The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
kylet357
Con (against)

Sex Could Not Possibly Have "Evolved:"

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
kylet357 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 103468
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Preamble:

People ask: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens. This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theological Realists:

The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option.

This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation.

One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims. This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all. Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer.

Formal Argument:

Gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved."

P1: Without a concrete evolutionary mechanism to bring about the "descent" of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species, gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved."

P2: There is no concrete evolutionary mechanism that has ever been observed to bring about the descent of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species.

Conclusion: Therefore gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved."

QED

Bonus video included for clarification: https://www.youtube.com...
kylet357

Con

"People ask: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens."

Anyone with a somewhat rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary biology could answer this question: the egg evolved before the chicken. We see several examples of egg-laying animals in the fossil record, some of which are ancestral to chickens (directly or indirectly).

"This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theological Realists:"

This is a matter of science, not religion. However, since I'm an atheist and this "insurmountable conundrum" proved no challenge for me, then this claim is quite obviously wrong.

"The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option."

As I explained above, this is definitely not the "conclusive answer" or "rational option".

"This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation."

Citation needed.

"One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims."

A few things:
1. What is a "darwinist"?
2. There are very few "problems" with the, as you put it, "common ancestor fantasy"
3. The Theory of Evolution very much does describe how sex and sexual reproduction evolved

"This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all."

Let's establish something before I continue. There are two forms of reproduction; sexual and asexual. The vast majority of all animals reproduce sexually, everything else (including some animals and plants, which can use both forms of reproduction) reproduces asexually. Sexual reproduction requires two participants to engage in the activity, whereas asexual reproduction just requires one organism.

Now, despite what you may think, asexual reproduction isn't necessarily the best thing for some organisms. While it allows smaller organisms (such as bacteria) to replicate a large population in very little time, requires little energy, and allows a population to out-do other organisms in the competition for resources, it does very little in terms of providing genetic variation and you would have to wait for a mutation before seeing any sort of genetic variation between one generation and the last/next (in other words, it makes evolution slower for that organism).

Sexual reproduction in multi-cellular organisms, when combined with a variation in genetics compiled alongside mutations, produces a much "faster evolution" than you would get with asexual reproduction.

"Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer."

Citation needed.

"P1: Without a concrete evolutionary mechanism to bring about the "descent" of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species, gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved.""

Those evolutionary mechanisms are natural selection allowing single-celled organisms to adapt the process of Horizontal Gene Transfer, of which meiosis (the process that allows sexual reproduction to occur) is a form of.

"P2: There is no concrete evolutionary mechanism that has ever been observed to bring about the descent of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species.

Conclusion: Therefore gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved.""

I think I have suffiently explained the Evolution of Sex/Sexual Reproduction to my opponent, doing my best to give the explanation of each form of reproduction. As for the video that my opponent has linked, the first argument he puts forth in the video is wrong nearly right off the bat. The video says that sexual reproduction is the least efficient and most problematic type of reproduction, and that asexual is simpler and more efficient. While he is correct about asexual reproduction being more simple and energy efficient, sexual reproduction is far from problematic and has very clear advantages over asexual reproduction, which I have already laid out in this argument. It also makes the same argument that sexual organs (e.g. penis and vagina, and all other related organs) would have had to come about through mutations that were independent of each other. However, sexual reproduction began with single-celled organisms which didn't have sexual organs and would have reproduced sexually via different methods than intercourse. With that said, I am going to discount the video as any additional argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"the egg evolved before the chicken."

Actually, the chicken egg did not evolve -- it was designed simultaneously with the chicken.

" We see several examples of egg-laying animals in the fossil record,"

No animal other than a chicken has ever laid a chicken egg, and no chicken egg has ever produced any other type of animal other than chickens.

" some of which are ancestral to chickens (directly or indirectly)."

No they weren't. Which species other than chicken are you claiming ever laid a chicken egg? You need to identify the name of the species. SPOILER: You can't do so because you are simply lying.

""This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theological Realists:"

This is a matter of science, not religion."

That is true: I do not have a religion, but your religion is called darwinism.

" However, since I'm an atheist"

There is no such thing as an atheist, actually: Your religion is faith-based, evidence free, and called darwinism.

"The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option."

My opponent failed to counter the above-stated fact in any way: It remains valid, true, and 100% unchallenged.

""This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation."

Citation needed."

See attached video in my OP.

""One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims."

A few things:
1. What is a "darwinist"?"

Someone who follows your religion, darwinism.

3. The Theory of Evolution very much does describe"

It describes fantasy only, and offers absolutely no evidence for any of it.

""This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all.""

There are two forms of reproduction; sexual and asexual. The vast majority of all animals reproduce sexually, everything else (including some animals and plants, which can use both forms of reproduction) reproduces asexually."

Not true -- some plants reproduce sexually.

"Now, despite what you may think, asexual reproduction isn't necessarily the best thing for some organisms. "

I never claimed it was, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Sexual reproduction in multi-cellular organisms, when combined with a variation in genetics compiled alongside mutations, produces a much "faster evolution""

No it doesn't.

""Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer."

Citation needed. "

See video in my OP.

"P1: Without a concrete evolutionary mechanism to bring about the "descent" of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species, gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved.""

Those evolutionary mechanisms are natural selection"

Exactly who or what did the asexually reproducing creature organism supposedly "select" in order to supposedly give rise to at least two sexually-reproducing creatures, one male and one female, in your view?

"P2: There is no concrete evolutionary mechanism that has ever been observed to bring about the descent of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species.

Conclusion: Therefore gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved.""

You have failed to provide evidence of such a mechanism, so you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"I think I have suffiently explained"

That is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

"As for the video that my opponent has linked, the first argument he puts forth in the video is wrong nearly right off the bat"

No it isn't.

"It also makes the same argument that sexual organs (e.g. penis and vagina, and all other related organs) would have had to come about through mutations that were independent of each other. However, sexual reproduction began with single-celled organisms which didn't have sexual organs"

That is ludicrous -- sexual reproduction CANNOT take place without sexual organs.

You lost this debate, and you lost it hard. Thanks for your time! =)
kylet357

Con

I'm only going to look at a few things before I end this, and I will not reply again afterwards.

"Actually, the chicken egg did not evolve -- it was designed simultaneously with the chicken."
I didn't say anything about chickeneggs, I simply said eggs.

"No they weren't. Which species other than chicken are you claiming ever laid a chicken egg? You need to identify the name of the species. SPOILER: You can't do so because you are simply lying."
1. I never said another species aside from chickens laid chicken eggs, I said that species that are ancestral to chickens also laid their own eggs.
2. Lying means to tell something false, with the knowledge that it was false, purposely. If you think I am lying, you actually need to prove that I know what I'm saying is false.

"My opponent failed to counter the above-stated fact in any way: It remains valid, true, and 100% unchallenged."
Well, that definitely is a lie because that requires that your statement be any of those three things (and, at the very least, if my rebuttal was wrong then the 100% unchallenged part is still a lie).

"See attached video in my OP."
Not a citation.

"Not true -- some plants reproduce sexually."
The only proper rebuttal you had, and it was still wrong; I did say that plants could reproduce sexually as well, please re-read my rebuttal - "The vast majority of all animals reproduce sexually, everything else (including some animals and plants, which can use both forms of reproduction) reproduces asexually."

"I never claimed it was, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part."
I should have worded that better but those paragraphs I wrote explaining the different forms of sexual reproduction were meant just as much for the general audience watching this debate as it was for you. So the "you" in that sentence is supposed to an impersonal or generic you, instead of specifically referring to yourself. I usually assume that either my opponent or the audience or both don't understand the topic at hand, so I wrote that part of rebuttal to explain things for them.

"No it doesn't."
Provide an actual rebuttal, not just sticking your fingers.

"Exactly who or what did the asexually reproducing creature organism supposedly "select" in order to supposedly give rise to at least two sexually-reproducing creatures, one male and one female, in your view?"
I'll link you this peer reviewed article from the National Center of Biotechnology Information, originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"That is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact."
You don't say.

"No it isn't."
Going to actually prove your assertions sometime soon?

"That is ludicrous -- sexual reproduction CANNOT take place without sexual organs."
I provided you an exact example of a type of organism that can. Again, you're just plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and yelling 'La la la la, I can't hear you!' You aren't having a debate, you're just sitting in an echo chamber that is completely closed out from any dissenting opinion. Either that, or you're just a troll. I can't tell to be quite honest but I guess that's just Poe's law at work. So, please, don't reply to this because you'll just be yelling by yourself.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

""Actually, the chicken egg did not evolve -- it was designed simultaneously with the chicken."
I didn't say anything about chickeneggs, I simply said eggs."

No chicken has ever come from an egg laid by a member of any species other than the chicken. Therefore you lost the debate.

"No they weren't. Which species other than chicken are you claiming ever laid a chicken egg? You need to identify the name of the species. SPOILER: You can't do so because you are simply lying."
" I never said another species aside from chickens laid chicken eggs, I said that species that are ancestral to chickens also laid their own eggs."

You just committed the logical fallacy of equivocation: Is the species you're positing as "ancestral" the chicken species, or some other species? If chicken, then I won the debate. If some other species, then you need to identify the exact name of that species. SPOILER: You can't because you are just lying.

""See attached video in my OP."
Not a citation."

Definitely a citation.

"Not true -- some plants reproduce sexually."
The only proper rebuttal you had, and it was still wrong; I did say that plants could reproduce sexually as well, please re-read my rebuttal - "The vast majority of all animals reproduce sexually, everything else (including some animals and plants, which can use both forms of reproduction) reproduces asexually."

My mistake -- I misunderstood your point there. Actually, we are in agreement on this section. Please forgive my error.

""Exactly who or what did the asexually reproducing creature organism supposedly "select" in order to supposedly give rise to at least two sexually-reproducing creatures, one male and one female, in your view?"
I'll link you this peer reviewed article from the National Center of Biotechnology Information, originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

No, tell me here. You can't because you are just lying.

"Going to actually prove your assertions sometime soon?"

I have proven all of mine -- you have proven none of yours.

Also, without God, there could be no proof of anything.

""That is ludicrous -- sexual reproduction CANNOT take place without sexual organs."
I provided you an exact example of a type of organism that can."

No you didn't.

You utterly failed to provide evidence of a mechanism by which an asexually reproducing creature could possibly give rise to at least two sexually reproducing creatures with matching and different sexual organs because there never has been such an event. I have proven conclusively that sex could not possibly have evolved.

You lost this debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fzbw9br 8 months ago
fzbw9br
all chickens came from eggs

NOT all eggs came from chickens!

Mutations along the time continuum have caused something to lay an egg, and a mutated form came to be... and enough of them formed a group called chickens.

this is easy, logical thinking

if you refuse to accept mutation as the driver of evolution, then there is no point debating
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You are correct, Solipsist, although I would use the term "kind" rather than "species" or "genus," because God uses the word "kind" in the Holy Bible.
Posted by SolispsisticMind 11 months ago
SolispsisticMind
I've always wondered, how does something part of the way "evolved" from asexual to sexual reproduction work exactly?

Small-scale evolution within a species or genus over time based on environmental factors = most probable, on the balance of evidence.

Large-scale evolution from one kingdom, phylum, class or order to another = give me a break!
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Bye jackass!
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You have no valid argument, and you have been proven wrong on this issue.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid sources and invalid sources.

We are done here -- bye!
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
The video showed nothing to support your points. I have a valid source as ASAPSCIENCE answers the question directly. You could either be smart and read it or I could post the video spoonfeeding you
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
See the video attached to this debate's OP for more information on these facts. =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You are:

Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens. This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theological Realists:

The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option.

This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
And chickens come from chicken eggs. Then again, something must have created both things and seeing the chicken is born from the egg, the egg came first. Who is the ignorant douchebag now?
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
That's not possible, because chicken eggs always come from chickens.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.