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

The evolutionary theory is accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 45295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I would like the pro position to begin, if that's alright. I wish to have a serious, reasoned debate; I'm not an anti-scientific creationist.


Firstly, there are two types of evolution microevolution(evolution through time, environment, and the genetic crossover that happens during meiosis) and macroevelution (essentially crossbreeding of closely related species). Both can be observed through the mayfly. With a very short gestation rate one human can observe many generation of mayfly. It has been proven, put the culture of mayfly in an arid setting,wait a couple generations, compare them to standard mayfly, see group1 requires less water. This is clear proof of microevelution through an experiment you could do at home with enough time and a microscope. By working through the logistics microevelution can be proven with pure logic. I am assuming you are aware of Mendel experiments (there the base for all genetics to date) ,both them and common sense show that children are not clones of there parents. if they aren't clones of there parents, it means there different from there parents, meaning that they have changed from what there genetic line was previously, meaning the have evolved(it is vital to remember that though different it is still a combo of not the two parents but the four grandparents). this happens a couple billion time and BAM the whole species has a different finger length to hand length ratio. Factor in how we select our mates and it explains things like why female breast size is gradually getting bigger generation after generation or why men are gradually getting taller gen after gen. macroevelution is simple inheritance and is not relay complex or important, nothing to say about it. Throughout this debate i assumed you understood the following : the fact the humans "scramble" in a way the gene's for any cell used for replication, that every human has 2 traits coded for in there genes but only one is expressed, how meiosis works, medals experiments and there outcomes, basic genetic inheritance,and that evolution has nothing to do with atheisim. if you wish me to explain any of these things merely request it.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting to engage in this debate. At the outset, I would like to say that I have studied biology (especially genetics) for many years and that all the concepts you discussed in your opening statement were familiar to me. I accept your categorization of evolutionary processes into microevolutionary and macroevolutionary paradigms, though I think you are mistaken regarding how macroevolution operates. Macroevolution is evolution that occurs at or above the level of the species. Suggesting " as you did " that macroevolution involves interbreeding between closely related species is incorrect; two distinct species, by definition, are unable to produce viable offspring. Regarding microevolution, I do not contest that offspring " through a re-organization of their genetic material " do not perfectly resemble their parents, nor do I challenge your claim that microevolution is real and contributes to a variety of biological changes in living things; your examples of lengthening hands and heightening men are excellent illustrations of the potency of microevolutionary processes. Yet that is insufficient to establish evolution"s veridicality, for macroevolution"s dubious claims have yet to be sustained.

Allow me now to briefly explain why I remain skeptical of macroevolution's capacity to generate the enormous biological diversity visible around us. First, research has revealed that there seems to be a species-specific limit on the number of mutations an organism can sustain; beyond this limit, the creature's genetic infrastructure collapses and the animal dies. The fact that macroevolution has never been observed outside of extremely controlled laboratory environments reveals the process's fragility. Secondly, given the significant and foundational questions left unanswered about our earth's history, it seems dubious to extrapolate very limited contemporary data so far into the past. Finally, the fossil record -- though frequently used to bolster the evolutionary theory -- is able to provide clear lineages for very few zoological groups (the reptile to mammal transition, supposedly, is well documented). However, countless holes remain in the fossil data which should not be expected if truly every single extinct creature who has ever lived is lying somewhere in the earth.

Again, thank you for debating and I look forward to your response.


I would like to jump right into the counterarguments, in no particular order, you bring up fossils and how there are just to many missing links to jump to the conclusion of evolution, i would contest that on two level's,one biologically, and the other geologicoaly. I would contest your argument biologically by saying that due to the temporary nature of life it is not only possible but likely that an organism will completely deteriorate before it has been siting dormant long enough to be fossilized by the relatively slugish forces of the earth, it is also likely that if it is fossilized, not enough of it will be left to identify it or reconstruct it. scavenger animals tend to remove bones from the body never to be seen again. geologically, the creation of a "readable" fossil takes require very special conditions, lots of pressure, but little enough pressure the skeleton will not be completely obliterated in its early stages. completly oxygen free environment, over 10000 years even a half millimeter crack can bring outside oxygen can cause complete decay. also we destroy lots of not "read" fossils so we can travel at 120mph using a complex machine that creates it's kinetic energy by exploding dinosaur. also if look at on a ginormous timescale, the rocks move in and out of the mantle in an almost conveyor belt like way, many thing are destroyed in there and even the rock itself melts. ending the geological rebutal the earth is 8.27*10^14 cubic kilometers, if i fish in one bay for 10 years and never catch a carp, do i assume carp dont exist? we simply haven't dug into enough to say that missing data is proof of invalidity, it is merely proof of our tiny sample size and what we got given our sample size is actually quite supportive of the theory. Next you said "research has revealed that there seems to be a species-specific limit on the number of mutations an organism can sustain; beyond this limit, the creature's genetic infrastructure collapses"if the mutation is inherited it isn't actually a mutation in the child it is only a trait, blue eyes are an example of this, they branched off of a single person with a mutation causing low production of pigment in the eye's humans found it attractive the person had kids, they had blue eyes but it wasn't a mutation for them in order to be a mutation it has to, well, mutate from what it originally was it was always like that for them and therefore did not cause the instability in DNA backbone caused by the "3 and "5 being different lengths that you are describing. also you said "the fact that macroevolution has never been observed outside of extremely controlled laboratory environments reveals the process's fragility" i would say that the world is a big place and when your talking about a full earth full of organism and massive amount's of time, if it can happen at all, it will happen. also a mule, is a example of partially successful macroevelution the only downfall is that mule cannot bread, so you have a lifeforms successful in all but one way,produced from macroevelution,it leads to assume that fully functional lifeforms could be made. lastly you said "nor do I challenge your claim that microevolution is real" the two evolutionary principles micro and macro that is do not depend on each other so how is you statement different from saying "your claim the evolution is real" if you and i agree on the existence of microevelution am i arguing purely macroevelution? i cant do that because macroevelution is possible the most insignificant part of evolutionary theory out there though i do believe in it's validity.
on to my additional argument humans have a HUGE amount environmentally triggered jumping genes( genes that move from one place on a chromosome to another and code for something different entirely im confident you knew that but it never hurts to be sure and onlookers might not ) almost exactly 50% of our genome is jumping so not only do we adapt genetically withing a single generation to different environments but the environment you are in when you conceive a child affects its gene's order ,well it only effects the sperms gene order, all a woman's eggs are made when she is a fetus. this displays on a mass scale, environmental adaption, the biggest tenant of evolution
i thank you for you well though out response and the good points and hope you can bring up some interesting counter,counter arguments counterarguments or even entirely new arguments,, it is not often someone will discus matters like this, they are awfully taboo.
Debate Round No. 2


In your rebuttal, you addressed the issue of fossilization and suggested that the improbability of preserving a fossil for millions of years explains why the fossil record is incomplete. That seems reasonable (though I am no expert in paleontology), but that presents a problem. You are claiming that evidence exists, we just don't have access to it. Insofar as fossils do not reflect a smooth zoological lineage, they are not evidence for evolution. That would be like saying that a huge dinosaur exists, but has never been seen because he only roams about at night; that explanation is plausible, but woefully insufficient to establish the existence of such a dinosaur. In fact, you admit in your response that the sample size is tiny in comparison to the estimated population, and any statistician will tell you that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from such scarce data.

Regarding the species-specific genetic limit, I apologize for not making myself more clear. I did not mean that individual organisms have limited capacity for genetic mutation (if they did, your point about mutations in the parents only being traits int he offspring would be an excellent rebuttal). Rather, I meant that the species as a whole cannot vary much from its wild type genetic structure without becoming extinct; that of course includes mutations handed down from parents to offspring. If mutations accumulate too much (typically long before any prospect of speciation), the animal dies. I think this is compelling evidence to illustrate the dubious claims of macroevolution.

Your response to my claim that speciation has only occurred in controlled laboratory environments is to point out the expanse of the earth and the billions of years evolution would have to work with to produce that result. But what evidence do you have that it has actually exist? I can say that, because of the size of the earth, undiscovered tribes of aliens are living here; or that, through the passage of billions of years, the penny I found on the street formed through natural processes. But of course these claims should be dismissed until specific evidence is presented.

You claim that the mule -- the infertile cross between a horse and a donkey -- is an example of macroevolution. But of course, as you know, evolution relies on reproduction; the fact that mules are infertile is not a minor point. On the contrary, it illustrates the genetic limits of a species (a horse can generate a mule, but can go no further).

To clarify, I accept microevolution but reject macroevolution. Since the full evolutionary theory includes both of these processes, I think we are still is disagreement. You may think that macroevolution is an "insignificant part of evolutionary theory," but you have yet to explain why you believe in its "validity."

Finally, your point about so-called "jumping genes" and their sensitivity to environmental cues, I think, is ineffectual. Our entire genomes are susceptible to environmental changes -- either through mutation or epigenetic modification. And I have no doubt that these responses to the environment contribute to microevolution. But the species-specific limit I described above still suggests that these "jumping genes" can only have limited phenotypic influence on us. (Additionally, if you would like to use "jumping genes" as evidence of evolution. showing that they operate in humans is useless since we are supposedly at the top of the evolutionary tree; you would to establish the "jumping genes" are active in lower life forms.)

I look forward to your response.


thisguyagain forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ambassador4christ 2 years ago
Belief in a God is the only rational explanation of the universe. Even if the universe could have evolved the chances are so very slim. Even if the universe is billions of years old, it can not account for how it started. The atheist now is making the great leap of faith. It's not a rational problem, the problem is that if there is a God there is a judge now. Men are sinful and do not want a judge. It's a heart issue, not a mind issue.

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
-Romans 1:20

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
Posted by paul_g 2 years ago
When you are asking some about the theory of evolution, do you mean specifically what Darwin stated or do you mean our more modern interpretation of the Theory of Evolution. If it is the later then I'd like to take up the position of Pro arguing Evolution is a fairly accurate theory.
No votes have been placed for this debate.