing to take this into another 5 rounds if needed. The evidence for Evolution takes up alot of space so we might need more rounds!
the_croftmeister

Con

I gladly accept the challenge of debating the supposedly undebatable and thank my opponent for leaving the argument sufficiently vague to permit me at least some ground on which to challenge him.

I will assume that by debating evolution my opponent means debating whether evolution is a satisfactory explanation for the existence of life and humanity. He may expect that the position of Con would be filled by a creationist, this is not the case. I am not a creationist, I am not religious. Since my opponent did not present any guidelines as to the format of this particular debate I will assume that he would like to follow the standard format, opening statements for acceptance, no rebuttal in the second round, final round for closing statements with no new arguments. If he had something different in mind then he should feel free to put this in his opening argument.

I look forward to a lively debate.

With that I will present my argument

Evolution explains a mechanism by which self-replicating creatures can inject complexity into their genome. It is clearly satisfactory on this count and I've not seen any serious disputes of this face. It has even been demonstrated in artificially simulated creatures called A-Life. What evolution does not explain however, is how the first self-replicating life form was formed. Several hypotheses have been formulated most relying on the spontaneous generation principle. But to my knowledge there has been no successful experiment which has demonstrated that both the transcription and replication mechanisms can arise simultaneously in nature. In the face of overwhelming odds it seems to beg for a different explanation. Not necessarily a simpler one. Not even necessarily one involving a conscious creator. But the question is still there.

The only other argument commonly employed is the anthropic principle which states that if life had not arisen then we would not be here to observe life and so the astronomically large probabilities involved are influenced by a systematic observational bias, namely that life does in fact exists. Now while I do concede that the idea appears to have merit, consider how we arrive at it.

We imagine an infinitude of universes, each with slightly different laws of physics and initial conditions. Some of these universes contain life and some of them do not. The probability that life evolves in any one universe is the proportion of universes in which life evolves. The problem is that for any particular universe, if we exist in it, it has to have life in it. So the probability of life in our own universe is actually 1.

The problem of discussing probabilities across universes is well known. The Sleeping Beauty Problem concerns a person who is put to sleep on Friday and woken on Tuesday. On Monday, they are woken only if a coin flip lands heads and then put to sleep again with no memory of waking. Each time they are woken they are asked what they believe the coin flip was. There is a difficulty in that there is a single coin flip and so it would appear that the probability should be 0.5. However, since they get 2 opportunities if the coin lands heads they will actually get the answer right more often if they guess heads. We can imagine that the sleeping beauty is either two different people on each day, in which case we get the probability 1/3 for heads. In the case that they are the same, then the probability of 1/2. The lack of memory means we don't have a clear answer to the question of identity. Things get much worse when we consider a huge range of universes, how do we identify the ones in which the life forms can be truly called human?

What I take from this is that assigning probabilities across worlds is a matter that is up to interpretation, and should be treated with caution, the anthropic principle alone is not enough to satisfy the curious mind alone.
Debate Round No. 1
Finalfan

Pro

I'm confused. You basically just said that Evolution is true! You clearly understand it better than I do! I cannot argue how "Something came from nothing" You might want to listen to Lawrence Krauss lecture on the subject. I will just ask one question to take this into a debatable direction! Should Evolution be taught in schools along side Biology and Chemistry? I do commend you for perplexing me with your evidence, but I took it as an agreement and not an argument! We can both agree that not knowing where the first "lifeform" came from does not need to be filled with mythology! I will await you response to present evidence for Evolution, even though it sounds like you already know!
the_croftmeister

Con

the_croftmeister forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Finalfan

Pro

I take full responsibility in the demolition of this debate :)
the_croftmeister

Con

No worries I don't think there is much to debate here anymore.
Debate Round No. 3
Finalfan

Pro

Finalfan forfeited this round.
the_croftmeister

Con

the_croftmeister forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Finalfan

Pro

Finalfan forfeited this round.
the_croftmeister

Con

the_croftmeister forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
I suppose we can debate the existence of God.. But it is hardly possible without circular reasoning and adhoc speculation. Someone I am debating with recently argued that Occums Razor supports the theory. From what I understand "God" is the most complicated theory that exists!
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
Yeah I thought you were one of the many who have not been educated.. Basically I was gonna school you.. but you ended up schooling me. I am a huge fan of Richard Dawkins.. downright feel bad for the guy! He only wants to educate people and he has Religion standing in his way! So I agree that the Bible and Koran should be taught in school along with the rest of mythology! While evolution should be taught with the rest of science! I guess I should have read your opening post before accepting :) whoops. Anyways I can't really think of a way to take this into a debatable direction.. any ideas?
Posted by the_croftmeister 4 years ago
the_croftmeister
I'm sorry if I took the debate in a direction you weren't prepared for, I just took it somewhere that I had a hope of debating. I assumed that you read my statements in the last debate and were ok with the direction I wanted to take it.

If you like, we can debate that God is a reasonable explanation for the beginning of life? We do both agree that evolution occurs. The schools debate is not really an interest of mine. Children should be exposed to all theories, there is place for both myth and science.

What did you have in mind initially? A debate on whether evolution exists?
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
Sounds Good!
Posted by the_croftmeister 4 years ago
the_croftmeister
If you have no objections, I'll just copy my opening statement from the previous false start debate?
Saves me writing it up again.
No votes have been placed for this debate.