The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved
Debate Rounds (5)
1) No one has ever observed any living thing gradually change through the generations to become a radically different kind of creature. Its only an assumption that the variation has no limits, but what HAS BEEN OBSERVED is that after many years of breeding bacteria, fruit flies, etc, the changes have never amounted to any radical enough difference to make the organism a different type of creature from the original ancestors in the experiments.
2) It is claimed that evolution happens so slowly that we can't observe successive generations long enough to see the radical changes happen. They claim that it takes millions of years to get from an ape-like creature to modern man, and thus we must look for it in the fossil record. The problem with this assumption is that they CANNOT prove the age of the fossils. The millions of years they claim for these fossils is NOT a scientific fact, and no one has been able to demonstrate in any rational way how they know the rates of decay used in radiometric dating in order to get the dates in the first place. Without these dates, they don't have enough time for evolution.
For example, its claimed that the half-life (the time it takes for half to decay) of carbon-14 is 2,570 years. They even have a mathematical formula to calculate it. But no one has been around long enough to observe a sample of carbon-14 that long to test the equation and see if its true, so how do they know? Now I could say that 4-6 = -2, and I'd be correct mathematically on paper. But in reality, I can't take 6 apples away from 4 apples. There is no such thing in real life as -2 apples. And it may very well be the same with carbon dating. The equation doesn't represent reality. It works in the books, but not in the real world. We haven't and cannot observe it to be so.
Now my challenge to my opponent is to explain to us how they can know for sure the dates are correct to get the millions of years necessary for evolution in the first place. Once we have enough time for evolution, then we can deal with what the evidence is that evolution even happened to begin with.
I contend there is no evidence for evolution, period. I look forward to Con's arguments. He can choose to begin with his own defense of evolution, or a rebuttal of my arguments, or both, its up to Con.
I will first present my case, and then do rebuttals in the following paragraph. On the upcoming rounds, I will do only rebuttals and present my argument. Hopefully, that format will be accepted by Pro.
I. E. coli long-term evolution experiment
This experiment was an ongoing long term experiment involving the E. coli. 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in in April 2014. During this experiment, Richard Lenski that had been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 and 60,000 in April 2014. Some shocking evolution adaptions was the E. coli strand was able to use citric acid as a carbon source. This showed species can adapt to environment if pressure is put.
II. The peppered moth
The Biston betularia, is a classic example of evolution. By 1848 the frequency of dark-coloured moths was 2%, and by 1895 it was 95%. Before the widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, the Biston Betularia could easily camouflage due to its light coloration. The moth could easily rest upon light colored trees and lichens and not get eaten by predators. However, after the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot. That was a disadvantage to the moth, and now was an easy prey. Meanwhile the dark colored moth flourished due to its ability to camouflage to dark trees. This shed light upon modern evolutionary synthesis.
III. Useless body parts
The Plantaris Muscle is used to hold grip items with your feet. You may see some other apes use their feet as well as their hands. That is because they have the Plantaris Muscle. Humans, do not use their feet to grip objects. In humans that muscle is now useless and is often removed for tissue reconstruction. In fact, that body part is so useless, that 9% of the population is born without it! It shows how humans have developed and there has been a time where we needed that, but now its useless. It shows we have changed. Another example is the Appendix. The Appendix is often removed once it becomes infected, and is now useless. Although it is still speculated upon, many scientists have agreed humans once ate a rich cellulose diet (leaves) and the Appendix helped to digest the diet. The fact is, we hardly eat leaves anymore. Furthermore, it shows we have changed and evolved. Other parts include Coccyx, plica semilunaris, Third Eyelid, Wisdom teeth, Auriculares muscles, "Junk DNA, Vomeronasal organ, Goose Bumps.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. Nearly every scientific society accepts evolution and rejects creationism. With the previous paragraphs that I have stated, evolution is most accepted.
Irrelevant side note:
I wanted to present my irrelevant side note and this has nothing to do with my argument. I would like to clarify that evolution is simply a change in species, over certain pressure caused by environment. Species tend to change according to environment given a certain time. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of species, but is simply a biological change. Evolution is one of the biggest studies of biology.
(If pro has any objection to wikipedia, I will happily provide another source)
The E. coli experiment is a classic case that proves my point that these small changes never amount to any radically large changes so that a creature becomes a significantly different kind of animal, such as an ape becoming a man. After 26 years of mutation and 60 000 generations, the E-coli bacteria were still E-coli bacteria. They merely learnt a new trick, how to ingest citrate, which seems no different from a dog learning to roll over, but it will still be a dog. I saw a contortionist put his body into positions most people can"t, I don"t know how he learnt this, but it doesn"t prove he"s becoming anything other than human. Yes, a dog can adapt to its environment, but this doesn"t show the dog can cease to be a dog, or that his descendants eventually will. The experimental observations show that bacteria remain bacteria despite the minor variations that occur.
II. The peppered moth
So moths tend to have wings with different colors, so what? I"ve seen a pair of black cats give birth to white and brown kittens. Does this show that each of their kittens was somehow less of a cat than their parents? My brown dog gave birth to white puppies, are they somehow less of a dog? Nobody thinks this is proof that cats are becoming anything other than cats, or that dogs are becoming anything other than dogs. Humans come in many colors, so do cats and dogs, so do peppered moths, but this variation is no evidence that moths will one day no longer be moths. This variety is too weak to be proof of evolution in the sense that a moth can becoming anything other than a moth given enough time. It seems that since after so many generations, the moths were still moths, the most logical conclusion is that just as an elastic band can stretch and bend into different shapes but remains and elastic band, there are limits to variation that occurs among animals so that at the core, these animals remain what they are.
Its just wishful thinking to assume that though we don"t see any massive changes in the descendents, given enough time we would. A worm becomes a butterfly in day or two. Why then should evolution take millions of years? This isn"t science, its speculation.
III. Useless body parts
The plantaris functions as a kinesiological monitor, providing crucial proprioceptive information to the central nervous system. (Peck, D., Buxton D.F. and Nitz, A., A comparison of spindle concentrations in large and small muscles acting in parallel combinations, J. Morphology 180:243"252, 1984; Peck, D., Buxton D.F. and Nitz, A., A proposed mechanoreceptor role for the small redundant muscles which act in parallel with large primemovers; in: Hinick, P., Soukup, T., Vejsada, R. and Zelena J. (eds.), Mechanoreceptors: Structure and Function, Plenum Press, London, pp. 377"382, 1988) "Plantaris may also provide proprioceptive feedback information to the central nervous system regarding the position of the foot. The unusually high density of proprioceptive receptor end organs supports this notion." http://www.google.com...
So the plantaris isn"t useless, it does have a function; and just because its not a necessary component of our anatomy doesn"t mean its not a useful one. Furthermore, Con is confusing organs which have currently unknown uses, with organs having no uses at all. Its simply his blind assumption that because scientists don"t see a great use for this organ, it therefore has none! Obviously, not much research into the biochemistry of an organ will be done if its just assumed to be useless. We may yet discover many other uses for the plantaris. For examples, just look at how much so-called junk-DNA thought by evolutionists to be useless turned out to be functional after all when more research was done! "Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA seems to be involved in maintaining individuals" well being " a view radically at odds with what biologists have thought for the past three decades"The project"s chief discovery is the identification of about 4 million sites involved in regulating gene activity. Previously, only a few thousand such sites were known. In all, at least 80 percent of the genome appears to be active at least sometime in our lives. Further research may reveal that virtually all of the DNA passed down from generation to generation has been kept for a reason.
"This concept of "junk DNA" is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor," said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama. Myers is one of the leaders of the project, involving more than 400 scientists at 32 institutions." http://www.washingtonpost.com... Just as it was only a matter of time before they found out the uses for the junk-DNA, could it not just be a matter of time before we know more about the plantaris? It just seems like evolutionists let their egos get in the way, and assume that if they don"t know the function for something at the time, there therefore is no function. We are not gods, and don"t know everything. Something we will never know.
Notice the same thing is happening now with the appendix that Con also assumes too hastily is useless. "The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most of it is good and helps digest food".But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix"s job is to reboot the digestive system in that case." http://www.nbcnews.com...
Nature is blind. It"s not intelligent. Mutations are random, and its only share luck when you get a beneficial mutation to be passed along to the next generation. Now evolutionists expect us to believe that the appendix evolve more than 30 times in more than 30 separate kinds of animals? http://www.google.com... What are the chances of that happening? It seems more likely that these animals were created with an appendix, than that just by sheer lucky chance they all managed to evolve the exact same appendage.
IV. Con's Conclusion
Con"s appeal to what the majority of scientists say is simply an argument that truth is decided by majority vote. When new discoveries in science throw cold water on the old theories of the majority, what does that do to Con"s position? The majority thought the appendix had no function and were obviously wrong. Con"s argument is that because humans have body parts we don"t use, this proves we are becoming, what, ET? Again, none of these small changes proves that they compile into the large scale changes claimed by macroevolution. So the humans who are born without a plantaris, are they any more or less human than the rest of us? No! Variation within a kind is no evidence that monkeys become men. You"ll need to try again, Con.
V. Time and Evolution
Now evolutionists claim they need millions of years for macroevolution to happen. Lenski"s E-coli experiment used bacteria which reproduces quickly and has huge populations. They can also sustain higher mutation rates than organisms with much larger genomes like ours. Since the life-span of bacteria is very short, we should be able to see in this experiment, given evolutionary assumptions, lots of evolution happen in real time (instead of imagining it all happening in the unobservable past). With the short generation times, Lenski got 60 000 generations, equivalent to more than 1.5 million years of generations of a human population (but the evolutionary opportunities for humans would be far, far less, due to the small population numbers limiting the number of mutational possibilities; and the much larger genome, which cannot sustain a similar mutation rate without error or extinction by catastrophe). Since evolutionist claims that in 1.5 million years we evolved from an apelike creature to human beings, since they claim such radical changes occurred in mammals, they should have seen even more radical changes in the E-coli bacteria. These should be more likely to evolve than we are, for bacteria is more adaptable to different environments than most living things. This is why they are found in almost all environments known to man. And yet, the E-coli were nothing radically different at the end of all those mutations. Clear evidence evolution just isn"t happening.
No, there is no evidence that proves this theory. I look forward to Con's rebuttal.
I believe Pro is only concerned about physical changes in evolution, and chooses to ignore the chemical changes. I am assuming Pro believes because a process took a long time, it can never be proven? Yes, and when supposedly humans evolved, they were humans throughout evolution. Evolution is not a change of species (Dog to cat). But the evolutionary process is when the population is distinct and cannot interbreed with "parent" population. Or previous generations so to say. If a human evolves, it will stay a human. Notice how Homo sapiens, Homo Habilis, etc. . . all the name "Homo"? This mean all the past population were part of the human species. All that means is, the past populations cannot interbreed with previous populations because they have changed. They are still human.
II. "So moths tend to have wings with different colors, so what?"
This is quite a high level of ignorance from Pro. Let me point out by saying, the peppered moth are one the largest studied creatures due to the evolutionary change. A moth does not change into a bee. It stays a moth, yes, but it has changed because it has adapted to its environment. If my opponent agrees that fact, I fail to understand why he does not agree with more drastic changes? Why cant the moths further adapt and become more complex.
III. Using my opponents source, the source states "Although the plantaris does have little importance, there are injuries that can occur. It can be damaged in an Achilles tendon rupture". With that being said, I would like to point out 9% of the population is born without a plantaris because it is so useless. It shows that humans do not need this muscle anymore.
"Furthermore, Con is confusing organs which have currently unknown uses, with organs having no uses at all.
I believe my opponent is implying the Plantaris? He has not stated which organ has an "unknown use". If this is the case, even if the plantaris has a function, no harm will be done if taken out. It is not a necessary organ. Also, I fail to see how that is my "blind assumption" when I have provided my source.
"Notice the same thing is happening now with the appendix that Con also assumes too hastily is useless." Again, using Pros source, it states "people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC." "With no clear determination of what the appendix does, there's no agreement on whether prophylactic appendectomies". So, there is no clear function of the appendix. It can be debated if the appendix is a useless organ or not, but main point is, it was one time useful, and it's not as useful as before. Does it have a function? Yes. Is it harmful when removed? No.
"Now evolutionists expect us to believe that the appendix evolve more than 30 times in more than 30 separate kinds of animals?"
I fail to see what my opponent means by saying "us".
"It seems more likely that these animals were created with an appendix, than that just by sheer lucky chance they all managed to evolve the exact same appendage."
Perhaps thats because we share a common ancestor, such as fish. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
"Con"s appeal to what the majority of scientists say is simply an argument that truth is decided by majority vote."
What? Science isn't a vote structure! Its based on evidence and experiments such as the E.coli, peppered moth, etc. . .
I fail to understand why my opponent agrees with the fact that its true for some species to adapt to short amount of time, but my opponent disagrees with the fact that it can continue to happen to make the species more complex.
"And yet, the E-coli were nothing radically different at the end of all those mutations."
What? Every organism adapts to its surrounding. The E.coli didn't need to become more complex, because there was no pressure on its environment. Thus, explains why the E.coli was able to use citric acid as a carbon source.
I do not assume that because a process took a long time, it can never be proven, rather, I am asking for proof that it did happen at all, and I"m also asking for proof that the long dates given can be proven, and in both cases the available data answers "no" to these questions. I didn"t assume anything. Its Con"s burden to show that what he "assumes" will happen given enough time, will indeed take place.
He tries to wriggle out of his burden of proof by saying that "Evolution is not a change of species (Dog to cat)." But this could not be further from the truth. What evolutionist actually imagined took place, is that animals completely changed from one species into a completely different kind of creature altogether. They claim that cells evolved over many generations until they became animals, that invertebrates evolved until their descendents became vertebrates, that vertebrates became tetrapods which eventually became mammals, and so forth. http://www.google.com...
Con said that "If a human evolves, it will stay a human," yet, evolutionist say that dinosaurs evolved to become birds, and they cite archaeopteryx as an example as an intermediary link between dinosaurs and birds, sort of a dino-bird. So how is it that humans will remain humans but dinosaurs don"t remain dinosaurs? If dinosaurs become birds, and cells become animals, why wouldn"t humans become something else? Maybe like the aliens we see on TV? Its obvious that Con can"t prove that anything which wasn"t human ever became human, and that"s why he has to argue that humans will remain human. In doing so he abandons the evolutionary hypothesis that before Homo sapiens, Homo Habilis, and all the other Homo"s, there were apes (or apelike creatures) which were not in the category Homo, which were not human at all, which slowly changes through the generations until they became Human.
Con says that "the evolutionary process is when the population is distinct and cannot interbreed with "parent" population." Well, if I show two dogs that can"t interbreed to a six-year-old, and ask him what he sees, that child will say "two dogs." The fact that they can no longer interbreed doesn"t show that the dogs are becoming anything other than dogs. It is therefore quite a stretch of the imagination to say that because these cannot interbreed, this proves that a few million years down the line they will no longer be dogs but will be monkeys or cats or anything else. As I have said from the beginning, we may see variation within certain animals, but this is no proof that these animals can, or will, become anything with a radically different morphological structure, such as the wide gap between fish and mammal, or mammals and birds, or monkeys and humans. There are infertile humans today who can"t interbreed with the rest of our species, does that mean they are any less human than the rest of us?
II. "So moths tend to have wings with different colors, so what?"
Con begins this portion by attacking me personally, saying I have a high degree of ignorance. Just because moths change their color, he asks "Why can"t the moths further adapt and become more complex?" This is a high degree of imagination and wishful thinking. Previously he said that humans remain humans, dogs remain dogs and so forth despite the small changes, which I exactly what I proposed in the beginning, so why shouldn"t I expect that a million years from now the moth will still be a moth? Humans also have different colors, does it prove that in a million years we"ll become like E.T.? Show me a series of generations of moths that slowly change through the generations so that at the end, what you are left with just isn"t a moth anymore, and I"m with you. For this is what evolution teaches. That fish changed through the generations till they became men.
III. Con mentions again that 9% of the human population is born without a plantaris, as if this somehow shows that we are slowly loosing our plantaris as part of evolution, but does Con provide any statistics to show that less than 9% of humans were born without the plantaris in the past? How does he know that this 9% isn"t simply a constant throughout human history? He"s acting as though at some point, all humans were born with the plantaris, and as we evolved, we lost the need for it and thus more and more of us are born without it. In that case, he needs to show figures where the number of persons born without the plantaris increases as time goes by.
What proof has Con given to show that in the past we used to have more use for the plantaris than we do now? None whatsoever. Its all just assumed by evolutionists. All humans don"t have blone hair, but that isn"t proof that we are evolving into anything other than human. Why then, should some human"s lacking a plantaris be proof of evolution? Its simply a case of limited variation within the kind.
Again, Con assumes the appendix had a function in us that it no longer has. Where is his evidence for this? If his only evidence is that it has that function in gorillas or chimps, how does that show it once had a different function in us humans? His only option is to assume we once were the chimps, or an apelike ancestor, but he needs to first prove this, not assert it. He hasn"t done so, so his burden of proof isn"t met.
Con says "Science isn't a vote structure!" yet appeals to what a majority of scientists say as if the numbers determine truth.
My opponent also fails to realize that the small changes are not necessarily making the animals more complex, for they can loose a few features and thus by his logic would be less complex. But more importantly, all the experimental evidence shows that these small changes rotate around a core morphological structure that doesn"t ever change, so that despite small variations, moths remain moths, dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish, etc. They are not becoming anything radically different as Con imagines. He even claims there was no pressure from the environment to cause E-coli to become radically different, so can he show me one single experiment where such "pressures" were applied and the result was a radically different organism? No. It doesn"t exist.
Finally, notice Con needs millions of years to get evolution to happen. But he never even attempted to address the argument I made in round 1 that he cannot prove any of these dates are correct. I challenged him to explain the carbon dating process, particularly how he can know the half-life of C-14, and he was hopelessly silent. Since he doesn't have those millions of years, he can't assume that the whole fish-to-man evolution ever happened! I'm still waiting on his argument for this. Maybe we will hear it in the next round.
Species was the wrong word to describe this, apologies. A better word would be genus.
""the evolutionary process is when the population is distinct and cannot interbreed with "parent" population." "
Again, this was a misunderstanding, perhaps on my part. When I said "parent population", it meant the previous generation of a different . Such as Homo Habilis, cannot interbreed with homo Erectus. They are part of the same genus, but since they are so different, they are a different species.
"Con said that 'If a human evolves, it will stay a human,"
I was referring to the modern human evolution, under the genus Homo.
I would like to carry out my argument again, and move on from rebuttals.
Carbon dating is not the only method use, as it is only accurate for around 30,000 years. Uranium lead dating is accurate to 4.5 billion years.
I see my opponent believes evolution is entirely assumption, even based on different evidences for short changes.
For the fish to man argument:
Many apologies, due to a busy schedule I was not able to carry out my argument. I will do so in my next point, and have no objection if I am marked off for conduct. I leave Pro to do rebuttals for my current argument.
1) How do scientists know the half -life in this method? Wikipedia reports that "The uranium"lead dating method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years." Nobody has observed any sample that long to see it decay, so how do they know it takes this long to decay? Can you give me one example of uranium-lead decay, where you can tell us how much decay scientist have actually observed with their eyes and how long it took?
2) How much uranium decays during the half-life? Half of what, exactly? Half of one single atom of uranium? Or half of a sample which is composed of a certain quantity of uranium? If so, how big is that sample? This is important, because if we only talking about one single atom of uranium taking millions or billions of years just for half to decay, exactly how much of it can scientist even observe decay within a year or even 50 years? Please tell us, how much decays in a day, a week, or a month? And is that figure than multiplied by the total size or mass of the uranium atom/particle to get the total time it will take to decay?
3) Do all the uranium atoms in a fossil decay simultaneously, or do they decay one at a time? These are important questions in determining how this process works, and how evolutionists come up with these figures.
I await Con's explanation to show that they can even tell how they know how long it takes for uranium to become lead. But while he's looking for those answers, he should also tell us,
4) How do scientist know for sure that none of the daughter product of uranium (the lead) was not present with the fossil from the very beginning of its being fossilized? No observer was present when the rock was first formed around the sample, so how could they even date the rock? They may ASSUME no lead was present at that time, but that's an assumption without proof. What if lead was there? That would throw off the date of the date of the sample.
5) How do they know none of the daughter product of uranium, did not get out, or get into the sample after its fossilization, or even at the very moment the specimen was encased in rock or other material in which it was fossilized? They assume its a closed system without proof. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be completely sealed off from other rocks, water, chemicals, changing radiation, etc. How is that even possible?
6) Con must assume the rate of radioactive decay is constant throughout all history. How could he even know this? The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered  if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.);  if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation;  if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or  if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.
"Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."10
Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:
"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."11
[Following is actual documentation of changes in decay rates]:
Theodore W. Rybka, "Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives," Acts & Facts, ICR Impact Series, No. 106, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1982).
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35 (1971), pp. 261-288, and Vol. 36 (1972), p. 1167. (Includes data indicating that different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean gave results varying from 100 thousand to 4.4 billion years. Results from different methods were contradictory.)
K.P. Dostal, M. Nagel, and D. Pabst, "Variations in Nuclear Decay Rates," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 32a (April 1977), pp. 345-361.
P.A. Catacosinos, "Do Decay Rates Vary?", Geotimes, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1975), p. 11.
J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Vol. 4 (Fall 1974), p. 34.
Harold L. Armstrong, "Decay Constant: Really Constant?", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1 (June 1974).
W.K. Hensley, W.A. Basset, and J.R. Huizenga, "Pressure Dependence on the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7," Science, Vol. 181 (September 21, 1973). (Documents that the radioactive decay rate of Beryllium-7 varies with pressure).
J.L. Anderson, "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During Counting of Certain Carbon-14 Labeled (Sub) Monolayers," Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1972). (Shows that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is influenced by the local atomic environment.)
G.T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22 (1972), pp. 165-202 (Shows that many radioactive elements, including Carbon-14 and Uranium-235, have had their decay rates altered in the laboratory.)
J.L. Anderson, Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, Los Angeles (American Chemical Society, 1971)." https://www.google.com... I would hope Con won't tell me ChristianAnswers isn't a scientific site because it gives all the scientific sources from which the information comes. Much more documentation is given even from the US Geological Survey showing 80-90% of the rocks experience leaking that would contaminate samples. Much of the radiometric dating thus must be inaccurate.
Geologist Andrew Snelling:
"It is special pleading on the part of geochronologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The 'bottom line' is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally 'laughed out of court' by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochronologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists REQUIRE, and because it makes these radioactive 'clocks' work!"
[Andrew A. Snelling, "Radioactive Dating Method 'Under Fire'!, " Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Answers in Genesis, March-May 1992), p. 44 (emphasis added).]
Con's arguments don't address the fact that while animals give birth to descendants that cannot breed with the parent population, all the descendants we have observed being born were still within the same morphological kind. A horse family, for example, giving rise to mules that are simply "smaller horses" would seem like a huge proof of evolution to my opponent, but this is actually no different from if tall humans were to give rise to pygmies. We don't consider humans to be any more or less human based on their size or color, so why think a horse, mule or pony is on its way to becoming some other kind of creature just because of its size or color? My opponent saw moths having different colors as evidence that moths were once not moths, and that today's moths will one day be something other than moths. Yet, dogs give birth to dogs with completely different colors from their parents and this is no proof they are becoming anything other than dogs. I don't see why such limited variation in color, size, etc, is seen by evolutionists as proof that these creature can become anything other than what they basically are. Just like the E-coli, after 60 000 generations of mutation learnt to ingest citrate, but it was still e-coli. Bacteria remain bacteria. I would like to see an experiment where after 80, 000 generations a bacteria was no longer a bacteria, but something else. No such observation has been made. Con is trying to say that what has never been observed, isn't being observed now, is in fact happening. This is a complete denial of the scientific method which operates by observation, and tests and experiments which hold observable results.
Evolution is based on assumption, not facts. Your turn.
Commondebator forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to pro. Con admitted to dropping an argument, so arguments to pro .
You are not eligible to vote on this debate