The Instigator
Fundamental-freewill
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

The theory of Evolution is incorrect

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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,079 times Debate No: 66678
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (96)
Votes (8)

 

Fundamental-freewill

Pro

The theory of evolution as no evidence to support the claim of transitional species. For example a monkey slowly evolved into a human being or that mammals slowly evolved into whales. Nobody has every seen any animal produce anything but it's own kind. This debate does not argue against adaptation or the ability for animals to adapt to their environment, and to claim that I don't agree with adaption or that we don't see it in nature will be straw-manning my position. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists because they make the claim that species can produce something other than their kind through the process of millions of years.
16kadams

Con

The argument is not that humans evolved from monkeys, rather that humans came from ape-like creatures. There is a huge amount of evidence in regards to human evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There is proof that mammals have evolved into whales. Animals which loosely resemble the tiger, which was near the sea, over time adapted more and more to life in the water. Again, there is fossil evidence which supports this claim.

Whale evogram
http://bit.ly...

My opponent claims we have not observed macro-evolution, but supports micro-evolution. That always seems kinda odd to me. If small changes can occur, why, then, can large (macro) changes over time occur to create a new species? It seems as to the concession that microevolution is correct follows that macroevolution is likely correct also. Further, the fact that there is 1) fossil evidence, 2) the existence of microevolution, and 3) significant change within genomes all point to the fact changes occur.
http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 1
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

The problem with fossil is it has been recalled for inaccuracy time and time again. How do we know that your sources don't get recalled like 99% of the fossil record already have. Many times have someone thought to discover the missing link between man and ape often called "Lucky which was later recalled as simply a 3 foot monkey that died recently. Also, rather a fossil resembles another is purely subjective to interpretation and is not science.
16kadams

Con

CON does not offer a single citation for his claims, and cannot be verified. He simply argues the fossil record is incorrect. Even if it was, evolution would still have genetic evidence. Our genome is only 1.2% different to that of a chimpanzee and the bonobo. We differ from apes about 1.6%--importantly, all of those monkey's differ 1.6% from the ape, indicating a common ancestor.
http://bit.ly...

To refute my opponent's contention: although the fossil record may have been inadequate 100 years ago, there is little doubt that the modern fossil record "provides a true and meaningful picture of the history of life".
http://bit.ly...

on does not cite an example of finding the missing link, and then claiming it was a recently deceased monkey. However, when we look at human ancestory we see a long line of animals similar to humans, but are neither fully human nor ape. Further, with other species, we HAVE identified the transitional fossils
http://bit.ly...
http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 2
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

Even if you had all the fossils you want. In the end rather a Fossil looks like another is up to interpretation. Also, it has been shown that animals with similar forelimb bone structures don't even share the same genes in the chromosome. Some animals look alike even tho they are unrelated as shown by creation scientists such as Kent Hovind and others.Also, This does not debunk that the explanation could be a common designer not a common ansester

.http://youtu.be...
http://youtu.be...
16kadams

Con

Con drops genetic evidence. In debate that is considered a concession.

Con brings up God's existence. Red herring, this is about evolution, not God.

Watching the videos, they claim the animals are they same because of a common designer... Uh ok. This is not a scientific response, as God is supernatural and cannot be tested. Therefore, this is not scientific, and has NO place in a scientific debate, and CAN NOT influence whether or not evolution is true or not. Further, his references offer NO proof of a God, rather merely assert it. Again, deducing logical answers from the fossil record are more convincing than Hovinid (who is currently in jail) making a statement.

My opponment drops almost every claim I have made...


http://i.imgur.com...

ReligionDemandsEvidence
http://jefferly.com...

(in response to the videos)

So, who do we trust: 99.9% of the scientific community, or a few dissenters who make claims with no evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

My point is not that God did it. My point is the fossil record is just a matter of interpretation. Even if I granted that some animals look similar to the fossil record then what. Some animals have similar forelimb structures and are have different genes in the chromosome so why can't there be fossils that look subjectively similar but are not related. Also, just because you find a fossil in the ground does not mean that fossil was related or that that fossil had any offspring. Subjectivity is not science. If you want to subjectively say that fossils found are similar looking to animals we find today that's fine but it's not science. I interpret the fossil record differently and you interpret it one way. It's a genetic fallacy to say that Kent Hovind is not a valid source because he is in jail.

.http://youtu.be...
http://youtu.be...
16kadams

Con

Pro says the fossil record only shows evidence for evolution when interpreted that way... So we should deny evolution because... My opponent says so. And he doesn't even use evidence for his assertions.

Again, he drops most of my points from R1 and R2, meaning he concedes them as true.

Pro's argument doesn't even make sense, honestly. I don't believe in Windows 7, BECAUSE I interpret it as Windows 8. Just because I intepret it incorrectly does not mean my interpretation is correct. The scientific intepretation is supported by the fossil placement, the homology itself, genetics, how biology works, and even evidence from microbiology. The fact is, which interpretation is more likely correct? The answer is pretty obvious. Evolution is well proven, much more than any creationist viewpoint.
http://www.bio.miami.edu...;


Debate Round No. 4
Fundamental-freewill

Pro

Still you never explained how the fossil record could prove evolution. There are similarities in species which don't have the same gene in the chromosome. So even if we did find a fossil which everyone agreed looked similar to an animal's anatomy to this day it still does not mean a common ansestor because it could look similar but still not be related. It still does not prove that fossil had offspring. I remind my opponent is not up to me to provide evidence since you are making the claim. I can't prove a negative. Rather you call windows 7 windows 8 is on interpretation it's subjective. you can't scientifically prove a CD you are holding is windows 7 or windows 8.
16kadams

Con

Summary

1) Genetic argument dropped
2) Microevolution argument dropped
3) Macroevolution argument from (2) dropped
4) Admits fossils show evidence of evolution, but claim it is due to misinterpretation, but fails to explain why they are misinterpreted. If multiple animals have the same features, it easily (especially with the evidence from 1) proves that species to originate from common ancestors. Further, even if it meant a common designer, what if he was causing the evolution to happen? He attempts to escape the point, never really refutes it.

--> My opponent concedes (by dropping) most of my points, and a shaky at best response to (4). With 10 minute debating periods and 1k characters, this was very hard to convey opinions. With these terms, I have proven evolution is correct. As he accepts microevolution, part of the theory at least is correct, and therefore, I win by default.
Vote CON

-Scientific evidence
-Opponent conceded part of evolution (micro) was true
-Opponent dropped arguments
Debate Round No. 5
96 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
I know the whole evolution stuff to me is just a fun way to waste some time. Mostly on that was just trying to drum up one of the people I see debate for evolution on here to debate me for entertainment. The only ones I am even taking serious are a few ones I have on physics. If the math is there is a lot easier to be heard. One of them all I am short on proving it the equation on a lot more ram for my computer. I have a computer program that is generally accepted in the physics community it just freezes about 10% of the way into the equation. Most of the other ones I need to find a few equations.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
Having ideas is the start, but doing the ridiculous amount of leg work to prove them is a different story. There is a reason why credentials are required in order to conduct the necessary studies on such topics... Because those people spend years or even decades studying very specific things in extrutiating detail. My wife is a microbiologist (about 3 months away from defending her PhD thesis) and she spends most of her time in a lab doing cloning and gene sequencing on a very specific type of bacteria. The amount of time and work she has had to put in to her PhD is insane and when she comes out of it she will be considered an expert on one small, very specific thing. If you want your ideas heard and studied, you need to put in that sort of work and earn the respect of your peers by yielding results.

Like I said, it's great to have ideas... That is where it all begins, but in order to put those ideas into action it takes more than debating people on a website. Evolution isn't so fragile that it is going to fall apart because a guy on debate.org thought of something new. Odds are your idea is not original, but even if it is, you need to build up a massive amount of data to prove your hypothesis. And considering the massive amount of evidence that already backs evolution very strongly, you have a long road ahead.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
1. Do your ideas make observable predictions? Yes

2. Do you have the math to support your idea? Yes but in very overly long equations that go on for pages because I don't know the shorter ones the physicist use on some of them. Doing it this way annoyed my physics professor greatly. I couldn't always remember the shorter equations on test and she hated when I would turn in 6 or 7 pages of equations.

3. Have you conducted studies that at least give the possibility of your idea? Several of my ideas are taking a study on one thing and showing how it can be applied to another thing, or how if you add this information to this study then it changes how you view the study. Also know as a Cross-sectional study and a Meta-analysis.

4. Do your ideas conform to known laws of physics? Yes on many of them better than the current theory does.

5. Does your idea stem from necessary logic? Yes. Many times in science an theory comes out using the best ideas at the time. As time goes on they idea or theory is changes to match new and better information. Many times some of the old assumption that were in the original theory end up staying though the changes. Assumptions that long ago were proven wrong. There is very few people I have ever told of my ideas for these reasons. Once you understand what I am talking about Most of my ideas are so ridiculously easy that some one with a masters degree could in a mouth have papers published that answer some of the biggest mysteries of our age. I want the credit. I don't want to end up like Rosalind Franklin, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, or Esther Lederberg and forgotten in the pages of history.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
The issue, gomergcc, is that as soon as you try and tell a scientist your ideas, they will pick it apart like a cat with a mouse. When asserting an idea, one only has to find one single flaw for the entire idea to fall apart and dismissed. This is how a theory works, it's correct because it hasn't been proven incorrect yet.

If you want to test if your ideas are sound, you'll need to follow some basic rules.
1. Do your ideas make observable predictions?
2. Do you have the math to support your idea?
3. Have you conducted studies that at least give the possibility of your idea?
4. Do your ideas conform to known laws of physics?
5. Does your idea stem from necessary logic?

If any of these 5 (and there are probably more) is a no for you, then you're not ready to release your idea to professional scientists. These people probably get hundreds of letters without people's "brilliant" ideas meant to "revolutionize" the science of today, but I'm sure you can imagine how tiresome it is to go through each one and see just how uneducated all these people are. If you can at least get those five answered to a Yes, you will have a gem that is worth publishing, masters degree or not.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
@16kadams LoL I don't even want to know what they would my paper into. I know it would not be the push for a more complex and dynamic theory as I want though. While I do believe I think it is unscientific and a complete cop-out to point at something that is unknown and go, "See God did it."

I wish it was easier for a someone with a good idea but not the schooling to get there idea recognized. The evolution idea a have is the one I have but the least thought into. I can show what dark matter, dark energy is, have a good hypothesis into what the big bang was what came before it and why it made galaxies form, and have a good idea on how to prove the vibrational frequencies needed to show that string theory is correct.

Getting anyone to sit down and hear me out, give me the equations I need to be able fake that I have credentials, or to get another format other than a standardized testing to show my level of thought it the hard part.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
So go to creation.com and email one of their experts, lol. Or even publish it in a creationist journal (because you don't believe in evolution, correct?)
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
@16kadams When you don't have a masters they in general want you to get someone with at least a masters to sign off on your paper for them to be willing to even read it.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
My debate here (http://www.debate.org...) is against Ofara. Let's see how he responds, haha.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Ofara seems to forget that his "holy books" were written by humans as well. The difference is being the religious books were written as rule books to control the masses, while scientific books are a collection of observations and study, meant to teach.
In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

As far as Induction; scientists don't like to make wide for sure claims unless they know they will never be wrong (the Earth revolves around the Sun) so when they make claims based on a gathering body of evidence, they prefer to leave themselves wiggle room if they need to make changes. They're being modest, in other words. Truthfully, any evidence-sufficient claim that can make predictions (which come true) are deductive. Every truth which can be found is a necessary truth, but figuring out which truth is true and which are false is something only science has been able to do. No other process (for that is all science is, you cannot "believe" in science, you can only understand it) has ever come close. Religion, especially, is at the bottom of the barrel, sharing this space with psychics, mediums, and seers; each floundering in their efforts to explain the sky without realizing there is no "sky".
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
gomergcc, you can write a paper without a PhD. It just needs to pass the peer-review with valid methodology.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, I am amazed that this debate was completed within the 10 min round allotment. I am tempted to do one myself sometime. Anyway, sources are obvious, no sources given by Pro, and Con used his to add significant credence to his points. Pro simply failed his BoP here, I don't think Con did a particularly good job with his points either (his cleanest arguments were from genetic similarity. Human evolution and expansion in microevolution helps Con's case. Pro offers no positive case of his own. Conduct to Pro for Con's unwarranted and inappropriate (for purposes of debate) attack on religion.
Vote Placed by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I am saying that Con had better arguments, because Pro, sadly hardly back himself up. Come on Pro! Do better next time please!
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Con here. Pro's sources included youtube videos which is worse than wikipedia. Pro accepted Micro Evolution and therefore accepted Macro Evolution (the same thing). Also, adaptation (natural selection) is the engine that drives evolution. To deny evolution, one has to deny the entire process.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was much stronger.
Vote Placed by a_drumming_dog 2 years ago
a_drumming_dog
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that Pro was unsuccessful in his attempts to dismiss the evidence brought up by Con. Moreover, Pro did not really provide any good evidence to suggest that evolution is false.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro kept changing there argument and not giving a rebuttal to con. Pro only had two sources of youtube vids. pro just stated it specutation or interpretations but gave no real case why evolution is not a correct interpretation
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar are left equal. Con wins conduct because Pro consistently ignored arguments and focused on one thing and one thing only, the fossil record. Con wins sources because he provided multiple relevant sources from respectable scientific institutions while Pro citied creationist YouTube videos. Arguments go to Con because he actually showed an understanding of the subject matter. Pro just threw around fallacies that Con easily refuted. Easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Fundamental-freewill16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear win for Con. Pro did involve any evidence (thus reliable sources go to con), pro dropped Con's arguments nor did he have a clear BOP. Pro made wrong claims, and his evidences were that of youtube and christian fundamentalists. (That have already received multiple criticisms) I saw some grammar error with pro. . .This debate easily goes to Con.