The Instigator
crazyninja77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

The Undeniable Proof That Evolution Didn't Happen

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 6 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,476 times Debate No: 14535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

crazyninja77

Pro

I am going to start this debate off with a immensely powerful blow in the solar plexus of the Big Bang Theory, and the THEORY (note theory and not fact) of Evolution.
It is known as the Law of Increasing Entropy. The quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase. The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). If the beginning of the universe began with an explosion, why does it have such a high entropy still? Order cannot come out of an explosion. Evolution has also been proved as being mathematical impossible. He is the evidence. According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (�)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! If you do have the fortitude to accept this debate, I wish you good luck. Although you probably won't, because hopefully by now you realize that evolution is impossible. The day that evolution happens is the same day that a tornado goes trough a junk-yard and assembles a perfectly operational Boeing 747!!
RoyLatham

Con

Thanks to Pro for the challenge. He presents two common arguments against evolution, both arguments are wrong, but well-worth understanding.

Increasing entropy

Entropy is a difficult concept. A scientist explains:

"It is common to think of entropy as 'disorder', but this simple analogy will lead you
astray in many instances. For example, a crystal (highly ordered) may
have more entropy than a solution of salt (which seems less ordered).
So "disorder" is not always a good way to think of entropy.

A better way to think of entropy is the probability of a system of
being in a given configuration. Over time, systems will evolve into
their most probable configuration -- but they may not start there, and
the random motions they take may require a long time to get to the
most probable configuration. The laws of physics govern what
configuration is probably -- things like quantum physics and gravity
determining how systems end up being."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Yes, the entropy of the universe is increasing, because we believe the universe is a closed system:

The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system will tend not to decrease. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The primary manifestation of that is in the expanding universe. However, it is a gross error to assume that because there is an overall increase in entropy, that there are no local deceases. The entropy of the earth may decrease, because it is not a close system.

The formation of stars and galaxies increased the order in the universe on a local basis, as did the continuation to the formation of planets. New generations of life emerge despite the overall increase. Newly manufactured automobiles have more order than the iron ore from which steel is derived and the crude oil that yielded the plastics. Building any manufactured product, or a house, or a garage for the auto represents a local decrease in entropy. If Pro's argument were correct, none of these would be possible.

In our solar system, the sun provides energy. Radiation and matter are sent out of the sun into the universe. That dispersal is increasing entropy. The earth receives some of the energy and uses it to drive ordering processes like life. The local decrease on earth is more than offset by the sun. That is no accident, because the sun is the source of energy.

Probabilities

Using events with probability 0.5, Pro computes the probability of 200 events occurring simultaneously and all coming out positive. Analogously, he is computing the chances of throwing two hundred coins at once, and having them all come up heads. That is one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion. However, in evolution mutations occur one at a time with the positive ones retained and the negative ones discarded. No organism evolves by having 200 simultaneous mutations, with failure if even one of them is not positive.

The correct formulation of the problem is akin to asking “How many times must I flip a coin to accumulate a total of 200 heads?” The answer is "about 400," since on average half the flips are heads. Natural selection discards the failed mutations and keeps the positive ones. A fatally bad mutation is discarded in one mutation. Ones that are disfavored tend to die out over time, while the positive mutations are retained.

In humans, negative mutations are observed as birth defects. Birth defects now occur at the rate of about 1 in 12 live births. http://www.mdch.state.mi.us... It may have been higher in the past, since diet, environment, and levels of cosmic rays affect mutation rates. If one mutation in 200 is positive, then there is one positive mutation in every 2400 births. A small human population of one million would have over 400 positive mutations per generation. A positive mutation is more difficult to observe than a negative one. Improved intelligence or sensory ability or endurance is not notable at birth, but clearly there are wide variations in human characteristics.

Pro claims that positive mutations are never observed. That's not true. Selective breeding of plants and animals depends upon naturally occurring positive mutations.

Chihuahuas have evolved from wolves in only 5000 years. That is fast, because the selection traits deemed positive is by humans, not by natural selection. However, Pro is suggesting that positive traits rarely occur. That's wrong, because they are observed in order to be selected by humans. Pro wasn't questioning the rate of natural selection, he was questioning the rate of positive mutations. All breeding of plants and animals depends upon positive mutations occurring naturally.

Also note that there are many successful paths in evolution. Humans might have evolved with more than two eyes, or a better sense of smell, or with six fingers on each hand. The argument wrongly assumes that we should calculate the probability of arriving at exactly the human form now present. We could retain subjective consciousness characteristic of humans in any of millions of variations. There are many inadequacies in the present evolved state. The human backbone is better suited to walking on all fours; as a result something like a third of the human race has back problems. Certain blood vessels do not well withstand the pressure of an upright stance, a significant fraction of humans suffer from hemorrhoids.

Anatomy Professor Neil Shubin has written a book, Your Inner Fish, about the roots of evolution traceable in humans. A reviewer summarizes, The causes of such human afflictions as obesity and heart disease and even hemorrhoids are traced to our abandoning the hunter gatherer lifestyle that humans evolved for in favour of a modern existence dominated by office work and take out food. Choking and sleep apnea are part of an evolutionary trade off made to favour the ability to speak.http://www.suite101.com...

What we know as human might have been something else.

Humans have only about a 2% difference in DNA from chimpanzees, with the split from a common ancestor occurring about 5.5 million years ago. http://www.onelife.com... Assuming about a 20 year generation in early times, both humans and chimps have had about 275,000 generations to each affect a 2% change, or less, from the common ancestor.

---------------------------------------------

Much of Pro's argument is copied from the Institute for Creation Research, whose motto is "Biblical Accurate Certain" http://www.icr.org... The guy who wrote was not accurate.


Debate Round No. 1
crazyninja77

Pro

crazyninja77 forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

My opponent hs not been on the site for the past two days. Perhaps he has been occupied by pressing business.

Arguments are continued.

Debate Round No. 2
crazyninja77

Pro

I am glad that I finally had the chance to finally get a debate with someone going on this topic. It has been a favorite topic of mine to debate on, considering that science is my favorite subject.
I am going to give you several reasonable, logical explanations, that should clearly show my readers, (as well as my opponent) some of the things that are wrong with evolution.
I could go on and on with the different things that prove that evolution is not true, but, what I am going to do in this debate, is choose a different subject for every debate round. I will not be providing a source, for there should be no need to provide a source, on things that is common knowledge, such a the sky is blue, the sun is hot etc.
On this debate round, my subject of choice will be; mutations, and why mutations cannot produce cross-species change. I am looking forward to a enjoyable debate, and if I lose, it doesn't matter to me, it won't change my beliefs at all, I am very new to this site anyway, so we shall see.
It is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There is simply no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today. Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in the chromosomes (inversion, trans-location), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (inversion, trans-location), or a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information. Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but a scientific fact that has been observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.
Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth. Evolution requires improvement.. Mutations do not help or improve: they only weaken and injure. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not survive. There has not once ever been any recorded instance of a beneficial mutation. The fact that mutations are the only things that an evolutionists can stand on anymore, and as I have just proved above, they cannot use this as a justifiable for their process, and thus they have no process.
RoyLatham

Con

Increasing entropy
Pro's argument for monotonically increasing entropy was thoroughly disproved, and subsequently abandoned it.

Mutations are common

I addressed the rarity of mutations and the associated probability calculations in round one. Observable mutations are not at all rare, with about one in twelve human live births having an observable birth defect. Moreover, observable positive mutations are also common, as shown by the success of selectively breeding animals like dogs and race horses.

Most mutations have no observable effect. "The average human being has about 50-100 mutations, of which about 3 matter, i.e., they actually change a protein. If the typical mutation were deleterious life would go extinct in short order." [1.http://www.talkorigins.org...] Most mutations are neutral, having neither positive nor negative effect. There are mechanisms in human physiology that work to try to correct mutations, thereby minimizing the changes.

Positive Mutations
Of the mutations that have an effect, often whether it is positive or negative depends upon the environment. There are many examples of animals evolving to match the color or patterns in their environments. Matching provides concealment from predators, so whatever happens to match tends to be naturally selected.

In a vivid illustration of natural selection at work, scientists at Harvard University have found that deer mice living in Nebraska's Sand Hills quickly evolved lighter coloration after glaciers deposited sand dunes atop what had been much darker soil. http://www.physorg.com...

Another example is that the sickle cell mutation in humans is generally harmful, but it increases resistance to malaria so it can be beneficial if malaria is common. Other examples of positive mutations documented in the scientific literature are [1]:
  • Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
  • Bacterial ability to digest nylon
  • Lactose tolerance in humans
  • Resistance to atherosclerosis in humans
  • Immunity or resistance to HIV in humans
The positive mutation that gives HIV resistance is explained as follows:

"... a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[42] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[43] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague." [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Increasing complexity
'
One of the mechanisms of mutation is gene duplication. [2] This provides for keeping a function intact in a gene while the duplicate mutates adding complexity to the organism.

Summary
Contrary to Pro's claims, mutations are extremely common, with the average person having 50-100. Most are neutral and many others may be either positive or negative depending upon the environment. Both mechanisms in the human body and natural selection tend to suppress propagation of negative mutations. Natural selection perpetuates positive mutations.

Pro claims his beliefs are immune to change, never mind if they are contradicted by facts. Pro did not address the arguments I made in R1. In a debate it is a conduct violation to fail to address the debate topic or to ignore your opponent. The forum for speaking while ignoring everyone else is a blog, not a debate. Pro forfeited R2, another conduct violation.

Pro's assertion that what is "common sense" to him need not be proved is false. Little of what Pro suggests is common sense, and if it were it would still have to be proved because many scientific facts defy common sense. Evolution defies common sense because of the large time spans over which evolution occurs. We only see small changes over the course of a few generations,so we cannot naturally extrapolate to what happens over millions or billions of years.

I hope this debate was interesting to those not immune to new information.

The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
crzninja77, The reason you lost was your claims were wrong and there is no way to argue them. You claimed that entropy always increases, and it cannot decrease even locally. If that were true, it wouldn't be possible to build anything, not once, not ever. I didn't make that up, it's always been true. It's been taught in every thermodynamics class that's ever been taught. Therefore the entropy argument was dead wrong from the day it was invented. It was invented by someone who didn't understand the most basic principles.

The same is true of the probability argument. The calculation is done wrong and there is no way defend it.

The way to win debates to only take debates on subjects you know something about. There are debates here all the time that I could not win. Would Batman beat Naruto? Is Joe Montana a better quarterback than Bart Starr? I have no idea. Pass. There are many debates on interpreting the Bible. I know little about that. Pass.

To every new debater, I recommend picking a favorite subject and learning it well. There is no way to defend arguments you don't understand.
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
Ninja, that was a fail comment you made about Roy. Simply put, you copied and pasted your arguments from publications without giving credit to them. On another note, why is it that you copy and paste your arguments? I know you have your own opinion, can you... you know... debate?
Posted by crazyninja77 6 years ago
crazyninja77
Roy will win simply because everyone will vote for him without reading the argument, but it doesn't matter to me, he has been on here 2 years, I have been on here 2 weeks, enough said. He has more experience, and a large amount of biased friends.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I could go on and on with the different things that prove that evolution is not true, but, what I am going to do in this debate, is choose a different subject for every debate round."

It is unfortunate that Pro does not defend the assertions but simply keeps regurgitating creationist propaganda with even a clear lack of understanding of the arguments being so presented. The probability argument for example was nonsense because the paste failed :

"Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021."

Note 1060/1039 does not equal 1021, all the powers were lost in the C&P, this should have been 10^60/10^39=10^21.

And as a pet peeve, theories and facts are not the same thing, I was hoping Roy would have clarified that. It is a fact that if you drop a rock you will observe it fall, it is a theory that it falls to a local warp in space time due to the mass of the earth (General Relativity), it is a law that this warp will follow a simple parabolic path represented by Newton's equation (at small speeds and large scales, non-relativistic and quantum effects).
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
The copy/paste ninja gets slammed again...
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
One lesson you will never forget, Ninja
You never win from Roy
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
The last round is not going to be kind, this is like a prime Mike Tyson vs Fat Elvis.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I'm still dumbfounded by anyone denying Evolution.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Well, I would have taken this debate had I seen it, but Roy's doing a much better job as CON than I or almost everyone on this site ever could.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Absolutely, read the debate an track what arguments are made and how they are answered. It's not a poll on the resolution.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
crazyninja77RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Crazyninja dropped his entropy argument. RoyLatham disproved crazyninja77's 'undeniable proof' that evolution didn't happen with undeniable proof.
Vote Placed by WillMurray 6 years ago
WillMurray
crazyninja77RoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
crazyninja77RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
crazyninja77RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
crazyninja77RoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
crazyninja77RoyLathamTied
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:06