The Instigator
mapleleaf173
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
NothingSpecial99
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Current Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory

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 2 votes the winner is...
mapleleaf173
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 78753
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

mapleleaf173

Pro

Hello! Recently evolution has come under fire from religious groups, particularly Young Earth Creationists, that attempt to disprove evolution. Specifically, their efforts appear to be focused in discrediting evolution as a scientific theory and classifying it as a belief. I am creating this debate with the users CreationGuy or Cook123 in mind, but I would be happy to debate any creationist.

The way Young Earth Creationist try to debunk evolution is through "scientific evidence". My objective is to prove that the Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports Evolution, and it fulfills all the requirements of a legitimate scientific theory.

First, what is a scientific theory? Stephen Hawking defines a Scientific as "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." Thus saying that evolution is not a fact is irrelevant. Because it a system to describe known facts, and predict future ones, it is impossible to prove it as one would do a fact, because we are always finding new facts in the future. Rather, if we show it has been consistently right time and time again, and more importantly it has never been wrong, we have ourselves a good scientific theory.

So the debate will be structured as such: Con will Accept, then Pro will explain in detail what evolution is, how it works, then the several classes of observations it describes, and finally detail a few examples of predictions it made that ended up being validated. From the rest of the debate onward, Con will attempt to use Scientific evidence to disprove Evolution (observed, recorded scientific phenomena, not the opinion of x or y scholar, because if we were to weigh individual scientific opinions as a way of evaluating evolution, Pro will win by a landslide), and is welcome to propose an alternate theory. Pro will attempt to refute Con's refutations and/or alternate theory, and will add more evidence as the need presents itself. No new critiques from Con in the last round, as Pro will be unable to answer them.

This debate will be decided on two things. 1) whether or not Pro provides solid evidence that a) Evolution describes practically all known phenomena that the theory attempts to address, and b) it has predicted future phenomena correctly. More importantly, 2) If Con proves that there is scientific fact that precludes the Theory of Evolution (ie evidence that Dinos came before protozoa), or is otherwise contrary to predictions formulated from the theory, Con wins. BUT, if Pro satisfies the first clause, and successful negates Con's attacks, Pro wins.

A quick note on God, or any other omnipotent beings/being. If my opponent wishes to run Creationism, s/he is welcome to as long as your model assumes that after the creation of the earth 6,000 years ago (or whatever number you believe), God does not interfere/tamper with observations and discoveries of our world. The reason for this is that if such a being does so, what we think of our reality is cast into doubt. (Am I really typing this? Or is God making me think I'm typing this? Or am I really me at all?). This is not mean't to be that sort of debate. It is purely about whether scientific evidence is for or against evolution.

Good Luck and I await my challenger.
Debate Round No. 1
mapleleaf173

Pro

Hi!

First, let"s start with the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species (1859) in which he postulated that a process called Natural Selection (defined as "the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.) was the main mechanism behind the incredible variety of plant and animal life on our planet. However, Darwin did not know what caused the appearance of beneficial traits in species, changes that eventually lead to different species and overtime, the variety of life on this plant. That question was answered by the discovery of genes, DNA, and the DNA-to-Protein process. Thus here is the Theory of Evolution in its form today:

When species reproduce, changes in their offspring"s DNA (via mutations, translocations, epigenetic modifications, etc.) lead to changes in the proteins, and hence traits those offspring express. These changes can be harmful, neutral, or beneficial depending on the nature of the change. Often such changes can ambivalent- good in one environment, bad in another. Of these offspring, those with the most beneficial traits for their environment will have greater survival chances, and thus more opportunities to mate and pass their new genes to the next generation where the process is repeated. In other words, natural selection. Over time, if a trait is beneficial to survival in that particular place, it will slowly (or quickly depending on the circumstances) become more prevalent in the population inhabiting that particular place. However, often an original species is becomes spread over multiple different environments, and thus traits that are beneficial in one place, aren"t in another, and vice versa. This leads to different subgroups of the species developing different traits to cope with their different environments.Overtime, these different groups within the species, via natural selection, acquire enough traits to be considered a different species. This process- species dividing into different ones based off their different environments, is called speciation, and there are several types: Allopatric speciation is when two or more groups of the species are separated by a physical barrier (mountain, river, etc.) and so select and evolve differently (peripatric speciation is similar). Parapatric speciation is when the species is spread over such a large area that they develop different traits and eventually new species because of the variety that accompanies such a large habitat. As this goes on and on, species that were once the same become entirely different through billions of years of environmental changes, adaptations, and generations. It is the process of DNA changes to new traits to natural selection to speciation that causes the plethora of plant, animal, and bacterial species we see today.

Now that we know that basic outline that the Theory proposes, lets look at what it would predict. After all, a good theory makes definite predictions that can be proven wrong if tested. First, the theory demands a large timescale, on the magnitude of millions of years (this is why people at first didn"t think it was correct, because the bible said the world was young, I believe the figure was 6000 years old). Second the theory demands a mechanism in which organism could change their traits from generation to generation (it demanded this before genes were discovered). Third, it would dictate the as a general rule, organisms that were predicted to diverge more recently in evolutionary history would have more similarities in a number of different ways (DNA, embryo development, etc.). Finally it would predict that all life formed from a a soup of inorganic molecules during the early formation of the earth (if every animal came from a previous animal, then there had to one or more very primitive organisms that formed out of inorganic molecules that the rest of the animals descended from).

To test, and subsequently prove or disprove a theory, one has to test these predictions. A theory with untestable predictions, or is so general that it can not be tested at all, is not a true theory. Thus, let"s see what happened when people tested evolution.

Let"s start with the timescale. Though in Darwin"s time, the heat generated from radioactive decay of elements in the earth was not known, and thus temperatures measured by geologist put the earth as too young for his theory, nowadays we can adjust for this and results are in favor of evolution. According the United States Geologic Survey "The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks but they originated as lava flows and sedimentary rocks. The debris from which the sedimentary rocks formed must have come from even older crustal rocks. The oldest dated minerals (4.0-4.2 billion years) are tiny zircon crystals found in sedimentary rocks in western Australia." (For more evidence and information on the radioactive elements used for the dating, visit http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov...). Thus, theory demanded and predicted a very large timescale, and was correct.

Even in its earliest form, the one proposed by Darwin himself, required organisms to have some sort of mechanism of changing and acquiring new traits from generation to generation. In a way, evolution predicted DNA, a blueprint for an organism that could be changed, manipulated, added onto and subtracted from, because it needed a mechanism for variation that had just such capabilities. Again the theory was correct.

Though the theory would predict evolutionarily-related organisms will share similarities, the fact it was formulated to explain such similarities and differences that Darwin observed makes using such pieces of evidence a bit dicey. In this case, evolution is tested by throwing different observed phenomena at it and seeing it would or would not predict it. However, instead of cataloguing every single observed fact that evolution describes, I"ll try to catalogue the main classes of phenomena evolutionary theory explains.
Embryology: The way embryo"s form makes sense when it is applied to the model set forth by evolution. As you go down the taxonomic ladder, embryo of the organism"s look similar and similar. Additionally embryo"s devolopment provides a little window into evolution processes. For example: "One of the most celebrated cases of embryonic homology is that of the fish gill cartilage, the reptilian jaw, and the mammalian middle ear (reviewed in Gould 1990). First, the gill arches of jawless (agnathan) fishes became modified to form the jaw of the jawed fishes. In the jawless fishes, a series of gills opened behind the jawless mouth. When the gill slits became supported by cartilaginous elements, the first set of these gill supports surrounded the mouth to form the jaw. There is ample evidence that jaws are modified gill supports. First, both these sets of bones are made from neural crest cells. (Most other bones come from mesodermal tissue.) Second, both structures form from upper and lower bars that bend forward and are hinged in the middle. Third, the jaw musculature seems to be homologous to the original gill support musculature. Thus, the vertebrate jaw appears to be homologous to the gill arches of jawless fishes." (for further reading and more evidence go to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

I will continue my arguments in the comments, as I have a LOT to say. As I will post in order, when you view them, you will see the end of my argument first, then as you scroll down you will reach where I left off (next is the fossil record).
NothingSpecial99

Con


First off, I believe my opponent and I can agree that natural selection occurs and can create new species. Both in the evolution and the creation model, natural selection plays a huge part. We will probably disagree however, how much change natural selection can create. Natural selection cannot create species outside a created kind. Dogs will remain dogs, cats will remain cats.


The underlying problem is the issue of genetic information. For evolution to work, new genetic information must be introduced to the population. Natural selection is a destructive process that selects the traits that are best suited for environment. Whereas the traits not suited for the environment get eliminated, therefore information is lost.


Evolutionists have looked to mutations to fix this problem, but the problem is that mutations do not create new information in the genome. Mutations or copying mistakes of DNA destroy functional genes not creating them. For example, a mutation in the p53 gene disables the production of a protein responsible for regulation cell growth. And when cells uncontrollably grow and reproduce, you get cancer [1]. Even beneficial mutations such as lactose intolerance are due to the destruction of functional genes. Lactose intolerance is caused when there is a mutation in the LCT gene that is responsible for producing the lactase enzyme which breaks down lactose [2]. Therefore mutations and natural selection do not produce the type of change necessary for evolution. In fact, because it is observed that only genetic information can be lost, two things can be implied.



  1. Because genetic info can’t arise naturally, it can be assumed that all genetic information was created in the beginning by an intelligent designer.

  2. A more recent origin of all living things.


To refute my claim is simple; provide an example where a mutation has increased the amount of information in the genome.



Another issue with the evolutionary model is living fossils. For example, the horseshoe crab which still exists today remains completely identical to the fossils 445 million years old [3]. The fact that such organisms don’t change in these huge timescales proves a problem for evolution. How could these remain unchanged over millions upon millions of years whereas around them, wolves were evolving to whales, dinosaurs to birds, and apes to humans? Over such a time period, drastic changes in the environment, evolving predators, evolving prey, and plenty of mass extinctions were occurring. Such organisms would have had to evolve to be able to survive. The fact that modern creatures have coexisted with “ancient” species affirms the creation account that all kinds of animals were created at the same time which brings me to my next point.


Because the creation model claims that all “kinds” have coexisted together, it is often ridiculed because it was thought of as preposterous that ancient creatures such as dinosaurs coexisted with modern humans. However, a strong case can be built that the two coexist together. I’ll be mainly talking about dinosaurs since they are a popular example to ridicule creationists.


A piece of evidence that contradicts the evolutionary notion that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago is the soft tissue in dinosaur bones [4].


[4]


The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen, hemoglobin, and osteocalcin [5]. A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years [6]. However, it is believed that dinosaurs lived in warm moist environments that would quickly degrade such proteins.


Statement 1: Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago


Statement 2: Preserved dinosaur soft tissue and proteins still exist


Statement 3: Such substances can’t survive for millions of years


Obviously there is a contradiction here. It can be reasonably deduced that at least one of these statements is false. Statement 2 can’t be false because an ever growing amount of dinosaur specimens are directly observed to have soft tissue. And the Biochemist report and what is known how soft tissue quickly decays proves that statement 3 can’t be false. One might question why evolutionists don’t bring statement 1 into question as it is the only statement not backed by direct observation.


In addition, dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated which also contradicts millions of years. The main reason why things older than 50,000 years old aren’t usually carbon dated can be seen in the graph below.


[9]


As seen here, objects ‘older’ than 50,000 years should have no more Carbon-14 left to be measured. Yet it is present in the fossils [7].


While we are on the topic of fossils, they also prove another problem for evolution. Darwin has predicted that we would find numerous transitional forms that transcend the biblical kinds. However, in the millions of fossils uncovered since then, there is rather a lack of transitional forms. Evolution claims that many modern species today can be linked to a common ancestor that would link the two together (ex. Amphibians and tetrapods), however what we have are a few, disputed examples of transitional fossils.


Another argument I’ll be making is the design found in living things. Even Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” [13].


My first part of this argument stems from irreducible complexity. Basically there are structures in organisms that require many parts to function properly that natural selection isn’t capable of producing. An example can be seen with the eye, a structure that requires a perfect arrangement of parts to provide vision for the organism. Another example can be found in bacteria’s flagellum. The main point here is that transitional forms of such structures do not function. I’ll leave it to Pro to dispute Michael Behe’s claims next round.


On top of irreducible complexity, on occasion we see design beyond what is needed for survival. An example that I’ll refer to are human facial muscles.



On top of performing tasks necessary for survival such as eating and speaking, almost half of those muscles are solely dedicated to creating facial expressions. The problem is that having the ability to smile, frown, or smirk does not aid in the survival of humans. Such traits aren’t features that nature would necessarily select. Yet we see examples of overdesign often when it comes to engineering [8]. This implies that there is an intelligent designer behind such features.


On to you Pro……..


[1] http://www.cancer.net...


[2] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...


[3] http://news.discovery.com...


[4] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...


[5] https://news.ncsu.edu...


[6] http://www.biochemist.org...


[7] http://newgeology.us...


[8] http://creation.com...


[9] https://commons.wikimedia.org...



Debate Round No. 2
mapleleaf173

Pro

First let's address the so-called issue of genetic information. You challenged me to provide an example where a mutations caused an increase in the genome. Let me first be clear that logic behind your claim is sorely lacking. You said that mutations or copying mistakes destroy functional genes, but that is a disservice to the incredible complexity of the genome. Considering all the regulatory sequences that govern gene expression, all the way proteins and genes interact, and the inherent structure of DNA, one missing or replaced base pair can have tremendous effects of the expression of genes, the proteins the express, and the function of those proteins. For example, imagine if one base pair in a gene was removed. Now everysingle codon in theat gene is shifted over one, which means all the amino acids will change as well, resulting in a completely different protein. It is possible that protein won't work, its possible it will, but the idea that mutations can only destroy functional proteins is inherently false. Now here's the evidence you said I needed to refute your claims.

1. In a paper called "Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution" by Prijambada et al. (1995) found "Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO, which initially has no enzyme activity to degrade this xenobiotic compound [6-aminohexanoate linear dimer], was successfully expanded in its metabolic ability. Two new enzyme activities, 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase and 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase, were detected in the adapted strains." The paper went on to say "The adaptation of microorganisms to nonphysiological substrates has been extensively studied, and several molecular bases have been proposed: (i) alteration of substrate specificity of an enzyme (amidase/P. aeruginosa) (1), (ii) activation of a cryptic gene by mutation in the promoter region (evolved b-galactosidase Escherichia coli) (3), and (iii) alteration of regulator specificity (xylS/Pseudomonas sp.)" (PDF of study can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). This is an example of novel genetically regulated abilities being formed via mutations (though researchers have not yet identified which mutations exactly).

2) Another example of mutations and hence evolution can be found in a study called "Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance." by Knox et. al. (1996). The study concludes "The two classes of beta-lactamases appear to have developed from an ancestral protein along separate evolutionary paths. Structural differentiation of the beta-lactamases from the DD-peptidases appears to follow differences in substrate shapes. The structure of the class A beta-lactamase has been further optimized to exclude D-alanyl peptides and process penicillin substrates with near catalytic perfection." (http://www.cell.com...(96)90182-9_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1074552196901829%3Fshowall%3Dtrue). Here we see again mutations transforming proteins into different ones by changing the amino acid sequences, and hence the shape of the protein. Mutations added information.

I would like to list more examples, but I would prefer not to run into the comment again. For more cases and a more detailed response to the claim that mutations can not add genetic information go to: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Now on to living fossils. You claim these are a problem for evolution- the fact is they are not. In fact, if the traits for the organism were so suited for its environment, and/or that environment did not change sufficiently enough to diminish the advantage given by those traits, natural selection would preserve, not destroy these traits. A great article that goes really into depth into this concept is "The Evolutionary Truth About Living Fossils" by Alexander J. Werth and William A. Shear in The American Scientist. Unfortunately, I could not find a free version (I have access to EBSCO through my school, if you do too here is link:http://web.a.ebscohost.com...)

I have to admit, when I read that Dinosaurs and Humans may have coexisted together. However, your claims omitted some key facts that makes your interpretation of them (though they themselves are correct) incorrect. First to the tissue. Recently, the discoverer of the original tissue that sparked this debate, has found a biochemical explanation- and it isn't that humans and dinos coexisted. There is a lot of iron in your (and the T-Rex's) body, and normally that iron is tightly locked up in other biological molecules. But when the organism dies, the iron forms into nanoparticles, as well as generating free radicals. These free radicals then then cause cell membranes and proteins to tie into knots, which act almost like Formaldehyde. They ran tests to confirm this phenomena with Ostrich blood and blood vessels, and it came out positive. Thus, the mystery of Dino tissue appears to be solved, and its answer does not conflict if evolution. (read more at: http://www.livescience.com...) (Its interesting to note as the team was analyzing the tissue, it showed many similarities to Bird Collagen, which is what evolution would predict because it theorized that birds evolved from dinos like the T-Rex. )

Now on to Carbon-14 radiometric dating. while you are correct that there should be in theory 0 C-14 in dino bones, the reality is that experimental data collection has limits, and that C-14 is really only accurate in dating much more recent things. This is because modern C-14 can cause contamination in the samples, and when you get to samples with such minute quantities of C-14 deciding whether it is 60,000 or 30,000 years old, there is no practical way to tell. "The addition of only 1% modern carbon to a 60,000 year old sample causes its age to decrease by almost half, to ~37,000 years. Because carbon samples for AMS C dating customarily weigh one milligram (1000 micrograms), one percent modern carbon contamination in a 1 milligram represents 0.01 mg (10 micrograms) of carbon. Ten micrograms (10 x 10"6 grams) of modern carbon can be incorporated easily into a sample during routine chemical pretreatment even when using the best procedures in the best laboratories (Stafford et al., 1991; Verkouteren etal., 1987)." (2nd article in Creation/Evolution Summer 1992 Issue 30, though the 1st also addresses C-14 dino claims as well found here at http://ncse.com...). Thus we can see that even in the best labs, there is always going to be some error that is responsible for these readings (I would love to quote more evidence but I'm running out of space, so I ask if you have further questions to read the articles before asking me). Considering the fact that Creationist scientists generally don't have access and funding for these type of labs (the humorous story of Hugh Miller pretending to be a chemist in order to get some fragments for radiocarbon dating, then using bones that he had been warned had been contaminated comes to mind), never mind the fact they have a vested interest in the results obtained by the experiments.

In conclusion the whole dino story lacks any credible evidence and has a weight of evidence against it.

Finally, the over-design thing confused me slightly. The idea that facial expressions don't aid in natural selection seems ridiculous. Even lesser animals like wolfs use facial expressions to communicate with each other. Having a variety of facial expressions allows for more advanced social interactions, increasing likelihood of working together, thus increasing survival and hence natural selection and evolution.I would like it if you gave another more clear example of over-design. Your turn:)
NothingSpecial99

Con

NothingSpecial99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mapleleaf173

Pro

Ok well, if you need to post your arguments in the comments.
NothingSpecial99

Con

NothingSpecial99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
mapleleaf173

Pro

mapleleaf173 forfeited this round.
NothingSpecial99

Con

NothingSpecial99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
Both
Posted by mapleleaf173 1 year ago
mapleleaf173
Very well, i agree. My question is, will you be refuting all the things you listed, or would i list evidence for those lists in my opening, and then you attack that evidence? I am fine either way. :)
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
"Good Judgement comes with experience. Experience comes with bad judgement." Jim Horning
I would like for you to agreed that if I was to challenge you to 3 rounds, opening statements( first round), arguments on the fossilrecord,common traits in embryos, the universal genetics code,genetics commonilites,and bacterial resistance to antibiotics( second round), and closing statement only (no rebuttals) for(third round). I will await your response
Posted by mapleleaf173 1 year ago
mapleleaf173
I dont care that you are posting comments. My point is that we have gone back and forth in the comments so many times, why don't we just have a debate?
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
Here's another website that disproves the horse evolution https://carm.org...
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
This is an article that I found to refute that miller produce life in the laboratory experiment . The title is call " Failure to Demonstrate Evolution continues" and it's written by Steve Rowitt who has a Ph.D in Health Science. Here's the link for it https://evolutionthelie.com...
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
I can see that you don't want anyone who opposes your theory of evolution to post a comment because they are giving information that's saying don't listen to one side but hear both sides of the debate. Why don't you want me to comment? Maybe because the theory of evolution is not supported by science but by lies. I will keep giving my critiques if you don't mine.
Posted by mapleleaf173 1 year ago
mapleleaf173
I would like to do this in a separate debate with you, so for now on can you please save your critiques for another debate. To quickly address the ones so far. 1) The Miller experiment was not run for millions and millions of years, it was run for a week in one flask, instead of the entire earth. The fact that it generated so many amino acids, etc. makes the probability of very primitive life forming by chance from all these randomly generated amino and nucleic acids very, very possible, in accordance to what evolution predicts. 2) Your "problems" with Horse evolution assumes that Horse evolution proceeded in a straight line, which it didn't. It is merely simplified in textbooks to make the information easier to digest. As it is put by an article called Horse Evolution by Kathleen Hunt (full article here:http://www.talkorigins.org...). "First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly." For specifics go to the link I listed above.
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
Miller experiment never produced life in the Laboratory . Here's infomation to back up my statement http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...
Posted by CreationGuy 1 year ago
CreationGuy
Problems with Horse Evolution:

1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from the same location.

2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than "ancient horses".

3. The "ancient horse" (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and East Africa today!

4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different.

5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed (reverse order)

6. Never found in the order presented.

7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side.

Therefore, we know scientifically that the horse did not evolve from a four toed ancestor. Why is this still peddled as truth in museums and textbooks around the world?

"Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of the sabertooth "tigers" can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic." (George G. Sympson, "Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record". Scientific Monthly, Vol. 71 October 1950, p. 264).
For more information go to https://sepetjian.wordpress.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
mapleleaf173NothingSpecial99Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Tough 1 year ago
Tough
mapleleaf173NothingSpecial99Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeit.