The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stirling
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Theory Of Evolution Is False

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 42754
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

First round is an acceptance round.
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

Here is the problem with the theory of evolution is wrong.

1. Human have lived on this earth for thousands of years, and man has not changed.
2. If we did evolve from apes, why aren't some ape's becoming humans now.
3 Apes have a different level of chromosomes than we do.

those are my main points thank you.
Stirling

Con

Hi! Since you've provided three points, I will use this Round to negate each one since we both have the BoP

For the purpose of this debate I will assume by "humans" you mean homo sapiens and not a predecessor homo erectus
Point 1: Humans have lived on this earth for thousands of years, and man has not changed

This is not true at all. In fact, natural selection is occuring every single day. Studies show, for example, women with low body fat do not ovulate. Over time, this evolves homo sapiens into a race without the traits natural selection deemed bad. In other species such as the elephants, they are evolving to exclude tusks to avoid poachers because seelction causes poachers to kill those with tusks. Hudson River fish are evolving to have immunity from toxic waste. I could go on and on but for further reading check out this article http://content.time.com...
Point 2: If we evolved from apes, why are they not becoming humans

This is the easiest point of yours to negate. There is a very common misconception of evolution and that is

1. evolution finishes at a final product
2. all animals evolve into the same new animal if they were to evolve.

This is not true. Evolution is the change of a population and not an individual. For example, why are there so many species of the same animal but some have thicker fur in colder climates and less fur/more stamina in hot climates etc etc. Certain animals evolve based on their environment and not because an ape stood up one day and said

"Hey guys, drop that banana lets all be homo sapiens"

Continuing on, humans are not evolved from the species of monkey/ape today. We [our two species] are evolved from a common older ancestor.

Evolution is not an escalator with one species on one step and moving up in an orderly fashion. In fact, isolated populations evolve based on their needs and not due to some pre programmed change.

More reading on this matter: http://rationalwiki.org...

I hope that clears things up. Moving on.

Point 3: Apes have a different level of chromosomes than we do

I again wish to remind you Apes and Homo Sapiensshare a common ancestor but are not direct relations. The genetic similarities and differences between these two species are present. However, the similarities are much more striking. Apes have 24 pairs [or 48 chromosomes] and humans have 23 pairs [or 46 chromosomes] which is pretty much the same. Except for differences in non genetic heterochromatin, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have identical banding patterns. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and Y look the same in three of the four species (those three being gorilla, chimps, and humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in two species. Chromosomes 4 and 17 are different among all 4 species.

[The following is from multiple sources]

Most chromosmal differences involve inversions which are common in many species- even humans.

Other types of rearrangements include a few translocations (parts swapped among the chromosomes), and the presence or absence of nucleolar organizers. All of these differences can be observed to be occurring in modern populations.

There are two potential explanations for the difference in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes. The evidence favors a fusion event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common ancestry).

The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes (called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres.

Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event, how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced? We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case.

____________

All this evidence points to a natural evolution process with a common ancestor instead of a common creator.

I hope that clears matters up. I look forward to your reply

Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

Rebuttal 1: that is not a change. Wemen have suffered through that for thousands of years!

Rebuttal 2: Have your religion examined any macro evolution? No? I thought not.

Rebuttal 3: this is probably evolutions weakest part! There had been no scientific proof of an animal evolving and losing or gaining chromosomes. So this makes the theory of evolution invalid.

also I can tell now you are an atheistwhy do you believe in the big bang theory I mean there is a planet before us then who created the planets and how did living cells come into the equation and so you're saying our solar system was a lot more complex before? Because the surrounding planets do not hold all the elements we have found on earth today. all these elements of carbon oxygen nitrogen lithium and Iron? Got you thinking right?
Stirling

Con

1. that is not a change. Wemen have suffered through that for thousands of years!

Here my opponent makes an assumption that natural selection is not a change and that women have suffered a lack of ovulation if they are low on body fat for thousands of years.

This shows that my opponent lacks a core understanding of how natural selection and survival of the fittest works and has neglected to click and read my link. The link states the various reproductive challenges that ensures the survival of the fittest and eventually evolving. The assumption that natural selection is not a valid change is false. To change is to make or become different. If the following generation of humans lacks a certain trait weeded out by natural selection, it is different. Therefore, it has changed.

2. Have your religion examined any macro evolution? No? I thought not.


Here my opponent makes the false assumption that I follow a religion- a claim he refutes in his next paragraph. He also makes the false assumption that macro evolution is not happening. This is false.


A good example of macro evolution is the Evening Primrose Oenothera lamarckiana. In 1905, a scientist found there was an unusual variant among Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas. Due to time constraints but a need for another example, the Fruit Fly Drosophila melanogaster due to many circumstances involving mazes, they evolved into Drosophila pseudoobscura. Following this, by changing the pH, they evolved into Drosophila willistoni.


Many more such examples exist and I invite my opponent to look them up.


3. this is probably evolutions weakest part! There had been no scientific proof of an animal evolving and losing or gaining chromosomes. So this makes the theory of evolution invalid.

Here my opponent makes yet another blunder by not reading or researching my arguments. My last sentence in the second to last paragraph clearly states "variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case.", which with a bit of research will turn up more information.


There had been no scientific proof of an animal evolving

This is simply not true. Due to time constraints I invite you to click this link.
http://humanorigins.si.edu...

4. also I can tell now you are an atheistwhy do you believe in the big bang theory I mean there is a planet before us then who created the planets and how did living cells come into the equation and so you're saying our solar system was a lot more complex before? Because the surrounding planets do not hold all the elements we have found on earth today. all these elements of carbon oxygen nitrogen lithium and Iron? Got you thinking right?

If my opponent so chose as to visit my profile, he would see I am indeed an Atheist. However, that has no bearing upon today's debate.

I remind my opponent that simply because I am an Atheist does not mean I support the Big Bang Theory but I also remind him that everything is possible even if it is only 0.00001% possible. There are a few possibilities of the Big Bang Theory arising to life.

  • Perhaps the original energy molecule was very different from the mechanism found in living cells today, and the energy molecules happened to be abundant and free-floating in the environment. Therefore, the original cell would not have had to manufacture them.
  • Perhaps the chemical composition of the Earth was conducive to the spontaneous production of protein chains, so the oceans were filled with unimaginable numbers of random chains and enzymes.
  • Perhaps the first cell walls were naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals.
  • Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.

However, it is not fully researched. But, since my opponent has chose to bring religion into this, I will provide a thought experiment for my opponent on the existence of God.


First, allow us to define "God". God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created the Universe. This is an undisputed definition. Here is some food for thought, however.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

I look forward to your arguments


Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Pro

Evolution is the assumption that is based on something that first comes to the question, who made the planets, who made the cells, who made the animals, who made water, who made food that science just can not explain. In order for evolution to be correct, we couldn't be descended from apes. First, apes have no knowledge of speech except for screeching and yelling. We could not evolve from apes purely. In this link, this explains why evolution is false without using god's word

http://www.ucg.org...

I have looked at your links and I think they are interesting on how people can believe it. Darwin uses always "perhaps" he has no real evidence backing up his the evolution theory.

http://www.theguardian.com...

I have a feeling this link will in lighten you on Darwin and his theory. In this link is proof that god is real.
With all respects, let's see you talk your way out of this. I also want you to say next round what my links said and what they were about.
Stirling

Con

Hello

Pro again neglects to look at my arguments. In my statement I clearly stated homo sapiens and apes have a common ancestor and are not direct relations. This immediately counters Pro's first paragraph.

In answer to my opponents "who made" comments, the answer is nobody. If somebody made it, it would not be evolution. Everything we see here is a result of atoms and molecules and everything coming together to form new things never before seen.

I wish to remind my opponent Apes communicate through the series of screeching and yelling. That is their language. If Pro deems it necessary to bring up that point, I ask Pro; how do babies learn a language when all they can say is incoherent noises?

I have looked at your links and I think they are interesting on how people can believe it. Darwin uses always "perhaps" he has no real evidence backing up his the evolution theory.

Pro uses empty language here to justify Creationism. I wish to remind Pro ucg.org is a religious website and as such is biased. I wish to remind Pro the Smithsonian Institution uses repeated tests and real world evidence to repeately prove the theory of evolution. I invite my opponent to cite evidence of Creationism that is not biased and does not use the Bible but instead uses the real world examples.


The Guardian Newspaper's Missing Day

In using this, it shows a failure by both The Guardian and Pro to research thoroughly. This "Missing Day" was already debunked http://www.snopes.com... & http://urbanlegends.about.com... and if someone so chose as to research in depth, they would see it as such. This debunks that argument by the Guardian and immediately puts the authority of this article as questionable. I ask that my opponent kindly provides 5 points from this article next round which I will specifically negate.

UCG.org Trilobite Ancestor

UCG uses the Trilobite as evidence Evolution cannot exist. Before refuting this point, I wish to make clear just because something hasn't been found does not make the whole thing nonexistant. I also wish to point out UCG indirectly states Creationism is the easy way out when explaining life.

The Trilobite can be traced to be related to a pre Cambrian ancestor that is discussed http://www.trilobites.info...

Additionally, UCG uses this quote

"One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?"

I wish to remind my opponent and UCG that a tree and its fruit was not made for humans. The tree uses a process called photosynthesis to produce energy for itself and a byproduct is O2. Wood is used to support the tree and to provide protection for its internal workings. I remind my opponent that nothing was made to be killed. Fruit is used as a container for seeds so they can be spread far and wide via solid waste and provide a better chance for offspring of the tree to survive.

If my opponent so wishes as to find solid evidence for the theories UCG uses, I invite him to make good use of the last round to do so.


I remind my opponent to please, in the future, provide sites that are well researched and cited.

Thank you


Debate Round No. 4
Cooldudebro

Pro

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Stirling

Con

Stirling forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
I mean round 5
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
I have been busy and have not been able to post round 2. I will rebuttal though. God has to exist because

1. All the elements we have are not all from our surrounding planets.
2.Someone had to make the planets if the big bang theory were to be possible.
3. Living cells would have to be formed, because there is no living cells on the other planets
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Wow. Just wow. As a biologist, I am appalled.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Wow. Just wow. As a biologist, I am appalled.
Posted by Stirling 2 years ago
Stirling
I neglected to include this too:

Opponent please refute my point on God being impossible as stated in R3 in R5.
Posted by MartinKauai 2 years ago
MartinKauai
Poe's Law.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
This was not a good debate topic for pro...
Posted by Stirling 2 years ago
Stirling
Haha let it play out guys
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Cygnus
"Here is the problem with the theory of evolution is wrong."

Grammar, damnit!
Posted by ModerateLiberalism 2 years ago
ModerateLiberalism
I don't know how con is going to come back from that first constructive.
No votes have been placed for this debate.