The Instigator
micktravis
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Voltar143
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voltar143
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,698 times Debate No: 11666
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

micktravis

Pro

During this debate I will attempt to prove that the Theory of Evolution ("TOE") is the best explanation science has to explain the diversity of life on our planet. First, two definitions.

1. Theory. While several definitions exist, I intend to use the term as it relates to science: "...a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."[1]

2. The Theory of Evolution: "...evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."[2]

Rather than begin my formal argument I'd like to give my opponent a chance to read these definitions and either agree or disagree with them. My sources are listed below. As both of these definitions come from respected, non-controversial sources, I hope we can proceed quickly, and should this be the case I offer my opponent the first word, should he desire it. If not, I will begin on my next turn.

[1] Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which cites this from Mirriam-Webster.com.

[2] From talk.origins (http://www.talkorigins.org...), which takes this quote from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Voltar143

Con

Before I proceed for my first argument, I would like to point out that the theory of evolution is not the ultimate theory of everything. As we all know, there is no evolutionary theory about life before life existed of Earth in the planet's early formation. Before Evolutionary theory of life got started, the big bang theory proposed by numerous scientists such as Stephen Hawkins and Friedman, cosmologist, astrologist, etc. must first occur and proceed to its thermodynamic principles, quantum theories and general theory of relativity in order to produce countless galaxies, stars, planets and eventually to the existence of life itself in order for evolution to be observed by human beings as it is today. Without these initial conditions, there is no life at all and evolutionary theory about life would be worthless and meaningless.

I also like to point out that Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution has assumed the first living thing out there such as a living single cell organism without any explanation about how did that single cell organism came into a being.

Finally, I would like to comment that a good theory is a theory that cannot be refuted, disproved, nor be falsify because of the initial conditions are empirically necessary such as the law of gravity discovered by Isaac Newton where it is written in his book "Principe Mathematica" in 1864.

As I begin my first argument, my instigator had clearly included the word "diversity" meaning: more than one, many, numerous kinds and so on, and in this case about the diverse life on Earth. Therefore He declared that "The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth." At first I thought this statement is pretty tough to refute but later on the day I finally found a crack on the wall to disagree with this statement.

I know that the theory of evolution is one good explanation why we have a diverse life on our planet but I would argue that the theory of evolution is only a partial explanation why we have diverse life on Earth.
I believe that there are more important essential information and major factors why we have diverse life on Earth not only on the evolutionary theory. I believe that evolutionary theory alone cannot explain why life blossomed on Earth therefore I will argue that the theory of evolution is NOT the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth.

again He declared that "The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth."

If this is so, my question is why is it that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth? After he answer this questions, then I will begin to explain why I disagree.
Debate Round No. 1
micktravis

Pro

I must take exception with my opponent's definition of a scientific theory as one which "cannot be refuted…" This is plainly not the case - Popper's work on falsifiability is uncontroversial so I'll only briefly summarize it. (See http://en.wikipedia.org... for more information.)

In short, a scientific theory must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. And any theory which is not falsifiable is not scientific, although this doesn't mean that it is of no use. A common example is our early theory of Atoms, which was both unfalsifiable and incorrect, although it did pave the way for modern atomic theory, which is falsifiable.

Moving forward, I want to stress that my initial statement concerns the diversity of life on Earth, and not its genesis, a subject about which I am agnostic. TOE posits that all living things share a common ancestor, and while it is often useful to study individual species a broader view is also important: genetic material, whether passed from parent to offspring, shared via endogenous retrovirii, asexual reproduction, or lateral gene transfer - propagates throughout the gene pool or else it does not. Many factors, most notably those which provide a survival advantage, affect how successful genetic material propagates, but the point simply is that propagate it does.

Taking a step back we see the result: the branching off of species from one another, an ever expanding bush of different (and eventually distant) life forms.

So that's a very brief synopsis of TOE, with which I'm sure my opponent is familiar. The question then becomes, "are there any competing theories which agree with our observations?" The answer, which I will outline in the next round, is no.

There are no other scientific theories which are falsifiable, have stood the test of time, and have the predictive power that TOE does. The small handful of contrary opinions from actual scientists represent a fringe group who more often than not have to misrepresent TOE in order to refute it. TOE is uncontroversial amongst all but the blindly religious, and it's the best thing we've got thus far to explain life on earth.
Voltar143

Con

Voltar143 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
micktravis

Pro

As my opponent forfeited the last round I'll delay the portion of my argument planned for this space and instead clarify why the TOE is considered uncontroversial among scientists.

I've provided a concise, uncontroversial definition of The Theory of Evolution, albeit simplified. It nonetheless describes the theory within which the overwhelming majority of working biologists view our history. Of course Darwin's theory was formed before we knew many things about the nature of the physical world and it could be argued that, based upon the available evidence at the time, he could have been mistaken. More recent scientific discoveries serve only to strengthen and confirm the validity of the theory. I'll outline a few here.

Darwin apparently never read Mendel's published work, so although he knew that traits were inheritable, the mechanism remained a mystery. Mendelian genetics replaced Lamarckianism and ultimately Watson and Crick discovered DNA, clarifying the process of inheritance and introducing the concept of genetic mutation. These discoveries, had they been different in nature, could have proven the TOE false, but instead they strengthened it, fleshing out large gaps in Darwin's theory. [http://www.smithsonianmag.com...]

The fossil record has greatly improved since Darwin's time to the extent that we now have fairly fine-grained sets of specimens for many species, including quite a few complete transitions. Reptile to mammal, dinosaur to bird, fish to amphibian: these are only a few of the fossil lines which by any definition must be considered transitional. Talk.origins has an fairly exhaustive list which I encourage you to read if you'd like more information. The point here is that the transitional forms predicted by TOE are being discovered. No reputable biologist feels otherwise. [http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://www.talkorigins.org... list an overwhelming number of examples, sources, and papers]

Finally, we know that endogenous retrovirii leave snippets of their genes mixed in to the junk DNA of their hosts. A prediction could be made using this information: If our distant ancestors became infected with such a virus the ones who survived (and their offspring) should have snippets of genetic code in common. It turns out that this is true. Ask yourself this - are the chances of multiple long segments of DNA appearing in the same places amongst species which we believed to have shared a relatively recent common ancestor, but not appearing at all amongst species which the TOE predicted shared common ancestor older than the approximate era when the retrovirii would have infected their hosts and left trace DNA? [http://en.wikipedia.org... gives a good overview with plenty of supplementary citations if you're interested.]

As new information comes to light the TOE has become more robust. In the last case predictions regarding what should be the case predated our ability to test DNA with any reliability, so here we have a perfect example of falsifiabilty and of predictive power. TOE passes both tests with flying colors. The current TOE consists of information and research from multiple scientific fields, all of which confirm its soundness. It's known as the "Modern Synthesis." It is widely held by scientists to be strong, validl theory which accurately explains the diversity of life. No competitor currently exists which can rival it's scientific merit or comprehensiveness. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

I'm going to outline the dearth of competing theories next. I hope my opponent will acknowledge his misunderstanding of the word "theory" and make some positive claims to bolster his argument so we can move forward.

Thanks.
Voltar143

Con

My apologies as I have missed the last turn. As my instigator had explained all of his argument I will now explain the reason why my theory is a better explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth. He stated that every theory that is not falsifiable is not scientific. I disagree, every theory can be labeled a potential for falsifiability until a better theory had been presented. For example; Aristotle stated that the planet Earth is the center of the solar system. Aristotle's theory of geocentric has not been contested therefore considered as a theory model until Nicolaus Copernicus comes up with a better theory of heliocentric model, yet Copernicus theory is also just a theory model until Galileo Galilee had presented a proof of Copernicus theory as a fact by observing the rotations of the planets and their moon satellites. Consider Isaac Newton of theory of gravity, this theory can be labeled as falsifiable until he did an experiment that gravity of Earth indeed played a major role into the scientific phenomenon. Because of this discovery, the theory of gravity is no longer a theory but it becomes a Law of gravity. Although there are many forces of gravity in the universe the Law of gravity on planet Earth is its major functions and also scientific. Thus the law of gravity (no longer a theory) is essential to our scientific uses and experiments.

Blumenberg, Hans; Robert M. Wallace (translator) (1987). The genesis of the Copernican world. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. pp. 1,772. ISBN 978-026252144X.
^ G E Smith, "Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), E N Zalta (ed.).

Moving forward. Life could not have even begin on earth if the thermodynamic principles and the general theory of relativity and quantum theories had not been moved forward. I will consider this principles as primary movers of our universe or the master keys to the existence of the universe. But I am not going to discuss about how the the universe began, Instead I am going to discuss about the essential forces that are responsible for the diversity of life on planet Earth.

Here is the list that I know of that are the essential forces or factors that are directly responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. 1. Heliocentric movements. 2. The moon. 3. The Earth atmosphere. 4. The tectonic plates or continental belts and their Volcanic magma. 5. The Theory of Evolution. With any of these missing, you cannot explain the diversity of life on Earth because these list goes hand in hand to make life flourish in our planet.

1. Heliocentric movements: Heliocentric basically means the star called Sun is the center of our solar system and all other planetary bodies moves around the sun in a slightly elliptical fashion. Earth however, moves around the Sun in just the right distance of 93 million miles. If the planet Earth moves slightly far or near, Life on Earth would be impossible. Consider our neighboring planets Venus and mars, the planet Earth is in-between, if Earth moves close to either one, you would obviously discovered that life will become non permitting because these planets themselves are considered as dead planets. Another major factors that Heliocentricity is very important is that it also produce the seasons of our planet Earth. As you know, when we looked at our constellations and our time calendar, we would notice a slight change on Earths temperature. These temperature changes are called seasons. Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. All of the living species on earth are affected by these seasons especially mammals. As we discover, species migrate on warm continents during winter and then migrate back to their homes during spring season. Not only this, during these migration is what we call mating season especially on springs because of the abundant resources that had been spawned by the plants and the ocean floors such as coral reefs. Without the right distance and the seasons that we have on Earth that is done by Heliocentricity, you can forget a diverse living species on our planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. The moon: The moon plays an essential role as a stabilizer. Without our Moon, planet Earth would shake erratically and our seasons and atmosphere would be severely affected. The species of the Earth would be confused on their migration and their spawning season without the Moon's stability. The Moon also plays a major role in our high tides and low tides on both ends of the far distance of our planets. One example would be the marine life such as Salmon migrates on season but also waiting for the right tide to come in in order to pass through inaccessible rivers in Alaska.
Another example are the deep sea creatures such as squid and deep sea jelly fishes moves toward the surface during high tide to access sunlight and other food resources. All marine species benefits during high tide and we can discover from smallest to the biggest gathered around to feed on one another during high tides. Low tides however are for the creatures that are living near the shores. One example is scavenger crabs that searches for dead carcases and feed on them then the birds of the air also scavenges for food during low tide on some parts of the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Earth's atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere plays a major role on replenishing the planet's resources especially by rain. Is is self explanatory really, when it rains, the plants are replenished with their needed water resources. But what about the Rain Forrest. Ahh, the Rain Forrest is the most interesting diversity of species that we could ever find. As the self regulating ecosystem provided by the Earth's Atmosphere with a combination of shade and mountains producing moisture, Rain Forrest is possible. In the Rain Forrest we will find the pinnacle of diversity of life. New species emerge in the short near future as they evolve very quickly. It does not take millions of years for these species to evolve, not even centuries, nor decades. Because of the Rain Forrest, species on these regions can evolve in just a couple of years by adapting new colors, habits, and technique of survivals. Consider the exotic birds, well there are so many of them that you may find one that is a potential new species. They produced colorful feathers to attract their mate to produce micro cross species and potentially create a new version of species. Their habits could change quickly, depending on their slight environmental changes. But even slight changes brings extinction to other species. Consider the Golden Frog. These frogs lives in the high mountains of Panama with the right condition of their surrounding or atmospheric moisture. But when the moisture begins to dissipate and temperature rises, these frogs began to die in geometric rate and to the brink of extinction. But this is the nature of our atmosphere, there are species that would flourish and species that would become extinct due to Earth's atmospheric changes. Nevertheless, Our planet's atmosphere indeed plays a major role for a diverse life on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Tectonic Plates and Volcanic magma belts: The tectonic plates and their volcanic magma belts plays a very important role of recycling the grounds of the Earth due to their mineral resource.
5. Finally the Theory of evolution comes into play. TOE only is only the tail end part of the life process of the Earth.
As my instigator had explained that TOE is a good explanation but not the best as I describe mine of the explanation of diversity of life on Earth.

I would like to explain more about the rest but I'm running out of spaces to type. I will explain the rest later after the instigator had posted his next argument
Debate Round No. 3
micktravis

Pro

Rather than discuss the flimsy nature of any competitors to the TOE as I had planned I will instead point out the flaws in my opponent's response and in doing so demonstrate that his counter-argument (a better, meta-theory of evolution) is neither necessary nor illuminating. I will do this without the need to cite anything - my sources are either cited in my earlier posts or by my opponent himself. The nature of my argument here is logical and doesn't require any further sources. Because my opponent hasn't provided a better explanatory model that the TOE I believe voters must decide I have prevailed in this debate. My reasoning follows:

With all due respect I believe my opponent is confused about several things here. First I'd like to address the notion of falsifiability. According to Popper's definition any theory that is not falsifiable is not scientific, but he (and I) stressed that this does not mean that such a theory is necessarily without use. Popper is drawing a distinction between the well-formed and the poorly-formed, not between truth and falsehood. From this sentence,

"I disagree, every theory can be labeled a potential for falsifiability until a better theory had been presented."

it appears my opponent believes that falsifiability is somehow contingent upon being superseded by a better theory. Or perhaps that if a theory is true then it is not, by definition, falsifiable. To illustrate Popper's point I'll use two categorical statements. Consider the following:

1) Children beaten by their parents will in turn beat their own children.
2) There are serial killers alive today.

Note that whether or not each statement is true doesn't matter, at least for our purposes. In the first example it would be possible to disprove, or falsify, the theory by finding a single adult who, although beaten as a child, does not beat his own children. As it's likely that such a person would be quickly found this theory won't be hanging around for long, but was a well formed attempt precisely because it could, if untrue, be disproven without having to search the entire universe, verifying each beaten child beats his own children.

The second example states that something merely exists. It may be true (as we know) but an actual serial killer need not be produced for it to be so. The statement is true regardless of whether you have a killer on hand. And in order to disprove it one would have to examine every person on earth and then head out to the stars (in case other life forms are out there), before being able to say "there are no such thing as serial killers."

So the first example is a false statement that is nevertheless a good one. And the second is a true statement that is poorly formed (for the purposes of this argument, as an example of why scientific theories should be falsifiable.)

In addition, the first two theories my opponent cites (geocentricity, heliocentricity) are actually falsifiable. The statements "the earth moves around the sun" and "the sun moves around the earth" are both potentially falsifiable by observation. That Aristotle had neither the means nor the inclination to check doesn't mean that his theory was not well-formed or falsifiable.

Regarding gravity, Newton formulated his second law to describe how two objects (each with a mass not equal to zero) interact. The simplified version of this law is F=ma, or Force = mass x acceleration. This equation was arrived at after repeated observation that bodies accelerate downward when dropped in a manner that is proportional to the force of gravity and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. The law makes no attempt to explain why this is so - it simply states that it is. This is the nature of scientific laws: they are categorical, not explanatory. Whatever theories Newton had about gravity they were unlikely to be correct considering that even today scientists are unclear about precisely how gravity does what it does. Einstein certainly provided a much more robust framework with his two theories of relativity, and he also showed that Newton was incorrect (that F does not equal ma but the discrepancy is only noticeable at near-light speed.)

What's important here is that the theory of gravity did not graduate into the law of gravity. Theories never turn into laws - theories are explanations, much more complex and tentative than laws. Theories are almost always being updated as new information arrives. Scientific laws are occasionally thrown out (like Newton's) but often model such basic characteristics that it's unlikely we've been measuring incorrectly for centuries.

I agree with my opponent that life could not have begun without thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum theories. And I think that this is the crux of his argument: evolution alone cannot account for the diversity of life because without these other entities there wouldn't be the raw building blocks available to brew up the primordial soup. But this argument is a weak one for one very simple reason.

It is possible to envision a multitude of things which need to be in place in order for TOE to have done what it did, and what it does. All of the elements need to interact the way they do. Gravity has to keep us on the planet. Matter must not regularly cease to exist, and 1+1 must equal 2. To focus on thermodynamics, relativity, quantum theory, and whatever else my opponent chooses to bring up is to simultaneoulsy ignore an infinite number of other interactions about which he might not even be aware. But it doesn't matter: implicit in the TOE is the premise that the interactions it describes take place here, on this earth with these physical laws, these mathematics, the same tendency for that which exists to continue existing, etcetera. Because the TOE makes no claims about the origins of life it can take all that preceded it for granted. Economic theory need not concern itself with the chemistry of ink or the physics of printing presses in order to make claims about dollars (even though they are just printed bits of paper and the way they got that way may well be interesting.) Evolution's focus is on genetics, not genesis.

All of the interactions my opponent describes, from the very particular effects the moon has on the earth to the nature of the atmosphere, are simply elements that either do or do not affect individual organisms and population groups. The TOE talks about organisms here on earth, so it's understood that this means "here on earth with all the physical interactions that entails." I can't envision a useful theory about anything here on earth which doesn't have these things implicit within it.

Thus all of the interactions my opponent describes fall within the scope of the TOE. If his argument is that a more robust theory would consist of the TOE plus the assortment of other interactions he's chosen to focus on then my best response would be to say that the TOE encompasses everything he's describing and much, much more; there is no need to add that which is already there.

Unless my opponent has another more robust theory to suggest I hope you'll agree that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth, and that you'll vote for the affirmative.

Thank you.
Voltar143

Con

Voltar143 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
micktravis

Pro

It appears my opponent has given up. He has neither refuted my argument nor provided an alternative theory. I feel it would be unfair to further my argument here, and will instead ask simply that you vote in the affirmative: that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth.
Voltar143

Con

my apologies again for not posting my argument in round 4. I am a very busy man but I do think about these issues critically and very seriously indeed but it does not really matter if I forfeited a couple of turns because I can explain my argument in a very sophisticated and in a scholarly manner. Before I proceed to explain about Tectonic Plates/Volcanic magma belts and The Evolutionary Theory, I would like to make some final comments about the instigator's funny and silly statement. As in his last few statements you will notice that he has nothing more to say about his Evolutionary Theory because it is the only statement he had to present to you. In my opinion, it is a very weak explanation if he is going to describe how did the planet Earth blossomed with life. When he created a topic "The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Earth", he should have titled it like "The Theory of Evolution is the best single explanation for the life on Earth", that would have been better to prove to us that Theory of Evolution by itself as an explanation for life on Earth. But if he is saying what is the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth then Theory of Evolution by itself is not good enough explanation. You notice that his explanation of the Theory of Evolution is not even a sufficient explanation that he had presented and when he has nothing more to say he then lost his marbles when he started making all kinds of silly accusations and lame comparisons and explanations to refute my wonderful arguments and then he gets way off his own topic. We are here to talk about the topic and not talk about silly statement such as serial killers and child beatings. Again he tries to attack the Law of Gravity as falsifiable because in my opinion the only way the law of gravity to be falsified is if there comes another planet of equal or greater force of gravity hurdling towards the planet Earth to affect it's own gravity. We use Axom Razor and Heisenberg principle to exclude other vast theories of the universe that are not directly responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. He will quickly finds out that when he trips and falls down hard, that should teach him and knock some senses into him that the law of gravity is upon him and his body will feel pain instead of feeling and thinking falsified. One more thing I would like to point out if I asked the question "The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on Mars.", you will find that such a stupid statement because if it is true; the heliocentric movement of the right temperature, the moon, the atmosphere, the tectonic plates activity are greatly missing in order to support the Theory of Evolution. I know in my opinion that life on Mars is possible only by the creative out-workings by human beings and not by evolution. Nevertheless, the statement is utterly impossible if the instigator is going to use Theory of Evolution alone on planet Mars because how can a life survive without oxygen, water, food, minerals, protection from cosmic ray, temperature, seasons, etc., therefore if he is going to describe the diversity of life on Earth, it is obvious that the Theory of Evolution is not the best explanation. My essential theories are better if not the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. With that being said let me now finished the rest of my explanation and seal the deal about the best explanation of the diverse life on Earth.

4. Tectonic plates or continental belts/Volcanic magma: Tectonic plates or continental belts are basically the major continental regions of massive land are actively moving or what you called continental drift that are seemingly floating very very slowly by the underlying molten magma. Earthquakes usually occurs when landmasses shift and create friction against another landmasses and volcanoes are created and they erupt when landmasses are squeezed together for millions of years caused by continental drifts. But why is the tectonic plates are so important and what does it have to do with life on Earth? To explain these lets go back approximately 60 to 100 million years ago where there is only one gigantic land mass that were occupied by the prehistoric dinosaurs. It is possible that even in an earlier stages all the way back to 4.3 billion years ago when the scientists made an educated guess that the first life on earth appeared they had been spreading throughout the single land masses up until the Jurassic Era. When the single landmass began to separate in to smaller 7 continents by that time all sorts of creatures have populated all of those lands because they are once used to be a single mass of land. But don't get the idea that this is the reason why life is flourishing on Earth, it is only a small fraction of explanation. The real major factor for the tectonic plates are that it recycles the land masses approximately every 200 million years or so, thus bringing up new fresh minerals and formed rocks to supply the needs by the plants of the world. Rocks will deteriorate in millions of years in time and becomes dirt, and then be recycled again by the continental belts. Also, the molten magma of Earth produce the force field of the planet that shields the living species of Earth from harmful and deadly cosmic ray bombardments. Without the force field of Earth, you can forget the diversity of life on Earth, it ain't gonna happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

5. Theory of Evolution: It is basically an idea that a simple single organism that had created around approximately 3-5 billion years ago somehow evolved into a diverse life into the present day by replicating itself, adapting to the environment through mutations, adaptations and then flourishing and multiplying its genes into more complex organisms by consuming ordered state energy, minerals, and food resources from the surrounding environment for billions of years until our present time. With all of this diversity of life going on in our planet Earth, the living things are protected by cosmic rays of outer space and well condition by the temperature by the heliocentric Goldilocks in order to survive. Micro evolution is the step an organism must take in order to make it's slow transformation or mutation into other type of species and then adapt itself to it's new environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will make some point about the Theory of Evolution. Although the Theory of Evolution is our only theory so far for the evolution of life on Earth, I believe it is not sufficient of linking it's evolutionary explanation. There maybe fossil records that we have today but it is still just a small fraction of data. Many scientist knows that even though we have fossil records, they are still so much overwhelming missing fossils to link the species evolutionary mutations in a span of billions of years. Another point to understand is the natural selection process that is still a shaky explanation because of species don't make choices, instead they are driven by instinct and natural rejection must also be true in an existential point of view. Enzymes for genetic combinations are improbable by 10 to the power of 4000 (1 followed by 4000 zeros) in order to create a simplest complex single organism and to replicate itself. Despite all of this problems, we still take the Evolutionary theory as a good enough theory for our use to explain the diversity of life.

I hope you enjoyed my wonderful explanation as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I wish I could have explain some more but my words are limited in this debate. I don't really care about who win this debate even if the instigator is utterly begging you to vote for his lame views but I care about giving you a well presented case. Thank you
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
Just a quick thought. If Popper is right that every theory is falsifiable, I'm afraid our theory about evolution is also falsifiable too. Thank goodness for Axom razor and heisenberg. It will keep Popper from popping our theories all the time. Law of gravity is indeed falsifiable but only if there is a greater force out there suddenly affect us. Then it might be the end of the world. :)
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
my apologies for not refuting your arguments and forfeiting 2 rounds, im just busy thats all. But you are a smart guy and i enjoy debating with you. You must understand this is a debate. In a debate, there are arguments, disagreements and sometimes insults as the by-products of debating. Sorry if I had condesended you It is very un-christian like of me. You can call me a sham, intellectually bankcrupt, etc. It's ok if it will make you feel better. Loosing is part of experience and real lessons in life to be learned. Winning all the time in life however has no lessons to be learned and only leads to uncommensurable pride. We will debate again next time. until then my friend.
Posted by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
I should add that I had plenty more to say, but didn't because I was waiting for your replies. The ones you never posted.
Posted by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
You know as well as I do that you did nothing to refute any of my arguments. And you have the gall to claim victory. I'll let your pathetic vote sit as-is - as evidence of your intellectual bankruptcy.
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
Really. You have all five rounds and that's all you have to say about your TOE. you could have supported your TOE more instead of making up silly statements. Why are you not voting for yourself yet? Well what else you gonna do? Vote for me? You got 1 vote too, call your friends and vote for you so you'll be satisfied.
Posted by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
Really, Voltar? Forfeit 2 rounds, make only the weakest of arguments, and then vote for yourself? You've shown your true colors.
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
Hey Micktravis, I'm sorry about that, I have been busy. Just remember I have not forgotten you. I have been busy and sick, so I was unable to post something. But please continue your argument by further supporting it. I still have my points that I will point out on this argument.
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
nevermind, I thought your gonna run out of time, you just made it. :) Besides, this is my firstime dabating on this site, im unfamiliar with it, I see now that they give you 72 hours for each round, not the whole debate. ohhh ok.
Posted by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
Unresponsive in what way?
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
Micktravis seem to be unresponsive. Time is almost up and round two is still open. Nonetheless I can prove my point in this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by LLAMA 7 years ago
LLAMA
micktravisVoltar143Tied
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:16 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
micktravisVoltar143Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
micktravisVoltar143Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
micktravisVoltar143Tied
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