The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

The Theory of Evolution is correct.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 809 times Debate No: 77987
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




The evidence for the Theory of Evolution seems too obvious, for me at least. While I don't want to go hunting on the Internet for specific pieces of evidence right now, I want to share a thought experiment that makes it easier to side with the evolutionary timeline. (This might not even be a thought experiment, more-so just explaining an idea).

The basis of it is this: there are fossils in the ground of organisms that aren't alive today. There are organisms alive today that there aren't any fossils of in the ground. So this means that there were different species alive, say, 20 million years ago that aren't today. There are also no species alive today that were 20 million years ago. Therefore, life changed between 20 million years ago and today. Think of it like this: let's say on imaginary Planet X there are fossils of tail-less lizards in the ground that date to 10,000 years old. There are now only lizards alive with tails. There are no fossils of lizards with tails. So taking these into consideration, a logical conclusion would be that the lizards evolved tails.

Now what's on Earth isn't nearly as simple as it is on Planet X, but the basis is still there. There were creatures alive long ago that aren't today. There are also creatures alive today that weren't long ago, the conclusion being that life changed between then and now. Evolution meaning change over time, one can see how the Theory of Evolution makes sense in theory. (ha, get it?)

I could go on and on about this, but I'm more interested about what my opponent says in response (if I get one).


Your thought experiment certainly doesn't point directly to evolution. In fact, it has absolutely no correlation to it's direct process whatsoever.

The way I see it, evolution is just a fairy tale used to explain what science cannot. If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

Further, there is no observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. In fact, over time, organisms LOSE genetic information. They DON'T gain it. This clearly refutes the theory itself to the point that it is laughable and childish.

I could continue to list points, but I would be here all day. I await your "argument".
Debate Round No. 1


I guess you and I see science in two different ways. When you said evolution just a "fairy tale used to explain what science cannot", it was kind of confusing to me, because evolution is science. The difference between creation "science" and actual science is the method in which either party reaches their conclusion. The Scientific Method is used by reaching a conclusion after making a hypothesis, gathering evidence, and testing. In other words, scientists gather evidence, then make a conclusion that fits the evidence. Creation "scientists", on the other hand, do it backwards. They get their conclusion first, then look for evidence that supports it. This is not science. So when you make the assumption that evolution is just something used to explain what science cannot is just plain false. Evolution is science. Every conclusion that was made is only made because it's backed by evidence.

Now to transitional fossils. I see many creationists mention how "there should be transitional fossils. Where are the transitional fossils?" In truth, every fossil is a transitional fossil. Life is an ongoing change. Each and every organism you see today is evolving. Life does not jump from one species to another. I may be misunderstanding your question, but I'm trying my best. Anyway, When you want fossils that show development from one species to another, again, any fossil is an example of that. Look at it like this: it's kind of like looking at a number line, and saying "Where are all the transitional numbers?" We have fossils in a timeline, and scientists can date when each organism was alive, so when we look back on life on Earth, you see life changing slowly each period over each. Asserting that there are no transitional fossils is ludicrous.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on DNA or genetics, but I have some idea of what DNA is and what its purpose is. You probably know how DNA is the "genetic blueprint" for organisms. Calling it "information" seems to be ignorant. Information is something passed between two minds. DNA is not passing from anything, it only contains sites in which only certain protiens can be made, sued by cells to make protiens. Whenever a cell divides, it copies its DNA to its two daughter cells. Now, as you know, the copying is not perfect, and sometimes mistakes can occur. It could be that an adenine was switched with a guanine. Or it could be that an entire chromosome was copied too many times. Now with the unreliable state of DNA, a mass of it is destined to change. DNA is able to be duplicated too many times to the point where a cell has too much of it, and if that cell is the zygote of an organism (the first cell, often created during conception) this organism now has more DNA than its parent(s). This DNA is also bound to change, due to the unstable nature of DNA itself. While this may or may not be the way new different DNA is formed, it is definitely possible that it could happen in nature. In essense: too much DNA is made, this new DNA mutates to something different, the end product is more, different DNA.

Also, I don't see how organisms not being able to gain genetic material in any way disproves the Theory of Evolution. If you could actually, I'd like to read where you got that piece of evidence. I'm interested.


We must agree to disagree on your predication that "evolution is science". That is simply not true. Evolution is not science. Evolution is nothing but a theory, and there are far more scientific evidences against evolution, than in it's favor.

Your verdict on creationists is somewhat oversimplified. Creationists are able to look at the world in an a far more beautiful and elegant manner than evolutionists. Evolutionists must use their limited supply of knowledge and resources to guess about what they think they know to develop extremely scanty theories with many assumptions.

Creationists take an idea, and expand on it to answer simple yet very powerful questions, like our original origin. For example, consider the fact that all matter has movement. Newton's first Law tells us that such movement can only be caused by the direct movement of another external force. Similarly, the movement of that external force can only be the result of the movement of a separate force...

Thus, we end up in an infinite cycle which science cannot explain. As such, a creationist would conclude that at some point, there must be moving matter which didn't require the movement of another force. Creationists call this God, who is multidimensional, omnipotent, unbounded by time, and spiritual (non-physical). But I digress, this topic is about evolution, not the existence of god.

You claim that "every fossil" is a transitional fossil? I find such a statement to be extremely uneducated, to the point that it is absurd and irrational. Even Darwin himself admitted that no transitional fossils had been found at that time, but he believed HUGE numbers existed, and that they would CERTAINLY be discovered. Well, here we are over 150 years later and we still haven't found ANYTHING at all that supports his theory. Many palaeontologists and even evolutionists has commented on this. Here are a few examples

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

- Dr. Lyall Watson, Evolutionist

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ". I will lay it on the line " there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

- Dr. Colin Patterson, Evolutionist, Palaeontologist

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

- Stephen M. of John Hopkins University, Evolutionist

There are many more examples, but I see no need to include more. In summary, if all of these evolutionists can accept this argument, then so should you.

Referencing DNA as a series information is not ignorant. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. I'm certainly glad that you're educated with regard to genetics. When you ask how organisms not being able to gain genetic information disproves the Theory of evolution, the answer is quite simple. How can you go from a fish to an amphibian without adding genetic information? How can you go from an amoeba to a man without adding genetic information? The simple answer is, you can't. This refutes evolution right away.

When you argue that DNA can mutate to something different, I completely agree but the mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don"t effectively change the information, or the "meaning" in the code) or else they are informationally downhill"defects which lose/corrupt information. The rare "beneficial" mutations to which evolutionists cling all appear to be like wingless animals, blind cave animals, and many examples of antibiotic resistance. They are downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

I would like to finish with the argument that it has never been observed that life can arise from non-life. Combine this with the fact that genetic information cannot be added to an organism's genetic code, and that no fossils at all support evolution, buries the theory deep into the dust.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher put it best when he said:

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it"s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Debate Round No. 2


Alright, I'm just going to jump straight into it.

If I had a penny for ever time I heard some variation of the phrase "Evolution is just a theory" I'd be able to build a stadium large enough to teach all the creationists this: a scientific theory is different from everyday use of the word. I don't want to type the whole thing, so just go to, it explains it better than I could. "There are far more scientific evidences against evolution than in it's favor", so far I have heard that there are no transitional fossils and DNA can't make more different DNA. What I'm looking for in response is how my ideas are false. I still don't see why every fossil isn't a transitional fossil, and how my idea of how DNA can more and different DNA is wrong. All I got from you is saying they're wrong, and these people also say they're wrong. I couldn't find anywhere that gives information about Darwin saying there aren't transitional fossils, though I could just be bad at looking.

I don't want to get too into our origins because I'm not too fluent on the science of the Big Bang. From what I remember, due to the extreme heat and energy present when the observable universe was in a space that was very small, our laws and formulas about conventional physics break down. I don't know whether that applies to your piece about moving matter or not, but it's just something I wanted to mention. (Now that I mention it, dark matter might have to do with something, I don't know for sure.)

Back to evolution. As I said, when you said that these evolutionists say that there are no transitional fossils, that doesn't really speak to me, I could probably get a list of scientists that do believe that there are transitional fossils, but that won't solve anything, I want to hear why you think there aren't transitional fossils, or why it's impossible to add genetic information. Also, I see now why not having the ability to add DNA hinders the theory.

As for the idea that beneficial mutations go in the "wrong direction", I'm sticking with my previous idea of how genetic material can duplicate then mutate to add more different DNA, then I'll say that perhaps that new DNA does something beneficial to its owner. That may sound silly but its possible. I have yet to read an idea of yours that debunks it. I even read the Answers in Genesis article that you probably got information on. The one about how mutations can't add genetic information. To quote it: "Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information." The author states how neither duplications or mutation don't add information. This might be true, but only if you look at each phenomena independently. If duplication occurs then a mutation, there is now DNA that is different than the DNA that it was duplicated from. Think of it like this: I have a phrase, "I like Lucy Ann". If I duplicate it, "I like Lucy Ann I like Lucy Ann." It's true I don't get any new information. If I mutate it, "I lick Lucy Ann", you lose the original info, but get new info. It's true, neither of these add new information. But if I duplicate it, then mutate the phrase, "I like Lucy And I lick Lucy Ann." Now I have more information topping the old. See?

"It has never been observed that life can arise from non-life" That is true. If it has, I've never heard about. But the Theory of Evolution doesn't concern origins, it concerns how organisms, given time and the instability of DNA can change into different organisms. This has been observed. Lizards moved to a new island were forced to adapt to a new diet. These lizards actually physically changed to suit a diet of leaves and vegetation ( While you might say "well of course micro-evolution exists, but there are imaginary boundaries that stop organisms from evolving to a new species." or "well it's still a lizard, it didn't change that much." that's besides the point. The point is that they changed. They evolved. Now this specific documentation was over 30 generations. Imagine what can take place over 30 million generations. Given that small changes can occur over small periods of time, is it wrong to think that large changes can occur over large periods of time?

I think this is the last thing I can type to you (I don't know, I haven't done this before). I appreciate your arguments and your effort. I'm glad I didn't just get someone that says: "LOL U BELIVE EVLUTION, UR STUPID LOL".


Yes, scientific theory is certainly different from the everyday use of the word "theory". However, the theory of evolution is not as credible as ( biasedly puts it. There are many problems with evolution. Even evolutionists admit that, although they loathe doing so. Your source completely denies the obvious problems with the theory of evolution but simply goes on to explain the "definition of scientific theory" before making the absurd claim that "Evolution has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations". At this point, I was admittedly laughing, to the point where I almost fell of of my chair. Our observations completely and utterly deny and refute evolution. As I have mentioned earlier, my arguments have been based highly on observational science. I will reiterate for clarity:

- The fossil record completely refutes evolution and almost all educated evolutionists admit it
- There is no known process by which genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code
- Observational science shows that organisms lose genetic information over time, they don't gain it
- It has never been observed that life has come from non life

In your previous argument, you also imply that you want more scientific evidences refuting evolution, and I would certainly be willing to list them, but I don't think this debate needs to be any more detailed than it already is.

I find it interesting that you don't see how the fossil record refutes evolution. The fact is, our current supply of fossils don't fit into the Darwinian time scale at all. There is a clear absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing! How difficult is it to acknowledge this?

As a reference, Darwin mentioned in Origin of Species:

" Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"

Are your ideas false? No. But they are to a degree uneducated. You cannot simply make the assumption that mutations can "benefit" and "genetically advance" an organism. Your idea that genetic material can "duplicate, mutate, and then benefit it's the organism" is almost an impossibility. Mutations mean a scrambling of pre-existing information. There is no increase in information. It appears that the probability of meeting all of your conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. It contradicts entropy.

As I mentioned earlier, the only way mutations can be beneficial is in the extraordinarily rare event of an organism losing a protein which a virus or bacteria attacks. This results in the loss/corrupt of genetic information and as such could not possibly qualify as evolution.

Regarding your lizard issue, that was nothing more than environmental adaption. This is observed all of the time. It's the primary reason we have different breeds of cats/dogs etc. However, macro-evolution (the origin of new types of organisms) is nothing more than an idea, and it has never been observed. Observing changes within a kind is not a proof of evolution. It just shows variation. The 1980's Science article which summarized the conclusion of 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists who gathered together that year to decide whether microevolution can produce macroevolution:

A wide spectrum of researchers' ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists"gathered at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species. " The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
Alpha you are a joke. The only competent people to decide if evolution is theory that fits best with evidence are biologists. Evolution is scientific question. Science is the right tool to answer it. And what are scientists that deal with this called ? Yes, they are called biologists. And why do they know betetr then you ? Maybe because they've spent their adult lives studying phenomena in a rigorous manner, using a little thing called the "scientific method."

Debates like this a joke. Its like arguing if law of gravity is true or Earth stands on infinite turtles. If Earth is flat or round ( elliptical ).

And how many of world biologists are creationists ? "Newsweek found that less than 0.15% of 480,000 biologists and earth scientists polled doubted evolution." And that was in 1984.

To think that some individual can know better then basically 100% of the most competent people for this topic is so arrogant that is beyond comprehension to me.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
Alpha3141, you speak as if scientists claim that evolution started when homo habilis came around. Whether or not homo erectus and homo sapiens are different is rather irrelevant to the whole picture. What matters is whether or not we descended from an ape. Also, keep in mind that skeleton structure is not the only factor in archaeology and paleontology. Organ differences, muscle differences, and habitat differences are all components of evolution.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
Its like me saying "the Bible says it so its right, how are you even disagreeing with me?"
That's not a good argument
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
You can appeal to someone else, but that doesn't change reality. There are facts against evolution, and appealing to another persons opinion doesn't change that.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
But the fossil record, in reality, disproves Evolution. It depends on how you look at it. People ignore the fossils of Homo Erectus and such that demonstrate a bone structure virtually the same as modern people, which according to Evolutionary dating methods, existed for millions of years. Scientists have divided Homo Sapiens into different kinds of names in the fossils record to make it look like as if they evolved. Human evolution is not demonstrated.

There are many fossils that people ignore in order to make evolution appear to be correct. But there fish fossils on top of mountains, t-rex fossils with red blood cells, etc.

Fossils only prove evolution if you don't look at all of them.
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
Haha millions upon millions of transitional fossils... And yet He does believe in creationism based upon zero and zero of evidence. Bertrand Russell said it beautifully: "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 2 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave several sources to support his arguments. while Pro only gave one source, which Con made a decent argument against.