The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

The Theory of Evolution Has Many Flaws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,459 times Debate No: 43314
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)




Resolve: The Theory of Evolution Has Many Flaws
I am pro, and therefore my opponent is con.
I would like to start off by saying thank you to my future opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope that it will be a well constructed, criticism-free debate.
During my 2nd round, I will be asking multiple questions and providing explanations to them to prove that evolution is a theory with many flaws. I will also be refuting some of the evidence that evolution has in that round, and during my 3rd round, I will be rebuttling my opponents arguments. Once again, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and wish him/her good luck.


Hi Pro, Would you kindly list out the flaws?
I personally believe evolution to be true simply because it explains the state and flow of nature better than creationism.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to start out by saying that my opponent will be providing evidence for evolution, and like I had previously stated, I will be pointing out the flaws in evolution and refuting some of the evidence my opponent may try to bring up. I will start out will my questions, and the source(s) will be below them.
1. How was the first cell created?
Many evolutionists may try to argue that chemicals came together to make the first cell, but this is completely false. For the right chemicals, at the right time, to be somehow drawn to each other, and come together to create the first cell, is highly improbable. To quote Edwin Conklin, a biologist, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." The belief that life created itself is not only ridiculous, but a contradiction, as many biologists will tell you that cells can only come from other cells. Also the chances for this cell that has just been exposed to a foreign environment to survive, are once again, slim.
2. How can evolutionists explain the complexity of the genetic code?
To quote my source (1), "As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected"an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information"the detailed instructions for assembling proteins"in the form of a four-character digital code" If evolution were a "Fact Of Science", then how would you explain the complexity of the genetic code? It is truly fascinating, and many evolutionists will also tell you that the complexity of this code is obviously too great to have started out at nothing, and randomly mutate into the complex perfection that it is now.
3. How did different sexes originate?
If evolution is true, then why do we have two sexes? This is one of the hardest questions for evolutionists to answer, since it is obvious that asexual reproduction is much faster then sexual reproduction, what is the advantage to sexual reproduction? Also, if we were all to start of from asexual cells, then HOW did both genders end up so similar? This puts a huge flaw in the theory, and I would like to hear my opponents thoughts on this.
4. Where is the evolutionary tree for insects?
There is a huge gap in the evolutionary tree for insects, as you probably know. So, why have we not found the missing links between non winged insects and winged insects?
5. What was the first organism to gain the heart, the blood vessels and the blood, and it what order did it get each?
The mathematical chances of the first organism to gain the heart, the blood vessels and the blood at the same time is once more, slim. Also, to say that we gained bits and pieces of the heart is ridiculous, since evolution happens through the passing down of genes. No organism has or has ever had a gene for gaining a piece of a heart, or a new organ.
6. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed to produce DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?
This question may be answered by saying that RNA replicated to become DNA which in turn made proteins. If that is true, then how did RNA come to be? My opponent may try to say that a primordial soup could have created RNA, but to quote my source, "There is no geologic evidence for this soup or for how such reactive nucleotides could begin to accumulate and organize themselves".
7. Can evolution explain the complexity of the giraffe?
There are many creatures that, "Defy Evolution", one being the giraffe. To quote my source, "Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.
However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.
However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, it has a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally. Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe. These systems could never have evolved, since not only are they complex, but not all three systems could have possibly been acquired at the same time.
8. If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards?
If our solar system evolved from the same material, then they should have many similarities. That being said, why does Pluto, Venus, Uranus and over 30 moons spin backwards?
Next, I will be going over the lack of evidence supporting evolution. I have a limited amount of words, so I cannot ramble on about it, but i will provide as much information as possible before I run out of characters.
I would like to start out with the flaws in the evolutionary tree. I have already pointed out that there is a lack of a tree for insects, but not yet animals. Way back in the evolutionary tree, there is something called the Cambrian Explosion. In this time, there was rapid diversification, wand it was a relatively short period. Before this period, there was organisms with small amounts of cells, or fairly simple organisms altogether. All of the sudden, organisms like trilobites came about, which contained hundreds of THOUSANDS of cells! This is a huge gap in the evolutionary tree, and it happens throughout it, though not as drastically as in the Cambrian Explosion.
Next, I would like to go over vestigial organs and how this does not prove evolution. I would like to start out by saying that just because we do not know the meaning of an organ, does not mean it is vestigial. If you were to take that organ out, and not die, that also does not mean that it is vestigial, as you can take kidney's out of our body without dying, and we know that kidneys are not useless.


First, I would like to first start off by saying my definition of 'Evolution' and i would provide my opinion towards the questions you asked in round 1.

Evolution - the gradual development of something.
Here i don't restrict the term evolution to only contain the biological realm, but instead that of whole universe.
I will even go so far as to say that 'Big bang theory' is a subset of 'Theory of Evolution'.

And now i totally agree that Theory of Evolution is not complete and is still in progress like many other theories. And hence attacking the missing pieces doesn't necessarily discredit the whole theory. So far what you have listed as questions are just few Missing pieces of a whole theory. You have provided Zero evidence to disprove the Evolution theory and so i assume that is not your intent.

Your Questions
1. How was the first cell created?
'....that chemicals came together to make the first cell, but this is ""completely false""....'
'....come together to create the first cell, is "'highly improbable""....'

'Logical Fallacy : Appeal to Probability - takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).' - from wikipedia.
Highly improbable does not equal Impossible, ergo saying 'completely false' is supported by Zero evidence.
My Opinion: Its all a matter of perspective. When you view the whole living realm from a cosmological viewpoint, then one can argue that formation of life is not a complex process at all and hence one can say that the probability for such an event to occur is not so low as you presume.

2. How can evolutionists explain the complexity of the genetic code?
"...complexity of this code is obviously too great to have started out at nothing, and randomly mutate into the complex perfection that it is now....."

Same logical fallacy as question 1.
My Opinion: Complexity of something is a purely subjective notion. Whats complex for a cat is simple for humans. Whats complex for humans May be simple for Nature. And for nature to do simple things doesn't require any miracle.

3. If evolution is true, then why do we have two sexes?
The existence of two sexes enable Natural Selection. Asexual reproduction leaves little room for genetic diversity. Mutation occurs rarely in asexual organisms , that too because of reproductive malfunction. Whereas in Sexual organisms, Diversity is present, which enables gene mixing. And with the wide pool various genes, best gene is gradually filtered by the process called 'Survival of the Fittest'.

4. 5. 6. and 7.
Like i said earlier, Missing Pieces. Doesn't disprove anything.

8. If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards?

To quote my source : "Current theory holds that Venus initially spun in the same direction as most other planets and, in a way, still does: it simply flipped its axis 180 degrees at some point. In other words, it spins in the same direction it always has, just upside down, so that looking at it from other planets makes the spin seem backward. Scientists have argued that the sun's gravitational pull on the planet's very dense atmosphere could have caused strong atmospheric tides. Such tides, combined with friction between Venus's mantle and core, could have caused the flip in the first place. "
Similar story for the rest of the 'odd' planets and moons.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to start out my rebuttal by stating the real definition of evolution- The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
I would like to note that my opponent starts out his speech by agreeing with the resolve, but then attempted to say that I have provided zero evidence for why evolution is flawed, but this is not true. During my second round, I have asked multiple questions and provided explanations to prove that evolution can not explain everything in the universe, such as the giraffe, how insects came to be, the genetic code, and therefore, I have proved that evolution is indeed flawed.
Now, to respond to the responses my opponent has provided to my questions, I will start off with his first answer. Please note that all of his answers were opinionated, and he has provided only one source from where he got his answers.
1. The First Cell
On a side note, mathematical improbability plays a huge role in why evolution is flawed. Evolution has many 'could haves' in it, such as; RNA could have come from outer space, there could have been a primordial soup, etc. To use improbability not being impossibility as an argument, you have shown that you do not know the answer to this question, and rely on it's slim possibility.
The formation of life in the way that evolutionists have described it, it is very complex. No matter what viewpoint you see this from, the formation of the first cell by chance would be an extremely complex process and therefore, abiogenesis would be highly improbable.
2. The Genetic Code
The complexity of something can be decided by science, and I as had said in my speech, science has revealed that the genetic code is extremely complex, and many evolutionists would agree that it could not have come to what it is today from random mutations. To say that the genetic code is simple because nature can do complex things, is ridiculous and a poor argument.
3. Two Genders
Asexual reproduction is a much faster way of reproduction, as I had said before, many creatures would not be evolving for genetic diversity, but for survival. If creatures are identical, but can survive very well, it would be better than creatures that are not identical, but could not survive as well. My point is that nature would not focus on genetic diversity of defense mechanisms and much more useful traits.
4-5-6-7. These are not just missing pieces, but flaws in the theory, as I have previously explained.
8. The solar system
You have no evidence of this explanation to why Venus spins backwards, but you use the argument that it 'could have' happened. But, even if this is true about Venus, there are many other accounts of backward revolving planets and moons, and saying that the sun could have been the reason for all of these planets and moons spinning backwards and providing no evidence to support it, is an invalid argument.
Since this is my last round I would like to sum up why I believe I have won this debate. First off I have provided not only sources, but very reliable sources such as, whereas my opponent has provided one source throughout his entire speech. Also, my opponent has yet to answer four of my questions to prove that evolution is flawed, but instead he has simply said, "Like I said earlier, missing pieces. Doesn't disprove anything." Also, almost all of his answers to my questions have been completely opinionated and two sentence answers, which do not even answer my questions, and I have explained why throughout my rebuttal. Lastly, my opponent has attempted to "Overrule" my arguments by trying to say that they were, "Logical Fallacies" instead of actually answering my questions. For these reasons, I believe that I have proved the resolve, that evolution has many flaws, and therefore I have won this debate.
Once again, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and wish him good luck.


First, let’s look at the definition of ‘Flaw’.

Flaw - ‘a mistake or shortcoming in a plan, theory, etc. which causes it to fail or reduces its effectiveness’ - from oxford dictionary.

This actually means two different things,

  1. A mistake in a theory which causes it to fail. OR
  2. A shortcoming in a theory which reduces its effectiveness.

Your Resolve - “Evolution theory has many flaws”

If by flaw you meant “Shortcoming or limitation that reduces the effectiveness of the theory”, then you are correct.

In this case I concede and congrats, you win.

But if by flaw you meant “mistakes that invalidates the whole theory”, then you are completely wrong.

Why completely wrong?

Here it goes,

Like I stated previously, Evolution is a work in PROGRESS. Just like Physics, Biology, chemistry so on and so forth.

Whereas Creationism is pretty much over. And as for Intelligent design, it is far unlikely to be true compared to evolution.

And here on I assume that you are an advocate of ID(Intelligent Design) because you don’t seem to be satisfied with evolution.

Why ID is NOT better than evolution?

The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses. – Source: Wikipedia.

Why Evolution is better than ID?

First, evolution and intelligent design are not seen (by the advocates of Intelligent Design) as necessarily incompatible. Some of the most vocal advocates of Intelligent Design (like Michael Behe) do not dispute the evolution of modern species from common ancestors, they just dispute whether Darwinian natural selection alone is enough to explain it.

So the question is not whether evolution or intelligent design is more plausible, but whether natural selection or intelligent design is a more plausible explanation of evolution.

And I have hard time understanding Intelligent Design as an explanation (plausible or not) of *anything*.

Saying "natural selection can't explain X" is not the same as offering an alternative explanation! Saying "the Designer designed it" is no better an explanation than saying "the Creator created it", or "the Dreamer dreamed it." It doesn't actually *EXPLAIN* anything.
Or to put it another way, all it does is take the thing to be explained (a flagellum, an eye, a blood clotting system) and replaces it with something *completely* unexplainable ... something with no known mechanism, origins, energy source, motive, etc.

So it does not *EXPLAIN* the complexity of the cell to say that it was just "designed" by something infinitely more complex! That is not making progress.

Natural selection on the other hand is a phenomenal explanation for why evolution occurs. It provides the *mechanism* for evolution. It explains what causes evolution in terms of far simpler concepts, such as variation, inheritance, and competition. This mechanism is testable. It is verifiable. It is even reproducible. In fact we demonstrate the fundamental process of natural selection whenever we breed domestic animals and plants, effectively manipulating the process of natural selection by manipulating the reproductive environment (which individuals get to produce more offspring) of the species. And through this we have been able to demonstrate the extreme pliability of species in a relatively short amount of time.

- Source: Yahoo Answers.

Now I will try and answer your questions.

1. The First Cell: I will just give the short version, read the source for more elaborate explanation.

Water under seafloor -> Serpentinisation ->Iron-sulphur bubbles -> formation of Acetyl phosphate -> Nucleotides -> RNA and DNA -> First organic cells (protocells) -> Bacteria and Archaea.

2. Genetic code:

There are 3 theories in evolution that attempts to solve this issue.

StereoChemical theory, Adaptive theory and Coevolution theory.


3. Origin of sexes:

First came the separation of the diploid state (where all chromosomes are paired) and a haploid state (where the chromosome pairs are separated, so each cell has half the full number of chromosomes). For example, slime mold amoebas are normally diploid, but can form small haploid cells ... called spores ... that can travel and combine with other spores to produce new diploid individuals (fertilization). That's basic sexual reproduction.

The next step is in the slow specialization of two kinds of haploid cells. Some get smaller and are specialized for mass-production, and for lightness (so they can be carried farther by air or water) ... while others get larger as they contain all the nutrients needed to start a new individual after fertilization. The smaller cells we call "male gametes" (sperm or pollen), and the larger ones we call "female gametes" (egg cells or ova).

The next step are organs that specialize in either mass-producing and distributing male gametes, or specialize in producing female gametes and providing an environment for growth after fertilization (e.g eggs in the case of animals or seeds in the case of plants).

And finally comes the specialization of individuals to have only one kind of sexual organ or the other, rather than all individuals having both (the way most flowering plants are). Male and female organs will continue to get more and more differentiated from each other, but will always work together. That's because those individuals of any generation that do *not* work well with the sexual organs of the opposite sex, don't reproduce, and therefore those genes don't last long. But other than that ... any slight alteration in the sex organs of either sex that makes it a little better at doing what it does best (e.g. the way that placental mammals slowly kept the egg internally for longer and longer until the egg is never laid outside the body, but becomes a placenta ... and the young "hatch" directly from the mother).

Source: Yahoo answers

4. Evolution of Insects:

Refer this page:

5. What was the first organism to gain the heart, the blood vessels and the blood?


- from Wikipedia.

6. Which came first, DNA or Protein?

It seems rather unlikely that two molecules which are so important for life appeared at the same time, but on the other hand it seems absurd to have one without the other. Some biologists among which Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, each one of them on his own, assumed that there was a compound which could both duplicate without the help of proteins as well as catalyze each phase of the protein synthesis. This compound is supposed to be the RNA, because it is a simpler molecule compared to DNA and it is easier to synthesize. Subsequently, many studies confirmed this supposition, including the discovery of enzymes made of RNA so they understood that not all chemical reactions are performed by proteins. They even succeeded to modify some RNA molecules with enzyme functions to make them able to bind nucleotides of RNA itself.


7. Can evolution explain the complexity of the giraffe?

I couldn’t find an answer to this question. This piece of puzzle maybe solved in the future or maybe not.

8. If the solar system evolved, then why do some planets spin backwards?

Why would you raise a question about SOLAR SYSTEM if you consider the definition of Evolution to be, I quote “The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”?

I defined evolution to include whole universe(in round 2) precisely because of your 8th question. But now you switch case to biological realm and still persist on this planetary question. This baffles me. A Totally Irrelevant Question.


The theory of Evolution has, like you said, has limitations but not mistakes. You have given zero evidence to disprove evolution. So my verdict, Evolution remains Victorious.

As for this debate, it all depends on what you meant by ‘Flaw’ in your resolve.

If you meant it as shortcomings, then you win.

Else I win.

And Thank you for this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
No, it shouldn't, though it was your word choice. The fact that it came up as an issue is because of both a lack of definitional analysis off the bat and the insinuation of how you would use it in your argument. Your argument was tautological - every theory has limitations by its very nature, so the theory of evolution is also limited, therefore it is flawed. That's not a basis for debate.
Posted by ThatRepublicanGuy 3 years ago
This debate should not have revolved around the word flaw...This is the reason why this website is FLAWED.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
I was actually thinking along similar lines. If that's your definition of flawed, ThatRepublicanGuy, then your goal is to prove a tautology. A theory, by it's very nature, is subject to some uncertainty and limitations. I decided my vote based off of the reasonable definition of the word "flaw." If you'd rather I decided it based on your definition, is still vote against you and vote you down on conduct. Not only would you have redefined the terms far too late in, but you would also have defined them unfairly. You don't get a win for that.
Posted by Abnewstein 3 years ago
One thing you need to understand first. The meaning of the word 'Flaw'.
The logic you use to discredit Evolution is hugely 'flawed'. Let me explain why,
I will be bringing up some analogies to discredit your logic.

Now the origin and cause of Gravity remains mysterious. Dark matter is completely oblivious yet constitutes around 90+% of the whole universe.

So conclusion: PHYSICS IS FLAWED????

Currently few unsolved problems in biology:
Origin of Life
Arthropod head problem
Biological aging.. to name a few.

So conclusion : Biology is FLAWED???

and the list can go on for all the theories that were ever proposed.

Signing off.
Posted by ThatRepublicanGuy 3 years ago
Since I am not able to respond to my opponents rebuttal in this debate, I would like to talk about what my opponent has said during his rebuttal. The resolve was that evolution was a flawed theory, not that I was supposed to disprove it. My opponent went completely off topic in the begining of his response, but on a side note, intelligent design has not fallen through, as each year, more and more people believe it over evolution. Evolution took some hard hits in 2013, and if you would like to know how, go on But back to his rebuttal- My opponent barely explained his answers, once more providing only a few sources for them, whereas I had given very reliable sources. Also, I was not asking for how insects evolved, which my opponent has not even explained, rather he reffered to his source. My question was, where are the fossils of these insects? My opponent answered my question about DNA by saying that RNA could have been a replicator. But, like I have asked and explained in my 2nd round, where did the RNA come from? He then agrees that evolution can not explain the complexity of the giraffe. He concludes by saying that I did not disprove evolution, yet that was not the resolve. The resolve was that evolution is a flawed theory, and I have proved that. If evolution cannot explain something, like the things that I have pointed out, then it is a FLAW in the theory. I would also like to say that this debate should not revolve around what "Flaw" means. The point is that evolution can not explain itself, and therefore it IS a flawed theory, and I have proved that, and my opponent could not refute my arguments. I once again thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and urge any voters to vote fairly and to not be bias.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 3 years ago
Surrealism, you took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you for taking so much time out of my day to type down long reasons why that is so, and you can put it in so short of words.
Posted by Surrealism 3 years ago
Most of the Pro's arguments seem to revolve around holes in the theory. But this doesn't create flaws in the theory at all. For example, the Standard Model is the most widely accepted model in physics to explain the largest amount of phenomena. But it doesn't explain gravity. Does that mean the Standard Model is flawed? No. Just incomplete. Same thing with evolution. Just because evolutionary theory in its current state doesn't provide every single evolutionary step between bacteria and every single organism on the entire planet doesn't make it flawed! It just means we don't have all of the answers yet.
Posted by Surrealism 3 years ago
I believe in evolution, but also accept the resolution. That's a contradiction, isn't it?

Not so.

Any scientific theory will be changed over time. For example, gravitational theory as developed by Newton is incomplete. What did Newton know about the four fundamental forces and the elementary particles that carry them? What did Newton know about quantum mechanics? Obviously, since his time, gravity as is understood by science has changed drastically, and even today is probably very different from what we'll know about gravity in 2500. You might say the theory of gravity has many flaws. Does that mean we shouldn't accept gravity?

Not at all.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
I don't feel I understand your burden in the round. What's your threshold for "many"? Enough to disprove? Is there a specific amount associated with that? How do we determine who wins this debate if Con proves that much of evolution is true and you prove that certain pieces are flawed?

You have to provide some idea of how you win the round, and how your opponent can win the round.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MartinKauai 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full sweep for CON. PRO simply copied and pasted his arguments from a previous debate, one that he lost, and I do not consider this good conduct. PRO again used the same religious websites in trying to disprove scientific arguments, which almost always amount to arguments from ignorance. CON demonstrated well the nature of PRO's non-sequitur answer to everything, and by using scientific sources, CON takes home the cake there also. PRO had the burden of proof to show that "Evolution has many flaws", but seems to think that just asking a question automatically demonstrates his resolve, which it axiomatically doesn't to anybody with a basic foundation of logical reasoning and scientific literacy.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I took the word flaw, to include both definitions. Or either definition alone. Pros arguments weren't refuted very. However I was confused when he expanded the definition of evolution to include the evolution of planets. I felt like cons arguments against intelligent design were also out of place. This debate is about whether the theory of evolution is flawless or not.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately refuted pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to understand the meaning of the words in this topic. Flaw is a pretty important word. As Con points out, a limitation is not a flaw. The theory of gravity is not flawed simply because we have yet to find the molecule to produces the force of gravity, though it is limited by it. There are some aspects of the way life came about, the way the universe came to be, and the way certain animals came into existence that we cannot fully explain. Thus, the theory of evolution is limited. But not flawed. And thus, Pro has simply not fulfilled his burden within the round. Con argued this well, as well as arguing the feasibility of every issue Pro brings up, calling into question whether these are even limitations.