The evolutionary theory is accurate
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.