The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,608 times Debate No: 27736
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




I recently participated in a debate similar to this; however, my opponent decided to take the topic down a more philosophical trail. Seeing as how my original intention was to debate the truth of macroevolution from a scientific perspective and not a philosophical one, I've decided to try this again.

The debate will be structured as follows:

(1) Acceptance
(2) Pro arguments, Con rebuttals
(3) Pro counter-arguments, Con rebuttals
(4) Closing statements

For the purposes of this debate, both participants must agree to the following definitions:*

Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through the scientific method [1].

She available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid [2].

Theory: The scientific terminology for a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment [3].

Evolution: The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, genetic drift, migration, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation [4].

Major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time [5].

Species: A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding [6].

Life: Any organism exhibiting all or most of the characteristics typically associated with life, including growth, adaption, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, response to stimuli, and cellular composition [7].

Furthermore, in addition to accepting the above definitions, both participants must agree to the following rules:

(1) No semantics
(2) No new arguments in the last round
(3) No arguments in the comment section
(4) No plagiarism (so-called "self-plagiarism" does not apply)
(5) Any desired changes to the structure, definitions, or rules of the debate must be agreed upon before acceptance



*The definitions seen here may vary slightly from their original state as presented by the sources listed. Such modifications were made to accommodate the purposes of this debate, or to otherwise improve the original written meanings as I saw fit.


I just wish to make the point that if Pro's arguments are numerous and long, and take much space to answer, I'll have to choose between responding to some point he makes in favor of macroevolution, or to make my case against it. Pro has formatted the debate in such a way that my first post is a response to his case instead of making my own positive evidence against his position. But I'll do my very best to reply to as many of his points as I can, in as much detail as space will allow; while attempting to show some evidence against macroevolution. Bring it on.
Debate Round No. 1


First and foremost, I would like to thank Daley for choosing to participate in this debate. I will be using the same argument in this debate as I did in my previous one.

Unfortunately, an 8,000 character limit is not nearly sufficient enough to cover the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of macroevolution; however, I shall nevertheless do my best to present what I believe are some of the most convincing pieces of evidence available.

Protein Functional Redundancy:

There are some proteins that all living organisms require in order to survive, such as cytochrome c; such universal genes are called ubiquitous genes.

Something interesting about ubiquitous genes is that there are a countless amount of sequences that can allow a gene to perform the same function. To illustrate this simply, imagine that the sequence 1234 can perform virtually the same essential function as 2431, as can a nearly infinite number of alternate sequences; therefore, there is no particular reason for two different species to share the same sequence to perform the same function (this has been proven by taking cytochrome c sequences from other species and putting them in yeast. Although yeast possesses a very different cytochrome c sequence, it still operates perfectly when its native sequence is deleted and replaced with a foreign sequence [1]).

Moreover, ubiquitous genes, such as cytochrome c, have no correlation to an organism's physical makeup (phenotype); therefore, even though humans and apes, for example, look very much alike physically, such similarities would have no affect on each species' cytochrome c sequence [2].

To reiterate, 1) there are certain genes which all living organisms on earth share, 2) these ubiquitous genes share no correlation to an organism's physical makeup, 3) there are essentially an infinite amount of sequences that can perform the same function, 4) therefore, there is no reason for two different species to have the same sequence to perform the same function unless they have both inherited that particular combination from a common ancestor [3].

Therefore, it becomes interesting to learn that humans and chimpanzees share the exact same cytochrome c sequence. The chances of this happening randomly are 1 out of 10^93 [4]. The only logical explanation is that apes and humans share a common ancestor, and therefore have inherited the same cytochrome c sequence. In fact, it has been observed that the more distantly related a particular species is, the more it gradually differs in the sequences which comprise its genes [5].

Endogenous Retroviruses:

An endogenous retrovirus, simply put, is a molecular remnant from a past parasitic viral infection; for example, in humans, particular sequences of DNA code are found within our genome that are unmistakable leftovers from past viral infections. These viruses remain in the human genome as they are passed down and inherited from one descendant to the next [6].

A retrovirus becomes an inheritable part of an oganism's genome if and when it infects the organism, makes a DNA copy of its own viral genome, and then inserts that DNA copy specifically into the organism's germ cell line (which produces sperm and eggs). Note that this process as a whole is extremely rare and relatively random [7].

Considering this information, we can assume that if two organisms share the same endogenous retroviruses in the same chromosomal locations, there is an immensely large probability that they are both biologically related, as the only alternative explanation is that each organism obtained the same kinds of retroviruses in the same chromosomal locations independently (a highly unlikely possibility).

Therefore, it again becomes intersting to learn that 16 endogenous retroviruses have hitherto been discovered which are shared between apes and humans in the same chromosomal locations. The chances of humans and apes obtaining sixteen of the same endogenous retroviruses in the same chromosomal locaions independently are 1 in 2,057,400 followed by 135 zeros (so unlikely that it can't even be reasonably considered); hence, the only logical alternative is a common ancestor between apes and humans which passed down the viruses to both species. If one accepts the common ancestor explanation as true, the chance of humans and apes sharing said 16 endogenous retroviruses becomes 1 [Video provided on top].


"An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character [8]."

In other words, human tails and dolphin hind limbs are examples of atavisms.

There are many examples of atavisms. For example, consider the following figure:

Figure 1.0

Provided by

As can be seen from the above photograph, dolphins have been found with hind limbs. This is perfectly consistent with the evolutionary teaching that dolphins and whales descend from land-dwelling mammals.

There have also been documented reports of humans growing tails and whales with legs [9]. This provides strong evidence for macroevolution.


We also see evidence of macroevolution from embryology. Continuing with the subject of dolphins, consider the following photograph of a dolphin embryo:

Figure 1.1

Provided by

The letter 'f' in the photograph points to the well-developed forelimb of the dolphin embryo, while the letter 'h' points to the well-developed hind limb. This happens in all dolphin embryos, providing strong evidence that dolphins descended from land-dwelling mammals which possessed hind limbs.

There is much more evidence for macroevolution found in the field of embryology; for example, snake embryos also grow hind limbs, and human embryos develop tails which eventually regress, leaving only our tailbone behind [10].

Phenotype Comparison:

Lastly, yet another piece of evidence for macroevolution comes from comparing the phenotypes of various organisms. Again, continuing with dolphins, consider their flipper bones:

Figure 1.2

Provided by

As you can see, the flipper bones of dolphins very much resemble the skeletal makeup of a hand. This strongly suggests that dolphins did not always have flippers, but rather evolved from land-dwelling mammals. Indeed, other water-dwelling animals with flippers that are not believed to have evolved from land-dwellers, such as sharks, do not share such physical similarities with land-dwelling mammals.

Therefore, considering that evolution teaches that dolphins descended from land-dwelling mammals, it's easy to understand why the bones of dolphin flippers would look more like hands, while the bones of shark flippers would not.

Bear in mind that the evidences I've provided are only brief over-glances of the topics discusssed. Much more can be said on these particular subjects alone; however, I do not have enough room remaining to continue; therefore, if possible, I will provide more evidence in my next argument, such as the the fossil record, vestigial structures, ring species, and observed instances of speciation in the lab.

Considering all of the above mentioned evidence, I assert that scientific evidence supports macroevolution.

[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[7] ibid.
[9] ibid.



Protein Functional Redundancy
Pro is arguing that having the same or similar cytochrome c sequence in two different species is evidence of common ancestry, and yet, if the sequences are very different, evolutionists simply increase the time of divergence between the two species, or even vary the mutation rate in order to account for such differences. It this case evolution doesn"t predict biologic universals, but merely accommodates them. If the absence of similar sequences can"t disprove evolution, neither can its presence prove it.

Just because the similarity of cytochrome c in humans and apes isn"t by common descend doesn"t imply that it"s random, it merely suggest it came to be so by other means. But let me address Pro"s claim that "the more distantly related a particular species is, the more it gradually differs in the sequences which comprise its genes." If this were true, we should see greater levels of divergence of cytochrome from a common ancestor as we move up the evolutionary chain. But as we move from the bacteria Rhodospirillum to yeast, to plants, to insects, up to fish, then to amphibians, then to reptiles, to birds and finally to mammals, we find the degree of divergence from Rhodospirillum"s cytochrome to be quite uniform. The cytochrome c of the silkworm moth also shows a significantly uniform degree of divergence from organisms such as tuna, wheat, bullfrog, penguin, kangaroos and humans. (Wikipeda: cytochrome c and matrices in Brand, 157; Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Origins by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, 37.) Why would the degree of divergence of cytochrome c between bacteria and horses be the same as the divergence between bacteria and insects?" The evolutionary linage from cell to bacteria, cell to horse, and cell to insect, are radically different, crying out for different divergence rates. Again, rattlesnakes and turtles are more closely related on the evolutionary scale than they are to humans, seeing they are reptiles and we are mammals. Evolution therefore expects the rattlesnake"s cytochrome c to be more similar to the turtle"s than to the human"s. But this isn"t what we find. The cytochrome c of the rattlesnake varies in 22 places from that of the turtle but only in 14 places from that of a human." (See matrix in Brand, 134.)

Pro claims that humans have grown tails, and uses this as proof of atavism, but what he calls a tail isn"t really a tail at all, but the caudal appendage " which bears none of the unique biological features of a tail. One example comes from the May 20, 1982 New England Journal of Medicine where a baby was born with a 2-inch long growth of skin on its back, but this wasn"t a tail as claimed by evolutionist. It didn"t have bones in it as a posterior extension of the vertebral column, nor did it have the necessary muscles associated with the vertebrae to facilitate its movement, nor was it even located in the right position on the back to be a tail. To extrapolate descent from a monkey-like ancestors from such trivial data as a mere outgrowth of skin sounds more like wishful thinking than science.

When evolutionists don"t know the reason for a biological structure, they assume it must be vestigial, and so they assume the so-called tail that temporarily develops in human embryos is a vestigial remnant of when our ancestors had tails. But we now know from biology that the caudal appendage (or caudal eminence) isn"t vestigial, but quite necessary. In a 2004 study of 52 human embryos published in Cells Tissues Organs, it was found that "The eminence produces the caudal part of the notochord and, after closure of the caudal neuropore, all caudal structures, but it does not produce even a temporary "tail" in the human."# So the caudal eminence is important for developing the spinal cord and other caudal structures. "Further caudally, the spinal cord is formed by "secondary neurulation," which is the coalescence of chain vesicles that becomes continuous with the lumen of the neural tube about three weeks after the closure of the caudal neuropore. The vesicles are derived from the caudal eminence, a mass of pluripotent cells located dorsal to the developing coccyx."# Pluripotent cells are those cells which can become other types of cells depending on the instructions given to them. This means that the caudal appendage is the source of the cells used to produce vesicles which are necessary for the development of the spinal cord. That"s why it is a mass of pluripotent cells " it is the source of cells that develop into several structures. When the spinal cord and the other caudal structures are finally complete, the embryo no longer needs those pluripotent cells and that"s why it goes away. Sometimes abnormalities occur during pregnancy and the caudal appendage doesn"t go away, and the child is born with a mass of tissue extending from the posterior. But this is not a tail - it is simply an outgrowth of skin.

The myth that humans have temporary tails during embryonic development is therefore an invention by the fertile imagination of evolutionists; even the so-called vestigial hind legs in whales are not useless remnants of an evolutionary past, but rather, are integral in strengthening the reproductive organs. Sperm whales are huge, growing up to 62 feet long. They have a 5.5 inch bump on its side, and under this skin is a 5-inch long bone bearing no resemblance to a leg. There is no photographic evidence of an atavistic leg dangling uselessly from the underbelly of whales; if Pro has such evidence I"d like to see it.

The prediction that one"s evolutionary history is reflected in embryonic development seems too vague to be scientifically meaningful. In this regard I"d like to ask Pro for clarification on how this hypothesis is actually tested: First, how do you objectively measure similarities of various ontogenies? Second, what aspects of an organism"s evolutionary history will be reflected in its ontogeny, and why those aspects and not others? Third, is revising the phylogenies also an option? If there are no clear boundaries to such revision, it makes falsifiability a mere illusion - but unfalsifiable theories aren"t scientific. I admit that vertebrate embryos are similar at one stage in their development, but the earlier stages of cleavage and gastrulation are very different. The similarities are compatible with special creation, so its not like common descent is the only option.

It takes only 20 minutes to a few hours for a new generation of bacteria to grow. There is much variation in bacteria and many mutations, but they never evolve into anything new. "They always remain bacteria. "Similarly, it only takes 9 days for fruit flies to mature from egg to adulthood; laboratory scientist have seen variation and mutation over many generations but they don"t turn into anything new " they always run into the limits of variation. One experiment bread fruit flies 20 times faster than normal for 35 years, and concluded that not only was macroevolution not happening, but that "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments."# Many years of study and experimentation on countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If intelligent agents can"t accomplish macroevolution, what are the odds that blind chance could do it?
Debate Round No. 2


Sustaining Protein Functional Redundancy:

Responding to the evolutionary evidence of protein functional redundancy, my opponent asserts that if such a thing truly provided scientific support for evolution, we would observe an unwavering consistency in the amount of variation within each species' cytochrome c sequence correlating to the standard phylogenetic tree; therefore, because we don't always observe such a thing, my opponent claims that protein functional redundancy actually serves as evidence against evolution.

However, what my opponent has unfortunately failed to realize is that genetics is statistically probabilistic (in other words, when it comes to genetics, nothing can be determined with absolute certainty, but rather must be determined based on probabilities [1]); this biological truth has caused Dr. Douglas Theobald to remark, "Because genetics is stochastic, the theory of common descent does not predict that phylogenetic trees made with single genes will perfectly match other phylogenetic trees—they must be similar, but not necessarily identical [2]."

Quite frankly, the fact of probabilistic genetics shouldn't be a foreign concept to anyone. For example, consider the following quote from "Phylogenetics and the Origin of Species:"

"Gene trees are not equivalent to species trees: from simple Mendelian genetics we know that genes segregate individually, and that throughout time individual genes do not necessarily follow organismic genealogy. An obvious example is the fact that while you may have brown eyes, your child may have the genes for blue eyes—but that does not mean your child is not your descendant, or that your brown-eyed children are more closely related to you than your blue-eyed children. Including multiple genes in the analysis is a solution to this conundrum [3]."

Again, because some functionally redundant proteins are uniformly varied while others are not, my opponent asserts that evolution does not actually predict similarities in functionally redundant proteins, but rather simply accommodates them; this criticism was addressed by Dr. Douglas Theobald when he stated:

"There is nothing inconsistent with a uniform rate and nonuniform results. That is basic statistics. As a very simple example, in...quarter flipping, the rate of 'heads' is exactly 0.5 heads per flip. This rate is exactly constant. However, there is nothing unusual (or 'amorphous') about flipping five heads in a row, or five tails in a row...Such results are expected if coin flipping is a stochastic process, as it is...It is rather presumptuous to label a theory "amorphous", when said theory simply follows basic laws of mathematics [4]."

Therefore, when we take into account basic genetics and statistics, what we observe when comparing the functionally redundant proteins of various species is perfectly consistent with what evolution theory predicts.

Sustaining Atavisms:

In an attempt to rebut my statements concerning atavisms, my opponent makes the assertion that what "evolutionists" mistake for human tails are actually nothing more than outgrowths of skin; to support this claim, my opponent states that the alleged human tails lack any standard characteristics typical of an actual tail.

Despite his claims, however, my opponent couldn't be further from the truth, as what he is speaking of are simply pseudo-tails, not true tails. In all actuality, there are more than 100 documented medical cases of human tails, and only less than one third of well-documented cases are considered pseudo-tails [5]. So what is a true human tail? As Dr. Douglas Theobald states:

"The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands...True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states...although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae...However, caudal vertebrae are not a necessary component of mammalian tails. Contrary to what is frequently reported in the medical literature, there is at least one known example of a primate tail that lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the "Barbary ape") [6]."

For those particularly skeptical, photos of a true human tail can be seen on Anatomy Atlases' medical website at

(CAUTION: Although medical photos, I find it suitable to inform the readers that the photos presented within the provided link contain imagery which some may consider inappropriate.)

My opponent furthermore attempts to dismiss vestigial structures as evidence for evolution by claiming that such structures perform a function; such an assertion is the result of nothing more than a misunderstanding of the biological definition of "vestigial." Quite simply, "vestigial" does not always mean that a particular structure has lost all function; rather, the word can also refer to a structure which has diminished in its function or taken on a whole new function altogether. The fact that certain vestigial structures still retain some form of function does not at all detract from the fact that such structures are indeed vestigial.

Sustaining Ontogeny:

In responding to this portion of my evidence, my opponent asked me several questions; therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will be quoting his inquires in bold and subsequently responding to them piece by piece.

"How do you objectively measure similarities of various ontogenies?"

Using the standard phylogenetic tree, it's quite simple to expect which similarities we should and shouldn't observe in various ontogenies; for example, because we know sharks did not descend from land-dwelling organisms, we can confidently assume that we will never observe hind-legs on a shark fetus (or any land-dwelling characteristic for that matter), as we do with dolphins.

"What aspects of an organism's evolutionary history will be reflected in its ontogeny, and why those aspects and not others?"

The past evolutionary aspects of an organism which will be observed in its ontogeny are those characteristics which are consistent with its position on the standard phylogenetic tree.

As to why certain aspects of an organism's evolutionary history are observed in its ontogeny while others are not is simply a matter of how an organism's particular process of fetal development evolved; it's as simple as that.

"[If inconsistencies are found between ontogeny and the standard phylogenetic tree], is revising the phylogenies also an option?"

Obviously if we were to observe something in ontogeny that presented a clear contradiction against the standard phylogenetic tree, a serious re-evaluation of that organism's particular ancestry would need to be considered. That's how science works -- it continues to study and discover, and when it finds a mistake, adjustments are made accordingly. All fields of science do that.

As to the falsifiability of ontogeny, it's as simple as predicting to find evolutionary aspects in an organism's ontogeny that are consistent with its position on the standard phylogenetic tree -- ontogeny would be falsified if something contradicted that prediction. Hitherto, ontogeny has done nothing but support evolution.

I'll try to address your fruit fly argument in the next round, as I've sadly ran out of room.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.


My apologies for not including my footnotes in round 1; here they are:
1 M"ller F and O"Rahilly R., "The primitive streak, the caudal eminence and related structures in staged human embryos," Cells Tissues Organs. 177(1):2-20, 2004
2 John Alan Kiernan and Murray Llewellyn Barr, Barr"s The Human Nervous System: An Anatomical Viewpoint, Ninth Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008, p. 5
3 Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

Phenotype Comparison
Predictions are supposed to predate the evidence which fulfills them; but evolutionists have put the carriage before the horse, working backwards from the evidence to lead to the prediction. Darwin theorized common descent because of similarities between species, therefore, such similarities were never true predictions of the theory. How could the similarities suggest the theory, and the theory predict the similarities? This is circular reasoning. People have known the skeletal make up of dolphins, sharks and mammals from the time of man"s first hunting these animals for food. Thus, we can"t truly predict what they should look like because we already knew. That would be like a wife predicting what her husband should look like after they have already been married for 10 years. Macroevolution never predicted that because sharks didn"t descend from land-dwelling mammals that their flippers wouldn"t look like hands; rather, it used the fact that they flippers don"t look like hands as proof they didn"t descend from land-dwelling mammals. This isn"t a prediction, just a convenient fact. And if sharks were found with flippers looking like hands, evolutionists would merely adjust the phylogenic tree to accommodate them.

The theory of evolution was around long before the discovery of endogenous retroviruses [ERVs], and in none of that pre-ERV literature was it predicted that ERVs would be found in the same chromosomal locations in two or more species. This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. There are no examples of ERVs shared between mammals and other creatures on the phylogenic tree, making the theory inadequate to support universal common descent. More importantly, many transposable elements mislabeled ERVs were found to have functions, repudiating the claim of random retrovirus insertion. Studies on mice embryos showed that transposable elements including ERVs as a subset control the level and sequence of gene expression during embryo development. (Batten, D., No joy for junkies, Journal of Creation (TJ) 19(1):3, 2006)

"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5" untranslated regions." "Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome." (Conley et al., ref 1, pp. 1563, 1566) ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome, acting as promoters transcribing at various starting points so that different RNA transcripts can rise from the same DNA sequence. As similar sequences are found to be functional, the argument from shared mistakes in junk DNA evaporates. The requirements of functionality also implies that such DNA is not free to mutate at random.

Macroevolution falsely assumes that mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species, but mutation doesn"t lead to new life. The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process." (1977), Vol. 10, p. 742. In over a hundred years of laboratory experiments no one has seen one species mutate into another. Variation within the kind always runs into the limits of variation, making macroevolution impossible. When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, they could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage. (Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25) Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? Geneticist Dobzhansky said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it." (Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126) Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down? Mutations may change the color or texture of a person"s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.

Natural selection doesn"t create, it selects; but if mutation doesn"t create anything new for natural selection to select, new species cannot evolve. The fossil record doesn"t show a progressive change from one species to another. In fact, Darwin admitted it shows fully formed distinct species appearing abruptly with no intermediate links. (Ibid., pp. 83, 88, 91, 92) After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, no transitional links have ever been found. Paleontologist Alfred S."Romer noted Darwin"s statement about "the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear" and wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system," said Darwin, "I can give no satisfactory answer." Nor can we today," said Romer. (Natural History, "Darwin and the Fossil Record," by Alfred S. Romer, October 1959, pp. 466, 467)

Professor of natural science John N."Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England : "Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. .".". Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. .".". Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred." (Should Evolution Be Taught? by John"N."Moore,"1970, pp. 9,"14,"24; New Scientist, "Letters," September"15,"1983, p. 798)
Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunately, because we have reached the last round, in accordance with the rules of this debate, I am not permitted to make any new arguments; as such, I am unable to debut the latest claims purported by my opponent, despite the fact that anyone with a proper understanding of evolution can easily debunk his assertions. If my opponent would like to carry on our discussion in a second, longer debate, I would happily agree; perhaps it would give us adequate room to discuss the new issues which my opponent has raised, as well as some issues which were not able to be fully covered here; therefore, in this round, I will tell you the reasons I believe you should vote pro:

1. I have presented herein observable, testable, and falsifiable scientific evidence which strongly supports the idea of macroevolution.

2. In the rounds I was permitted to present new arguments, I effectively debuted all of the assertions made by my opponent, as well as satisfactorily answered all of his inquires.

3. I believe I have ultimately upheld the resolution of this debate, "scientific evidence supports evolution."

I invite my opponent to agree to a future follow-up debate in which we both can receive an opportunity to more fully discuss the issues we couldn't cover here.

I would lastly like to thank Daley once again for taking the time to debate this very important subject.


In his opening argument Pro claimed that "the more distantly related a particular species is, the more it gradually differs in the sequences which comprise its genes." In response I gave multiple examples of uniform gene sequences between species debunking his theory. Instead of giving actual examples as I have done, to support his hypothesis, Pro quoted excuses from Dr. Theobald to explain why his prediction didn"t pan out.

I don"t think Pro was able to provide evidence that the similarities between species were discovered after the literature of evolution predicted them, and thus, I don"t think he has overcome my argument that evolutionists are (to use a an illustration) merely predicting the earthquake after it happens. I"ve argued that a known fact cannot be used as a prediction, and Pro didn"t even touch this argument.

Pro"s entire list of arguments for atavism, phenotype comparison and ontogeny can be summarized in one word " similarities. If you believe that mere similarity between two things is proof that one derives from the other, then by all means vote Pro, but I"m not of that persuasion, I believe a lot more is needed, and I don"t think that "lot more" evidence was given by my opponent in this debate. My opponent tried to back up his assertions with circular reasoning, and for this, you should vote Con.

I think that my other arguments regarding laboratory experiments on bacteria and fruit flies, mutation and natural selection, and the findings of scientists in the fossil record, were on balance more weighty and well supported than his rebuttals to which I had no room left to respond, regarding protein functional redundancy, atavism and ontogeny.

For these reasons, I think the weight of evidence presented in this debate, and the rationality of the arguments when compared, leans in my favor. Therefore, I invite you to vote Con.

I want to thank my opponent for a lively, intellectually stimulating debate. I do hope that unlike his last debate on this subject, this one was not so philosophical. I am open to having a much more indepth debate on this subject whenever Pro is ready. It might be good for us to even discuss this via our private emails; but for the benefit of DDO readers, I think it would be wise to have a 5-rounds debate, presenting arguments in the very opening statement, which will focus on just one aspect of evolution, so that we could get a very good look at the evidence for and against it in detail as opposed to scratching the surface of many aspects of this theory.

I believe the fossil record might be a very good place to start; Pro, what say you?
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Nevermind, I'm gonna try and see if I can vote tomorrow, I'm just tired and I can't make it through Con's first round without crashing. I will get to this, though.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
I'll vote as soon as I can finish reading.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Excellent debate. I did not think it was possible to negate the resolution, but CON provided enough seeds of doubt to successfully and logically dethrone PRO's BOP.

1) CON's punctuation is inconsistent, I swear he was using an iphone for this debate.
2) Excellent formatting by PRO, conducive to reading
3) Difficult to verify CON's sources as they are offline
4) Weak rebuttal by PRO on protein functional redundancy - it did not strengthen his case
5) On close inspection, CON's use of the word "prediction" regarding phenotypes is a strawman argument - PRO never even suggested that phenotypes were predictive. Conduct to PRO.
6) Fruit fly and similar evidence used by CON was weak in my opinion given the enormous depth of time used by evolutionary theory; unfortunately I don't think lab work can verify or debunk this argument. Regardless, the fact that verifying the results from experimentation to any degree is impossible is a very strong point argued by CON, and by itself is able to sow enough doubt that I sided with him on this debate.
7) Fossil record was quite interesting. PRO could not address this unfortunately due to the constrains of the debating venue.

That's all I was able to definitively conclude given that I have little to no scientific background. Conduct to PRO, neutral on sources, S&G to PRO due to good formatting, and CON was able to convince me that there is room for healthy skepticism, so he wins the debate.


Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
" Pro has formatted the debate in such a way that my first post is a response to his case instead of making my own positive evidence against his position. "

Good point, but you get last word. That is extremely powerful in its own right.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
I forgot to put in these foot notes in my last post. I'll include them in the next; sorry

1# M"ller F and O"Rahilly R., "The primitive streak, the caudal eminence and related structures in staged human embryos," Cells Tissues Organs. 177(1):2-20, 2004
2# John Alan Kiernan and Murray Llewellyn Barr, Barr"s The Human Nervous System: An Anatomical Viewpoint, Ninth Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008, p. 5
3# Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
I forgot to put in these foot notes in my last post. I'll include them in the next; sorry

1# M"ller F and O"Rahilly R., "The primitive streak, the caudal eminence and related structures in staged human embryos," Cells Tissues Organs. 177(1):2-20, 2004
2# John Alan Kiernan and Murray Llewellyn Barr, Barr"s The Human Nervous System: An Anatomical Viewpoint, Ninth Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008, p. 5
3# Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
LOL, as far as I'm concerned, PRO has a tautological argument here. I expect him to win by a landslide :D
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro because he used sources. Arguments to Pro because Con kept on using bare assertions like " simply increase the time of divergence between the two species, "
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment, well done on both sides.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro laid out some of the scientific evidence for macroevolution. Con's questions were answered and objections rebutted. Con's point that known facts can't be used to make predictions is tantamount in this context to saying that science can not be used to explain data.