The Theory of Evolution
Debate Round Forfeited
kylet357 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||283 times||Debate No:||94349|
Debate Rounds (3)
His arguments were mainly against the Evolution of whales (Cetaceans) and their ancestors (Archaeoceti), another claiming that animals we've seen trapped in amber are the same as they are today, and another argument against the development of organs. These were my rebuttals to his points, in order of how I posted them:
"there was no blowhole"
There was actually, it was just still at the end of the snout. Pakicetus' nostrils only later went further up the head in later transitions. The nostrils would move farther and farther back.
"there were no flippers (only hooves)"
True, but you ever realize something about a whale's flippers? Go ahead and look up a diagram of a whale skeleton, and look at the flippers. You'll see that they're not like regular flipper bones. Instead, the bones look a lot like hand bones. If Evolution were true, we'd expect to see this in animals that transitioned from land to sea. And another thing, we also know through genetics that the closest living relatives to whales are Hippos, which are hoofed land animals. And there are sea mammals that currently still retain vestiges of hooves. For example, the manatee still has fingernails.
"And besides, we are supposed to ignore the most obvious detractor of darwinism: creatures hundreds of millions of years old in perfect preserved condition trapped in amber that look exactly like they look today."
Well, I wouldn't expect anything else for insects, arachnids, and other small creatures. They're the animals that we most often see trapped in Amber. And I imagine that they have changed. Remember, evolution says that animals will change over time. But this doesn't mean that they're forced to change dramatically, even over the largest time scales. Environmental pressures and natural selection are always in play, and if you have the perfect adaptations for your environment then you're not going to change very much. Also, the majority of the species of animals that you see trapped in amber (if not all of them) don't exist anymore. So while these animals retain a similar shape, they are NOT what we have today. And to say otherwise is not only wrong, but dishonest.
And one more thing:
"This turns a blind eye to the proccess that would have to take place to get organs, working internal systems, eyes, male and females of same species in real time together with working reproductive systems completely different from one another, a brain, consciousness, systems in place for hearing, breathing, seeing, mating, feeling, etc, the first theoretical "self replicating molecule, etc."
All of the things you described here, would have developed before the animals. Male and females would have developed before dogs existed, contrary to what Ray Comfort says. They would have been developed in earlier organisms as a way to better to produce more complex ones through the mixing of different genes.
I recommend watching these videos on the evolution of sex from Aron Ra:
Sexual vs Asexual Reproduction- https://youtu.be...
Evolution of Sex- https://youtu.be...
Additional Arguments; I'd like to add to the first part of the rebuttal I made. After Pakicetus, the next transition is Ambulocetus. "The fossils for this animal showed that it was in the water habitually but could still come onto land. After that is Rhodocetus, which the fossils show the nostrils not only being back a bit further, but also in a depression. This is indicative of muscles to close the nostrils under pressure, like a modern whale's blowhole. Next you'd have Dorudon and Basilosaurus, representing the split between whales and dolphins. The nostrils in these animals are still forward of the eyes, but are no longer out on the end of the snout."
Source for the information presented in this additional argument is a video from Aron Ra (who holds an A.Sc. in Paleontology from the University of Texas in Dallas), which I'll link below to the exact starting time where this information comes from.
Link to the original debate: http://www.debate.org...
I hope this debate can be enlightening for my opponent, and open his mind to this amazingly fascinating theory.
"biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”
Fraudulent fossils has been an epidemic in the paleantology field. Fake fossils and "finds" have been produced on an industrial scale in China.
American Museum of Natural History paleontologist Dr. Mark Norell described this as an "unfortunate chapter" in paleontology.
Li Chun, associate researcher at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, says that counterfeits are now widespread and have become a serious risk to genuine study projects.
“Many scholars are victims of fake fossils,” he said, before estimating that at least 80% of marine reptile specimens on display in Chinese museums “have been altered or artificially combined to varying degrees”.
What's the motive? Paleantological finds are big business. Finds can pay undreds of thousands to millions of dollars. It can be very, very profitable to fake finds.
The theory of embryonic recapitulation says that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany.
He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of 8 different embryos in 3 stages of development, to show his claim. His work was exhaulted as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were proven to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He then blamed the artist for the discrepancies, which was deception because it turned out,,he was the artist.
-Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51
The point? Proving Darwinian Theory, whether it is true or a fairytale, has become big business. It's in the best interest of those who hold power in respect to Darwinism to make sure it is perceived to be true. Example?
Richard Dawkins, Biologist and author of multiple books on Darwinian Theory, amongst other topics, has become a mega millionaire based on Darwinian Theory's perception of being true, having a net worth of $135 million.
But there's a catch. Not only did he have motive financially for Darwinism to be pushed as true, but he had an ideological reason to push the theory. Dawkins is a head of the New Atheist Movement, known to some as "Militant Atheism". He has a dogmatic reason to push Darwinism at all costs.
Yet in an interview with Ben Stein Dawkins said, "And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
He then went forth to claim that aliens might have "seeded the Earth" in the distant past. Why?
Because explaining away things with Darwinian Theory is exhausting. Things like?
-Male vs female
Graham Bell described the dilemma in his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality:
-"Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation."
Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster. For one thing, it is an inefficient way to reproduce...And sex carries other costs as well...By all rights, any group of animals that evolves sexual reproduction should be promptly outcompeted by nonsexual ones. And yet sex reigns.Why is sex a success, despite all its disadvantages?"
-How did DNA and RNA come to be in the first place?
-How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival "learn" to cooperate and specialize, including undergoing programmed cell death, to create complex plants and animals?
-Why are the logically expected countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.
-How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
-The female orgasm?
It serves no evolutionary or logical purpose......
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If if can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."
-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design (1986)
The only place where fraudulent fossils have been a problem is, as you mentioned already, China. While this produces a slight problem for Chinese evolutionary biologists and paleontologists, there are very rarely any frauds for fossils elsewhere. The two most famous frauds I can think of are Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor. And you'd see these frauds as some sort of evidence that the Theory of Evolution was false, but these frauds were committed against evolution science and revealed to be frauds by that same science.
Piltdown man, while considered to be legitimate at first, later became an oddity out of the fossil record. As more fossils were actually found, Piltdown man stood out more because it didn't fit in anywhere. After a while it was taken out and shelved, until technology could go on to test the fossil and prove that it was indeed a forgery. Archaeoraptor was completely sensationalized by media as the "missing link between dinosaurs and birds". However, several of those had already been found (including one that Darwin himself predicted, and ended up being found in his lifetime- Archaeopteryx). And Archaeoraptor actually ended up providing the tail for the then unknown dromaeosaur, Microraptor (a small, feathered and winged dinosaur). Again, these were frauds committed against evolutionary science and then dismissed by evolutionary science.
Ernst Haeckel did promote that Embryos went through their evolutionary stages, but he was wrong and then discredited because of it. No one in modern evolutionary science puts any credit to Haeckels idea of Embyronic Recapitulation. However, there is a field called 'Evo-Devo' that has had quite a bit of success. "It addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development; how modifications of development and developmental processes lead to the production of novel features, such as the evolution of feathers; the role of developmental plasticity in evolution; how ecology impacts development and evolutionary change; and the developmental basis of homoplasy and homology." (Wikipedia)
Your argument about Dawkins' interview with Stein is interesting, considering that same Wikipedia article shows that the movie was purposely misleading; it edited interviews and misattributed quotes from Darwin to make it seem like he and his Theory supported Eugenics (even though Darwin criticized the idea of eugenics from an evolutionary perspective and in the 1920's, when eugenics was being practiced, evolutionary biologists criticized the idea as well). The entire movie was a dishonest piece of propaganda made to mislead the public.
I already had linked a video to you in those reposted rebuttals I made that explained the Evolution of Sex and how Asexual and Sexual reproduction work, as well as their advantages and disadvantages. But the real issue here is the fact that you mined that quotation from Graham Bell's book to take it out of context. He uses the paragraph that quote is from to pose a question about the origin of sex, so that he may provide an explanation of it in the next section. I actually called Graham Bell myself to make sure of this myself, and he confirmed it.
I cannot find a source where I can look through Zimmer's publication for free. However, considering the few parts of the quote that are skipped over and the ending question, I can also assume that Zimmer was about to do the same thing that Bell was- posing an issue to present a question which he would go on to answer.
DNA is made by RNA, RNA replicates itself. RNA would have come about through chemical interactions, as according to Abiogenesis (a well supported hypothesis for the origin of life through chemical processes that has already been shown to be possible in a few experiments, including the famous Urey-Miller experiment).
"Do you agree that a single-celled organism could find it advantageous to cluster together with other members of its species? Then we have colonies. Do you agree that once clustered together, sometimes it makes sense that one cell or another might specialize for the good of the community? Then we have multi-cellular organisms."
-Reddit user 'Arachnophilia'; https://www.reddit.com...
Those transitional fossils aren't "missing". You're either ignoring the ones that we've found or just outright lying now. We've found several transitional forms for several organisms. I had already shown you some in my initial argument (whale ancestors) on this debate, and two more in this argument as well (bird ancestors). But it seems like you think that fossils are hugely abundant. If it weren't for the fact that there have been millions (if not billions) of different types of organisms, we may not have found many fossils at all. Fossilization is an extremely rare thing. Conditions have to be perfect for an organism to be fossilized. But let's forget about fossils for a second, because it seems that you also don't know another thing about evolution- it's always happening. So it's not just that we have transitional fossils of lifeforms, but any life form is a transitional one.
You've provided another mined quotation. I'm not going to bother going too in-depth into this one since I'm running low on space to write. I'll provide a source that shows the entire thing and puts it into the proper context.
Quote #3.2 shows the entire quote, and explains it as well.
Organisms that have brains developed folds in the brain, which allowed us to have brains with more mass, while saving space in the skull. With bigger brains this also allowed these organisms to do things such as problem solving. Smooth brained animals (such as Koalas) are unable to do that much (e.g. when presented with plucked leaves on a flat surface, the Koala cannot adapt to the change in its normal feeding routine and will not eat the leaves). Altruism/Morality would have developed in social animals (not just humans, but other apes and monkeys, dolphins and whales, elephants, etc.). They realize it's better to look after one another and find ways to develop a system that benefits their "society".
'The Evolutionary Origin of Female Orgasm' by Mihaela Pavličev and Gunter Wagner:
I don't have enough space to paste the entire quote, so you'll just have to read it on there instead as I can't post one part of the quote without it not making sense or making it seem like I'm only taking a specific part of the quote to support my position.
"A true watchmaker has foresight:"
And Dawkins has used "aliens seeding Earth" and "reality being a possible computer simulation" to explain away and theorize certain complex components of our reality.
"Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design"
And yet the complete DNA instruction book, or genome, for a human contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.
DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.
During DNA replication, DNA unwinds so it can be copied. At other times in the cell cycle, DNA also unwinds so that its instructions can be used to make proteins and for other biological processes. But during cell division, DNA is in its compact chromosome form to enable transfer to new cells.
The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides. These triplets are called codons.With three exceptions, each codon encodes for one of the 20 amino acids used in the synthesis of proteins.
Our genetic makeup is a complex and vast "code" of information.
In infinite monkey theorem, the probability of a universe like ours deriving from an exo-reality full of monkeys typing is equivalent to them typing a complete work such as all of Shakespeare's writings, and it is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is virtually zero. And in this case we don't even have the monkeys.
One very strong argument against Darwinian theory is that a computer with the computational power to accomplish and fully simulate the same process in fast forward is still impossible without a human made algorithm, yet we are to believe nothing or an inanimate unknown variable randomly did it unguided.
Teleology in nature is the very thing Darwinists abhor. Random mutations cannot have any prescribed goal. This is extrinsict vs intrinsict constructs. For life to evolve this way, what preexisting model (algorithm) is it emulating? This proccess can have no goals or logic behind what happens, just like the monkeys randomly typing. They never punch out a long diatribe of coherant thought. Why? There is no guided proccess. Even computers which can randomly select and spew out information in infinite quantities cannot type out long coherant thought without a human guided algorithm. And even with a human guided and programmed algorithm, the thoughts are hardly cohesive, typing out things such as "The fox crawls suns and hamsters talks bowels from fun."
So, as far as intrinsic and extrinsic goals, how is "MFLDHNLS ITJIQWHTZREZ MECS P" better than "WDLTMNLT DTMBSWIRZKEZLMQCO P"? After presenting this idea, Dawkins admits in his book, "Life isn't like that".
No it isn't. "Blind and random" is simply "blind and random" with no goal nor objective. This debate isn't about how that process would have come to be in the first place, so I'll leave abiogenesis-like theories alone.
The point? A computer with a programmed algorithm struggles to emulate vastly simplified versions of random coherancy, yet we are to believe a reality with no algorithm, no computer, and no mind to create a computer, blindly guided us through a process trillions of times more complex than any simple experiment that cannot emmulate any coherant diatribe.
"We've found several transitional forms for several organisms."
Have we? Such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus of "whale evolution" involving Philip Gingerich?
Rodhocetus was the "whale intermediary", and looked mildly convincing in the illustrations. The problem is...many of the characteristics drawn were not anywhere on the actual skeleton find. The flippers, fluked tail, and blowhole were "assumed". Nevertheless, this is sill an intermediary, still shown at museums, and still in books.
The problem Darwinists side step is that:
1)Intermediaries are assumed to be intermediaries, and we all know what ssumption is the mother of...
Example? If future humanoids found Mini Me, Andre the Giant, and Brontoraptor, millions of years from now, would they figure out that all 3 of us are the exact same species or assume us as 3 intermediaries? I mean obviously, Mini-Me intermidiaried to Brontoraptor, who intermediaried to Andre the Giant, thus this is how we got bigger. But it's not reality in reality. We had nothing to do with each other in any way shape or form. We are simply variants with 3 very unique variations of characteristics available to the human species.
2)Technically there would be billions of intermediaries (in theory)between getting from simple organisms to human supermodels and/or geniuses, not one, not two, not 3, but billions...
Imagine a squid. Now imagine writing down every "gradual change" it would take to get from the squid to Christy Brinkley in her prime. The number of theoretical intermediary changes would be unsermountable.
Darwinian Theory's greatest problem is it meets zero standards of the scientific method. It cannot be tested, measured, witnessed, seen, etc. Thus it does not even meet the bare minimal qualifications of the scientific method. To adhere to it simply as the truth, we must blindly make assumptions, which is not science, but a dogmatic and ideologically based worldview. I am Darwinian Evolution Agnostic. I need prove. I need tests. I need measurements. I need transitional intermediaries out the wazzu to dare say we have an adequate sample size to even begin to theorize or make assumptions about an theoretical gradual change. Showing me an Angus bull and a Texas Longhorn skeleton, then claiming they evolved into each other is a guess, and a wrong guess. Showing me a poodle and a Black Lab skeleton as intermediaries to one another is a guess and a wrong guess. And in the case of these "ancient finds", we don't have the luxury of knowing with any certainty that 2 finds are related in any way to one another in a Darwinian manner, just as future descendents cannot assume Mini-Me, Andre the Giant, and Brontoraptor have anything to do with the "evolution" of one another.
Finally, finding one "supposed" creature in China, a 2nd in the U.S., and another in Antartica is not safe in assuming the 3 are somehow related when they lived in different parts of the world.
On the other hand, finding 3 creatures in the exact same general location does not mean they evolved into each other. They could simply be 3 creatures who existed in the same place together. And with assumed traits rather than actual found traits on these finds, the process has become untrustable, defamed of its character, and undependable. I rarely trust illustrations to be what they show because rarely do they match the actualskeletons found.
And...Darwinian theory sidesteps massive cataclismic events as variables, non-fossilizations of probably most creatures ever to have existed, and ignores infinite possible variables that can skew our current assumptions.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.