The Instigator
calculatedr1sk
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
SavedByChrist94
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
calculatedr1sk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,750 times Debate No: 37034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (88)
Votes (7)

 

calculatedr1sk

Pro

Resolved: Scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution, which states that macroevolution occurs through a process of mutation and natural selection. Species differentiation eventually occurs as a result of this process. All known life on Earth shares a common ancestry.

BoP is on Pro to demonstrate that scientific evidence supports evolution. New arguments cannot be introduced in round 4. Standard DDO rules of conduct apply. Standard definitions apply. First round is for acceptance only.
SavedByChrist94

Con

There has been no found evidence for Macro-Evolution, in order for there to be evidence or proof for it, it must only lead to One Conclusion, that is Macro-Evolution, For Example, Substance Dualism leads us to no other conclusion other than we are Immaterial and not material.

Transitional Fossils(If they existed) would still not be proof, Why? because those "Transitional fossils" could easily just be that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created us(all life) similarly, and it appears to be evolution, when it's really just life being created in similar forms and at different levels(For example, YHWH created us similar to apes but we just have less hair and we have intellect, similarities don't mean we evolved from apes, simply that YHWH(The Father and The Son(Jesus Christ) and The Holy Spirit) created us similar to them)

So "Transitional Fossils" wouldn't be proof as it would lead to two conclusions, meaning it's not evidence for Evolution, it doesn't prove evolution, just leaves us with no further knowledge(as it can still be Creation or Evolution), even if there was evidence to support it, it still couldn't be a fact, in order to be known to have happened/Scientific Fact it must be observed, One Species must be observed to evolve into a New/Different Species.

Unlike evolution where it

1, cannot be observed, and

2, has no known evidence(all the supposed evidence leads to different conclusions, if it was evidence it would lead to only 1 conclusion, evolution)

Creation can be observed under a microscope, that being DNA, we can observe intelligent coding in DNA and unlike evolution "evidences" the Intelligence can only lead to one conclusion, Creator(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)
Debate Round No. 1
calculatedr1sk

Pro

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. I also thank readers for your interest, and hope you will find our conversation stimulating and interesting.


My opponent’s misunderstandings are not limited to what it means for a round to be “for acceptance only”. A number of things become immediately apparent:


1) “Evidence” is not the same as “proof”, which is a word which more closely describes the idea my opponent is trying to equivocate. In the resolution which we agreed to, I had merely claimed that scientific evidence supports macro evolution, not that it proves it. Evidence is like the bloody knife that is found in a suspect’s trunk. Quite opposite from what my opponent claims, there can be other explanations for why something might be – maybe someone planted that knife, or maybe it turns out to be someone else’s blood. Each piece of evidence is only one piece of the puzzle, and only if the pieces fit together correctly do you have the kind of case that reasonably puts someone in jail, or the kind of theory that has scientific merit.


2) Speaking of definitions and equivocation, it is a common creationist tactic to equivocate the informal layman meaning for “theory” which means something close to “guess” or “hunch” and substitute that for the scientific meaning for “theory”, which is very different, and requires an empirically tested hypothesis which stands up to extreme rigor and has predictive value. Think of the Theory of General Relativity, which is similarly “unproven” despite the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence supporting it, including the nuclear bombs that were created by using it. Please do not allow my opponent to confuse you on this. Contrary to his claim, there is actually a great deal of evidence supporting evolution, which I will summarize throughout this debate.


3) The Theory of Evolution does not address the existence or non-existence of any gods, including YHWH. While I admit that I personally do happen to be an atheist, and I do not find evidence for YHWH to be compelling, I also want to point out that atheism is not a prerequisite for understanding evolution. Many evolutionists are Christians who do not see any conflict with scientific observation and their understanding of their God. The existence of God is a topic for another day; I will not be attempting to prove or disprove that YHWH exists, and I will not even dispute whether or not he is responsible for creating the first organism. I could happily grant that He is, and still it would not at all affect evolution, which is only concerned with life reproducing other life. Abiogenesis deals with life springing up out of non-life, and is therefore a separate (and less well supported) idea which is distinct from evolution.


The Evidence


Wikipedia has a very well developed article on the topic of the evidence of common descent. It has 160 sources last I checked, many of them scholarly articles referencing experimentation and empirical evidence for evolution. I will delve into greater detail as the debate progresses; unfortunately this round I found myself spending time to address issues that my opponent has raised prematurely. For now I will provide the general types of evidence we will be considering, again, courtesy of Wikipedia [1]. If anyone is interested in watching a very informative video, I’ll provide the link to that as well, though I do not expect voters to weigh it as part of their decision. [2]


1) Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: Recent advances in genetics allow us to perform phylogenetic reconstruction, and trace back ancestry by following the progression of mutations. This method has allowed us to confirm, among many other things, that there was at least some interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. [3]


2) Evidence from comparative anatomy: atavisms are evolutionary throwbacks, and examples would include hind-legged structures in snakes and whales, or wings on flightless birds like ostriches, which may still serve some function or use but are leftover structures from ancestors who used those structures differently.


3) Evidence from paleontology: missing links have been found, but the fossil record is only one line of evidence, and in my mind not even the most compelling


4) Evidence from geographical distribution: different lines of organism evolving in similar conditions but disparate locations will often develop similar structures and characteristics independently, but will be completely different species. Australia is very interesting to evolutionists with lots of unique creatures and adaptations to be found, because it has had a very separate evolutionary path after its tectonic plate separated it from the rest of the world much earlier and more decisively than the Old World and New World were separated.


5) Evidence from natural selection: there has been extensive experimentation on this topic, including a 25 year study of E. Coli bacteria by Richard Lenski. This will be one of the focal points of my argument since I find it really fascinating.


6) Evidence from observed speciation: this is the process by which new species arise, and they are arising all the time. There are, for example, 350,000 described species of beetles. [4]


7) Evidence from artificial selection: humans have been using evolution to produce domesticated plants and animals for a long time. Breeding big wolves with big wolves over many generations will eventually turn wolves into animals like the Mastiff. Breed little wolves with little wolves and over a few thousand years pass, and you get things like Chihuahuas.


8) Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration: computers are now powerful enough to simulate complex iterative processes like evolution, and have been used to demonstrate results that are consistent with the kind observed in laboratories. [5]




1) http://en.wikipedia.org...


2) https://www.youtube.com...


3) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...


4) James K. Liebherr and Joseph V. McHugh in Resh, V. H. & R. T. Cardé (Editors) 2003. Encyclopedia of Insects. Academic Press.


5) Simulated Evolution Gets Complex. Trnmag.com (2003-05-08). Retrieved on 2011-12-06.




SavedByChrist94

Con

"I had merely claimed that scientific evidence supports macro evolution, not that it proves it. "

The Naturalistic Version is proven false as Scientifically a Cause must be greater than it's effect, a mindless cause lacks a mind, therefore scientifically didn't cause humanity. so no Naturalistic Evolution is not only not supported by evidence but unscientific and proven false.


", it is a common creationist tactic to equivocate the informal layman meaning for “theory” which means something close to “guess” or “hunch"

I have not done this

"The Theory of Evolution does not address the existence or non-existence of any gods, including YHWH."

Then we have nothing to debate about as since YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) exists, He could have created Gradually(evolution) or at once(Bible) either way it's creation. a mindless cause has already been dismissed

"and I do not find evidence for YHWH to be compelling"

it's not evidence but observable facts such as Substance Dualism/Quantum Physics, DNA, First Uncaused Cause, Shroud of Turin, Objective Morality and Witness of YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)



"Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: Recent advances in genetics allow us to perform phylogenetic reconstruction, and trace back ancestry by following the progression of mutations. This method has allowed us to confirm, among many other things, that there was at least some interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans."

Unless this has been Observed it is not confirmed, merely speculation, not observable, we have no proof that neandethals and humans interbred, similar genetics can easily be explained by that YHWH created species similar and at different levels(He created apes with more hair, and us with less, for example we have PS1 and PS2, did The PS2 evolve from PS1? No the designer just designed it similarly)

"which may still serve some function or use but are leftover structures from ancestors who used those structures differently."

Not proof for Macro-evolution(One Species evolved/evolving into a New/Different Species) but micro evolution(species evolving into... same species and adapting to enviroment)

"but the fossil record is only one line of evidence, and in my mind not even the most compelling"

The fossil record can easily be explained that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created species similar and at different levels an evolution is not required therefore not evidence due to, Similar design Theory.


"there has been extensive experimentation on this topic, including a 25 year study of E. Coli bacteria by Richard Lenski. This will be one of the focal points of my argument since I find it really fascinating."

The Lenski Study did not observe One Species evolved into a New/Different Species(Macro-evolution), the species remained e-coli, it adapted to enviroment(Micro-evolution)


"Evidence from observed speciation: this is the process by which new species arise, and they are arising all the time. There are, for example, 350,000 described species of beetles."

Where has One Species been observed to evolve into a New/Different Species? unless that is observed evolution is not proven, also the 350,000 species of beetles are still, beetles.


" Evidence from artificial selection: humans have been using evolution to produce domesticated plants and animals for a long time. Breeding big wolves with big wolves over many generations will eventually turn wolves into animals like the Mastiff. Breed little wolves with little wolves and over a few thousand years pass, and you get things like Chihuahuas."

Has this been observed with naked eye?

"Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration: computers are now powerful enough to simulate complex iterative processes like evolution, and have been used to demonstrate results that are consistent with the kind observed in laboratories."

Computers are not proof, they are made by humans.

My opponent didn't show any observation of One Species evolving into a New/Different Species, but observations of a species evolving into the same species for adaptation, adapting to enviroment, which is a fact.(For example we have different races, shapes, blood types yet are all the same species, Humans)

unless One Species is observed to evolve into a New/Different species it remains an idea.
Debate Round No. 2
calculatedr1sk

Pro


Thank you for responding so promptly, Con. I invite you to take time to consider your points more carefully in the future, because you’ve taken on some tremendous burdens for your position by making many unsubstantiated claims.


Con claims that he is not equivocating the layman meaning of “theory” in place of the scientific meaning of “theory”. However, if that is the case, then he is essentially conceding the resolution, because in order to even be a scientific theory – especially one that has stood up against 150 years of heavy opposition and scrutiny – there must be supporting evidence, and thus my position in the resolution is affirmed true.


Con states last round that a mindless cause has been disproven. He is sloppily making that claim without providing anything at all to back it up. The law of parsimony, or Occam’s Razor, doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” anything – it is simply a philosophical principle which guides us to assume that the simplest explanation is the most reasonable likelihood until more information is available. It is a sound tool, but my opponent is misusing it, and undermining his argument by relying on it to do more heavy lifting than it actually can. Worse, even as he wields it, he is the one who bleeds, because Occam’s Razor presently cuts against my opponent’s position, not mine.


There is evidence for evolution, as I have outlined in the previous round, thus meeting my BoP. How compelling one finds that evidence may be impacted by their religious views. The Bible tells us in Genesis 2:7 that YHWH formed Adam out of dust and breathed life into his nostrils, and my opponent (at least from what I can tell) is taking the position that this is true in an absolute and non-figurative sense. In order to believe that, we then have to believe that God planted evidence (6 of the 8 types, one couldn’t hold him responsible for the computer simulations or for human animal husbandry, of course) to make it look like evolution and common ancestry must be true, but in fact he was starting from scratch (dust) each time that a new species appeared. Think about that for a moment. How does this in any way seem parsimonious to you? I’ve supplied evidence to support evolution; does my opponent have any evidence to support the Bible’s claim if it is taken literally?


If not, he may want to join the ranks of Christians who accept evolution as being a process used by God. They see no conflict with their faith because they see this creation story as being figurative. For a similar example, they might argue, referring to the “four corners of the Earth” (mentioned in Isaiah 11:12, Acts 10:11, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 and 20:8) does not mean that God or the Bible authors actually thought the world was flat or cube shaped, they may have simply been using this phrase figuratively.


At any rate, my opponent seems to think that something is true only if it can be observed, which is bizzare because as many have noted before me, no one has ever actually seen YHWH. In fact, we are told we cannot see him and live (Exodus 33:20). Con responds to my skepticism for the scant evidence for YHWH by stating: “it's not evidence but observable facts such as Substance Dualism/Quantum Physics, DNA, First Uncaused Cause, Shroud of Turin, Objective Morality and Witness of YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit).” Now, in order for him to successfully use this to counter my position, he would have to show i) the truth of each of these things, as well as ii) that they somehow invalidate the evidence for evolution that I’ve provided. As I said, he’s created a pretty difficult burden for himself by taking his argument this direction.


The Evidence


I shall close this round by defending the lines of evidence which he attacked last round.


#1) Already discussed above (ADA)


#2) If the legs of a whale (which they still have the structure for) was used by its ancestors to walk on land, perhaps as an amphibian, would such an ancestor still correctly be called a whale? No. We are talking about one species eventually transitioning into a distinctly different species.


#3) ADA


#4) For an analogy, imagine that we are trying to figure out how the Grand Canyon got there. It seems ridiculous that a little river could have eroded such a majestic formation. It would take much longer than any human lives to be able to see a noticeable difference in the rock, but the evidence suggests that the Colorado River is responsible, over the course of many millions of years (around 20 mil), for eroding the canyon that we see today. [6] Similarly, the fact that we don’t live long enough to directly observe these phenomena does not mean that we cannot use evidence to figure out what happened with reasonable confidence.


#5) Similar to my defense of 4, but let’s frame this as a math concept. Suppose that every second, 1 is being added to a number, and let’s say that number is low, maybe 10. It becomes 11. 12. 13. I tell you that the number achieved will eventually reach astronomical values, like 700 trillion if you give it enough time. We may not still be alive to see it, but we could reasonably expect it to get there. Would you be inclined to disagree, and say “no, no, the number might be able to get to the 100’s or 1000’s place, or other numbers that I can more easily imagine, but the number will never get to be 700 trillion?”


#6) ADA, but I will elaborate. According to the biological species concept, a species is defined as a group of organisms that are able to breed with one another to produce viable offspring that, in turn, can also produce viable offspring by interbreeding [7]. That means that when beetles, mice, or anything else is able to branch off, perhaps because of a geographical divide, if the populations evolve to be different enough to no longer be able to produce viable offspring when they are reintroduced to one another, then those populations are now two separate species which share a common ancestor. This brings me to a common misconception. Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys, apes, chimps, etc… but rather that all modern primates share a common ancestor that we have each branched off from.


#7) The oldest dog breeds are only about 500 years old, and most have been bred only within the last 150 years [8]. The fact is not even in question, but if you want to keep debating this line, be my guest.


#8) I find evidence from 8 to be useful only in that it corroborates the other results. If the projections were made independent from any grounding in reality, I would agree with my opponent that they are useless. However, that is not the case.


References



6) http://www.bobspixels.com...


7) https://www.boundless.com...


8) http://archaeology.about.com...



SavedByChrist94

Con

"there must be supporting evidence, and thus my position in the resolution is affirmed true"

Evidence is not needed to idealize evolution, if what you're saying is true then you just agreed that Creation has evidence as well, as it is a idea too. Evolution could have been idealized without any evidence, just like creation, what's needed is Facts, if evolution does not have any facts which show observation of it then it remains an idea.

For example people and even Scientist(they are not credible by the way, only facts are) claim that Transitional Fossils would be proof/evidence, however they in reality would not be, as they can easily be explained that it appears to be Transitional because YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created species Similar and at Differenyt levels and it appears to be a Gradual Evolution, when it's really different levels of species having been designed at once.

so, for Evolution to be proven the evidence must only support Evolution if it can support something else then evolution is not proven until has proof that it happened.

And this is the debate, the debate isn't about the definition of what a theory/idea is, forget that, it's going off topic, The Debate is whether or not Evolution has evidence, it's either presented or not, that's what the debate is, so everything else is irrelevant.


"Con states last round that a mindless cause has been disproven. He is sloppily making that claim without providing anything at all to back it up. "

Here's the back up, rather the facts that 1, a Cause requires the properties of it's effect, and 2 the fact that nothing cannot cause something. mindless cause is disproven.

" The law of parsimony, or Occam’s Razor, doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” anything – it is simply a philosophical principle which guides us to assume that the simplest explanation is the most reasonable likelihood until more information is available"

That wasn't using likelihood, How can something cause an effect without the properties to do so? it's objectively impossible, we all agree that our mind came from our cause, how can the cause lack the property it gave us?

That's like saying the cause of electificity lacks electricity, how can the cause lack what it made/gave? it made/gave it, it cannot lack it when the Cause obviously has the properties of the effect, that's the Whole Notion of Cause and Effect to begin with, it must objectively have the property. Cause must be able to cause it's effect, if it lacks the properties it cannot cause it.


"There is evidence for evolution, as I have outlined in the previous round, thus meeting my BoP"

No you have not, I'll go through it again,


from previous round,

""Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry: Recent advances in genetics allow us to perform phylogenetic reconstruction, and trace back ancestry by following the progression of mutations. This method has allowed us to confirm, among many other things, that there was at least some interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans."

Unless this has been Observed it is not confirmed, merely speculation, not observable, we have no proof that neandethals and humans interbred, similar genetics can easily be explained by that YHWH created species similar and at different levels(He created apes with more hair, and us with less, for example we have PS1 and PS2, did The PS2 evolve from PS1? No the designer just designed it similarly)

"which may still serve some function or use but are leftover structures from ancestors who used those structures differently."

Not proof for Macro-evolution(One Species evolved/evolving into a New/Different Species) but micro evolution(species evolving into... same species and adapting to enviroment)

"but the fossil record is only one line of evidence, and in my mind not even the most compelling"

The fossil record can easily be explained that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created species similar and at different levels an evolution is not required therefore not evidence due to, Similar design Theory.


"there has been extensive experimentation on this topic, including a 25 year study of E. Coli bacteria by Richard Lenski. This will be one of the focal points of my argument since I find it really fascinating."

The Lenski Study did not observe One Species evolved into a New/Different Species(Macro-evolution), the species remained e-coli, it adapted to enviroment(Micro-evolution)


"Evidence from observed speciation: this is the process by which new species arise, and they are arising all the time. There are, for example, 350,000 described species of beetles."

Where has One Species been observed to evolve into a New/Different Species? unless that is observed evolution is not proven, also the 350,000 species of beetles are still, beetles.


" Evidence from artificial selection: humans have been using evolution to produce domesticated plants and animals for a long time. Breeding big wolves with big wolves over many generations will eventually turn wolves into animals like the Mastiff. Breed little wolves with little wolves and over a few thousand years pass, and you get things like Chihuahuas."

Has this been observed with naked eye?

"Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration: computers are now powerful enough to simulate complex iterative processes like evolution, and have been used to demonstrate results that are consistent with the kind observed in laboratories."

Computers are not proof, they are made by humans.

My opponent didn't show any observation of One Species evolving into a New/Different Species, but observations of a species evolving into the same species for adaptation, adapting to enviroment, which is a fact.(For example we have different races, shapes, blood types yet are all the same species, Humans)"


^That quote from the previous round

"does my opponent have any evidence to support the Bible’s claim if it is taken literally?"

Of course, DNA demonstrates an Intentful and Intelligent coding. http://www.ucg.org...

Sure evolution was popular before 1953 however new advancements in science have disproven it such as DNA and The Shroud of Turin.



" If the legs of a whale (which they still have the structure for) was used by its ancestors to walk on land, perhaps as an amphibian, would such an ancestor still correctly be called a whale? No. We are talking about one species eventually transitioning into a distinctly different species."

Whales having structure for legs and giving the idea of evolution doesn't demonstrate, evolution, How do you know that this has evolved? because it could've had legs? this isn't observable.


"For an analogy, imagine that we are trying to figure out how the Grand Canyon got there. It seems ridiculous that a little river could have eroded such a majestic formation. It would take much longer than any human lives to be able to see a noticeable difference in the rock, but the evidence suggests that the Colorado River is responsible, over the course of many millions of years (around 20 mil), for eroding the canyon that we see today. "

Exactly, evidence Suggests not Corfirms, we need it confirmed otherwise we're all wasting our time. Creation is Observed in DNA and general science, why not evolution?

"Similarly, the fact that we don’t live long enough to directly observe these phenomena does not mean that we cannot use evidence to figure out what happened with reasonable confidence"

Problem is we'll never Figure out what happened unless observed, otherwise we can only speculate, which is ideas

"We may not still be alive to see it, but we could reasonably expect it to get there. Would you be inclined to disagree, and say “no, no, the number might be able to get to the 100’s or 1000’s place, or other numbers that I can more easily imagine, but the number will never get to be 700 trillion?”

Math however is objectively proven, evolution is not.

Science can't accept Evolution if it remains speculation, Speculation is not evidence, Observation is
Debate Round No. 3
calculatedr1sk

Pro

Once again, I thank SavedByChrist94 for being my opponent, and I hope readers have enjoyed our exchange as much as I have. To his credit, he is an impassioned defender of his cause, and although I consider his arguments to rest atop many misconceptions and misunderstandings, I respect him for the effort he’s put forth in this debate. Now, for our conclusion.


A) Eyewitness testimony, of the sort that my opponent demands, is not the primary method used by scientists. Think about particle physics, chemistry, and biology as examples where the materials which are studied obviously cannot be seen with the naked eye. Additionally, eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than physical evidence (such as the kind which supports evolution, incidentally). Any criminologist, or heck, even a fan of Law and Order would know this [9]. A theory of who-done-it can be confirmed in criminal justice with DNA sequencing and identifiers. A theory of who-done-it… with Neanderthals in the ancient past can similarly be confirmed by ] the same kind of tests.

B) YHWH is not verifiable by the naked eye, which blatantly exposes the double standard routinely employed by Con throughout this debate. I posed this objection in the previous round... and nothing from Con. I’m still waiting.


C) With respect to first cause, is Con proposing that YHWH is a disembodied mind floating around in the nothingness of the infinite past before it occurred to him to make all of existence? Because if that is his claim, we have a problem - there is absolutely no evidence that disembodied minds exist, or that consciousness is possible outside of the electrochemical processes occurring within the physical brains of higher carbon based organisms. Minds have only ever been observed in association with physical brains. I don’t claim this alone disproves God, and that isn’t even what I want this particular discussion to focus on. I’m only talking about evolution in this debate. But is worth considering how much discussion time Con has wasted with this non-scientific, unobserved “fact” as he mistakenly calls it.


D) “A cause requiring the properties of its effect”… what do you even mean by that? When a river causes erosion in rock over millions of years, are you saying that means that the river must have all the same properties of rock canyons, or rock all the same properties of a river? What are you even talking about? On second thought, nevermind. It has nothing to do with evolution.


E) Science works. That is why people respect it, as well as the people who practice the discipline. Angels, faeries, gods, pixies, unicorns, and other fanciful imaginations may or may not be flying around - but airplanes surely are. Our understanding of physics, aerodynamics, biology, evolutionary science, chemistry, etc… may always and forever be incomplete, at least in an absolute, religiously dogmatic truth sense - thankfully - but although these ideas continue to be refined, our current models, laws, and principles of the underlying theories have excellent predictive value and practical applications. That is why we can be confident we have things mostly right – because things work. Dog and horse breeding are among the examples of both ancient and modern evolutionary understandings being put to practical use [10].


F) Con attempted last round to put creationism on equal footing with evolution. I’m sorry, but just “being an idea” is not the criteria of what constitutes a sound scientific theory. Philosopher Richard Popper has identified falsifiability as the differentiating factor between science and pseudoscience [11]. An example used by Richard Dawkins and others to demonstrate the falsifiability of evolution is that if a rabbit fossil were ever discovered in sediment dating to the Precambrian period, this would blow evolution out of the water, because according to evolution, bacteria and other primitive life that was present during that time can’t just jump directly into being complex mammals [12]. No such rabbit has ever been found to date, by the way. To contrast this with creationism, there is no possible way to falsify the YHWH “theory”. That may sound great to believers, but that those of us who understand how science works realize that this is a weakness, not a strength. If an excuse can be made for any piece of evidence that comes along no matter what, that makes the idea, by definition, pseudoscience.


G) Just to quickly rebut Con’s “proof” about the shroud of Turin, it is not even officially authenticated by the Catholic Church, which is not nearly brave (or foolish) enough to stick it’s neck out that far, considering that there remains strong controversy over whether or not it is a medieval hoax used to attract tourists on pilgrimage.


Any other “rebuttals” to the evidence I presented seemed as far as I can tell to fall into one of three categories: “nuh uh!”, “that has never been directly observed”, and “simple, God could have just made it that way”. I don’t need to really bother with 1, spent time discussing 2 already, but let me proceed more in depth to 3. One of the strongest refutations of his “God made it that way” idea with respect to evolution is a study of endogenous retrovirals. These are actually inactive viral DNA sequences left over from infections suffered by ancestors and passed on to descendants. It is one of the methods we are able to use to map the branching off of one species from other species. For example, alligators, crocodiles, cats, humans, dogs, tigers, and monkeys may all share a certain retroviral sequence, because we all shared a distant common ancestor. But then, if alligators and crocodiles separated farther back from mammals, than they did from one another, then it stands to reason that they would additionally have certain endogenous retrovirals that mammals do not, and vice versa. The same would be expected for humans and monkeys, who are more recently separated than, say, humans and tigers. And indeed that is exactly what we observe. Retroviral DNA sequences are observed in exactly the right sequences predicted by evolutionary science [13]. Why would God have created species with muted, inactive viral codes in the exact correct order to make it look as if common descent were true? Even if it is possible that he did, that explaination is not the most parsimonious - and thus the most reasonable one. The video I provided in round 2 talks about this towards the end and has some good visuals to illustrate the findings.


DNA has certainly not overturned evolution, I have no idea why my opponent would think this. Since 1953, support in the scientific community has not dimiished either. It is with good reason that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields – around 99.5% of them – accept evolution [14]. I realize that the number of scientists that agree with something doesn’t automatically make it true, but these are not stupid people. Give them some credit.


Picture a courtroom scenario. If you’ve only ever heard evolution as it is explained by creationists, this is rather like hearing a case presented only by one side. Just imagine that. What if the prosecutor in a trial said “instead of allowing the defense a chance to speak, the judge and I have agreed that I will instead present his position for him. You don’t need to hear it directly from him, you can trust me to tell you the truth about everything.” How absurd is that? But that’s exactly what is going on if you only get your information about evolution from preachers instead of scientists. Thank you for your time and consideration.


9) http://agora.stanford.edu...


10) http://www.pbs.org...


12) http://en.wikipedia.org...


13) http://en.wikipedia.org...


14) http://en.wikipedia.org...

SavedByChrist94

Con

One Species has not been obeserved to evolve into a New/Different species,

My opponent pointed out the Fossil record, despite the fact that Similar Design can also explain fossils

" Eyewitness testimony, of the sort that my opponent demands, is not the primary method used by scientists. Think about particle physics, chemistry, and biology as examples where the materials which are studied obviously cannot be seen with the naked eye."

I never asked for eyewitness testimony I asked for One Species to be Observed to evolve into a New/Different Species, this should be done repeatedly, documented, etc, otherwise evolution, is just an idea.

"Additionally, eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than physical evidence (such as the kind which supports evolution, incidentally)"

No evolution supports Physical Speculation, such as the speculation of Transitional/Evolution from fossils when it can Easily be explained as a Similar design, meaning that the fossils record is not, nor can ever be evidence for Evolution.

" A theory of who-done-it can be confirmed in criminal justice with DNA sequencing and identifiers. A theory of who-done-it… with Neanderthals in the ancient past can similarly be confirmed by ] the same kind of tests."

Yet it's still not a fact, we can Always speculate who the killer is, but never ever Know for an absolute objective fact, which means evolution is pointless, I can easily observe Intelligent Design in DNA, this is an Objective Fact because I can see it with my own eyes under a microscope, I can't say someone is a killer for an objective fact based on "clues", but either if I saw the murder done with my own eyes or see a video taped footage of it(Still the tape could be forged, who knows), same with evolution, I can't observe it, therefore I don't know if it happened or not unless,

1, An objective fact contradicts evolution

or

2, Evolution is observed and thus an objective fact

However an objective fact Already contradicts it, called DNA, clearly proves Intelligent Design and we can observe it under a microscope, so Evolution not only has no proof, cannot be observed(therefore we'll never know if it happened) but it also is proven false by the objective fact of DNA and therefore Intelligent Design.

"YHWH is not verifiable by the naked eye,"

1, When dealing with Evolution/Creation it needs to be seen with the naked eye as it invovles the causing of our physical bodies, as Evolution/Creation deal with physical causing of our bodies.

2,i
f it is proven that we are not Visible, that we aren't material, that we are as said in Theism, Immaterial, then YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) is not required to be seen by the naked eye.

3, It is proven that we are Immaterial, proven by Substance Dualism via Quantum Mechanics...(

Example:

It is observed that the atoms in our hand are distinct and separate from our head/brain(as the body is made up of millions/billions of separate Individual atoms, as separate as your hand is to the wall, they are not the same and are indvivually existing,

Meaning if we are our brains then we would be completely incapable of feeling our hands, yet we can feel our hands, so we cannot be any piece of matter, nor can we be multiple pieces of matter, as we are only One Being/Mind.


Therefore since we feel both our hands and head at the same thing despite both the head and hand being completely distinct and there being no material connection(all atoms are separate, nothings one piece), and the fact that we are One Being/Person/Mind we Scientifically have to be Non-material and transcend ou bodies.

Since non-matter is able to transcend our atomic bodies(evident by the fact that both the hand and head, 2 separate pieces of matter can be felt by the same being/person/mind) it can therefore transecend all Atoms as all matter/atoms are the same, meaning we are sustained in our bodies and are subject to being finite instead of everywhere(so if my hand gets cut off I no longer feel it, I am subject only to my body)

What does this mean? since being sustained would be impossible via a mindless cause, the sustaining is conscious, there is a mind sustaining us, that is who we call YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)


Back to #3, since we are Immaterial, Creation involves Both observation with naked eye and YHWH is not subject to it, as our bodies are physical, but we(The Being) are scientifically notSubstance Dualism)

So YHWH is not subject to being observed via naked eye, can be proven via naked eye(DNA), but not observed, just like consciousness cannot be observed, Evolution however could be observed with naked eye, but isn't, therefore we have no reason to believe it.


"With respect to first cause, is Con proposing that YHWH is a disembodied mind floating around in the nothingness of the infinite past "

My opponent is putting words in my mouth, I never said this in any round,

#1, An infinite regression is a Proven Impossibility, to demonstrate, Count down from Infinity, cannot be done, likewise a Past cannot be infinite, we'd never get to future, remember time is not as said in mainstream, One cannot travel to the past or future,

Why?

Because the past no longer exists and the future is yet to exist, that is the basic of time, one event to the next, if the past and future existed we would be there, conscious of it, we are not.


"before it occurred to him to make all of existence? "

Who said He exists in Time? The argument has YHWH create time, He doesn't require time and He doesn't change, He doesn't need time to think/etc to do anything, timelessness doesn't imply muteness, as we have no idea what it is without time, yet we know that time started to exist, and we know Something cannot create nothing.

Also First Uncaused Cause, remember these facts, an Accident requires a PRIOR mover/cause, while an event on Purpose requires no prior mover/cause, so The First Uncaused Cause couldn't have caused by accident/unintentionally" as it has no prior cause, therefore caused on purpose, God(YHWH:The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) Exists

" there is absolutely no evidence that disembodied minds exist"

My opponent demonstrates 2 fallacies,

1, Assumes Lack of Evidence is evidence of Absence, remember I never said, "Evolution lacks evidence, therefore didn't happen" I say, Evolution has never been observed, therefore we don't KNOW if it happened, the reason I say it didn't happen is because Objective contradictions such as DNA have been observed to prove creation.

It is fallacious to assume a lack of evidence means evidence of absence.

2, Opponent said, " there is absolutely no evidence "

This is a fallacy because my opponent doesn't know whether or not Evidence exists for it, as the Entire universe hasn't been observed, so my opponent cannot say "There's absolutely no evidence" that is misleading.

Also there is evidence of Disembodied Consciousness, proven with Substance Dualism above.


"When a river causes erosion in rock over millions of years, are you saying that means that the river must have all the same properties of rock canyons "

Another fallacy, the example you gave is not analogous to what I said, the rocks causing erosion is an example of Cause and Effect between two existing things,

Not cause and effect as in Cause to Exist, as we are debating about, so that doesn't apply, if There's NOTHING, meaning No Properties, therefore no way this can Cause Something to exist, it is incapable as for a Cause to Cause to something to exist, the Cause must have greater properties than the effect, A Mindless/Conscious cause lacks the property of a Mind/Consciousness, therefore cannot cause a Mind/Consciousness, which is basic science.


"Science works. That is why people respect it, as well as the people who practice the discipline."

Exactly, yet evolution is not Science, we have never ever seen one species evolved into a new species, we can see Intelligence in DNA.

Conclusion, Evolution is not supported by Science as never observed, remains a simple idea.
Debate Round No. 4
88 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Sorry Pelly, my mistake!
Though I didn't bother to check out the history of your nickname.

Of course scientific evidence does support Macroevolution, just as it does for the building blocks of Macroevolution or Microevolution.
So I have no criticisms of your concept.
I was just questioning the use of the term, but, then realized to create a debate, you need to use a term that Creationists could understand.
Creationists are way too naive or scientifically dumb to understand such terms as Phenotypes.
So I realized ages ago that the best term for the argument was chosen.

I've already tried to vote in support, but I cannot get my identity confirmed, I've tried several times and I get no response.
Something is endemically faulty in debate.org's confirmation system.
I've tried contacting the administration, but even that has drawn a blank.
Posted by Pelagius 3 years ago
Pelagius
Sagey,

Perhaps this will clear things up and keep us from talking in circles.

I am not a Creationist. I don't think in terms of "kinds", a term found in the KJV Genesis and hence a Creationist term. I don't argue from the point of view ok Creationists or of Genesis. Whatever "kinds" means to you or to Creationists is irrelevant. Microevolution has always meant the kind of evolution which is observable in real time like the development of antibacterial resistance or pesticide resistance. Macro evolution is that kind of evolution that takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years to develop and is therefore not observable (except indirectly).

Macroevolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation) <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

In this sense, Macroevolution has a much finer resolution than between humans and our last common ancestor with the Chimpanzee or any other non-human primates. Of coarse the term can also cover evolution from microbe to human. It"s a broad term and its resolution is dependant on the context in which it is used, as the definition above allows.

"Con" in this debate seems to be a Creationist, so I can understand why you persisted in assuming I was as well, and why you persisted in using anti-Creationist arguments in our discussion.

NOTE: About my screen name. Pelagius was a medieval Christian heretic who debater with Augustine of Hippo and the Church of Rome. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;

In the future I will focus on the debate between "Pro" and "Con". I will no doubt disagree with both of them.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
both of u thanks
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well segay thanks to be calm with me.
lol.
u know u was even great with me before.
but man devient even last time he also behave little good.
but still he is far away from u.
u are good man.
with intellectual.
man these kind of peoples even arguing goes great.
thanks a lot for listening me.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
most of them left the quran aside and cherry pick something which they use for their own purpose.
same is with critics.
they also cherry pick.
but the fact is even they pick and claim wrong is not wrong at all.
quran is for any body.
there is much material to study for full time soldier in quran.
he has guidance about war in quran.
and educationist will found it un reasonable in quran.
coz they are addicted to read bible. flavored book with only love lol.
but we must face the reality.
there is more hate in this world than love.
so getting rid of hate and things who spread hate is necessary.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well atheism is growing but islam is also growing.
i have found atheist also accept islam.
but its the most difficult thing to do to change atheist into muslim.
lol
the reason.
is that islam is also hijacked by some ignorant peoples.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
lol
yeah i know about that also.
lol
the GOD helmet on 16 year old girl.
lol
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
yeah sagey.
if u see them they give them shape and look.
u will find them they are apes from africa.
but if u observe the sample from indonesia they are normal ugly human.
lol
see african still look like that.
but for apes pure apes.
they are fossil no more existence i have claim about them.
those are the human who were cursed by ALLAH.
who hunted at Saturday.
coz all samples found near the lakes.
jade lake and some other lakes.
well i am exposing my arguments.
lol
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Correction Calculatedrisk:
Studied Biology for 3 years, left to work in Agriculture where I worked with animal and plant breeding which involved genetics for seven years, went back to study horticulture for 2 years and spent the rest of the time trying to find organic alternatives to pesticides. All these involve knowledge of evolution.
Though what I did say is that I've studied the arguments between creationists and evolutionists for over 20 years now.
I remember when Jehovah Witnesses were Creationists, yet, much of their literature now embraces Evolution. That has been a great triumph for education, even the JWs are smartening up.
Yet, we have those who are still in it for the money, like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, because the extremely naive US bible belt is easy pickings for a Creationist with the gift of the gab.

Though, while they make their fortune from selling fake unscientific junk-theology to their constituents, they are making Christianity look ridiculous to rational Christians and thus promoting Atheism.
Atheism has risen sharply in our Educational Institutions since we started showing science classes what concepts and ideas that usurpers like Ham are pushing.
Answers-in-Genesis is great for Atheism.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
brothers every thing is there.
even those things u havent seen yet.
u will see in near future but are still in quran.
and about many other facts there are hadith.
u believe or not.
islam is best.
and dont worry i will have debate with u calculated.
its my promise with u long time ago.
so dont worry.
keep preparing i am also.
i found so much information from my side about it.
but still some thing is missing.
in sha ALLAH( with the will of ALLAH) i will get that missing thing soon and will come up.
u know all other process dont suggest any thing but fact which are also in quran u mention in this debate only thing which concers to me is fossil.
which is opposite of what scientist says.
coz that is 100% guess.
they say they match with human 98%,
and suggest human evolved from them.
but in my point of view those were the human turned into apes.
only that things is which concerns to me.
u will not find this idea from any one.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Ouch, that was painful to watch, arguments to Pro. Conduct to pro since con presented arguments in round 1. Con's only source was a religious site with no scientific content to comment on Biochemistry.
Vote Placed by TheUnapologeticTruth 3 years ago
TheUnapologeticTruth
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading this debate I had to give Con the argument because Pro failed to meet his self imposed BoP. His debate morphed from "macro" evolution to just evolution in general and claimed that as evidence when it wasn't. That was not the topic of debate. The clincher was oddly enough, Pro's reference to Lenski's experiments with E. coli. This experiment actually DISPROVES macro evolution because the bacteria REMAINED E coli! It never "mutated" into a higher more advanced lifeform, it simply adapted. Another contradiction was pro listing dog breeds as evidence.. A chihuaha is still a dog, just as a great dane is still a dog... Its the SAME species. Going further, Pro claiming that Neanderthals interbred with humans is proof not of "evolution" but that Neanderthals were in fact human! Otherwise they couldn't breed... I would recommend to Con that he stop using to disprove evolution as you'll never be listened to.. You must use science to combat science.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I give points to con for conduct because pro was condescending. For instance comments such as "common creationist tactics" and "consider points mor carefully" were ill advised. Pro had lots of articles but merly made statements instead of arguing them. As a result, he did not really debate very strongly. Con did a nice job of presenting his side.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: No offence, but Con was really weak. He did nothing to disprove Pro's sources of evolution and kept claiming that you need an "eyewitness". Do you need an eyewitness to witness the act of an atom splitting? That whole eyewitness concept, I perceived to be a straw man which he couldn't defend. Conduct to pro because Con was neither a gracious debater or a pleasant one. And con provided no sources to back up his claims.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, conduct to pro as con did not follow the acceptance first rule. As for arguments, while pro should have used more specific examples, con made ridiculous statements simply saying something had not been proven, and was not observable, therefore false, with no examples or counter-evidence. I'll let con off on his grammar, but only barely.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
calculatedr1skSavedByChrist94Tied
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: As indicated by Con's arguments in R1 and R2, Con seems to have misunderstood the resolution - specifically what it means for scientific evidence to support something. If YHWH created life gradually via evolution, and doing so resulted in the evidence we have for evolution - then scientific evidence supports evolution and the resolution is affirmed. Arguing for a deceptive god who plants evidence for evolution while actually divinely creating distinct kinds less than 10,000 years ago also affirms the resolution as scientific evidence still supports evolution. Pro should have gone more into depth regarding specific evidences for evolution, perhaps focussing on only a few topics of his list - however the evidence he presents is scientific and it does support evolution. Where Con wasn't arguing for theistic evolution, Con's counterarguments to the evidence presented were unsupported and unconvincing - he evidently disagrees more with science than with the resolution.