The Instigator
everseeingeye
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Lucretius
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

The theory of evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,446 times Debate No: 4073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (63)
Votes (15)

 

everseeingeye

Pro

1 debate per person please.

I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad.

How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes.

Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence.

So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you.
Lucretius

Con

Seeing as the pro of this argument has posted two debates of the exact same title, and his rebuttals to his opponents well-formed counter-arguments is comparatively poor scribble, there isn't much I am going to devote in terms of long-winded responses.

In terms of beneficial mutations, I can name a lot.

Unfortunately, it's late at night at college and my youtube site won't load this video, but I made one compiling a list of papers published in respected science journals discussing various mutations that are in fact beneficial.

As for probability arguments, the only reason this is so is because Creationists make for uncannily poor mathematicians. I have already laid out an argument against probability claims by Creationists in a previous debate, so I will provide the link (http://www.debate.org...) and post the highlight, namely:

"As for the probability of life provided for in my link, perhaps my opponent doesn't understand what the paper is saying: I shall spell it out in hopefully clearer terms. The results mathematically showed that, in the prebiotic soup, over a million trillion trillion RNA ligases could be produced within a single year, and that, from a calculation by Ekland * 2.5*10^(112) are efficient (they work). Thus, in a single year, it is probable that many of the RNA ligases synthesized in the primitive ocean were in fact useful sequences that could be utilized in further evolution. The same is stated for proteins. RNA is complex yes, but there are several dozen other steps in between this and "simple chemicals", all of which obey simple interaction laws present in chemistry and physics."

(*The Ekland paper is: Ekland EH, and Bartel DP, RNA-catalysed RNA polymerization using nucleoside triphosphates. Nature, 383: 192, 1996 and the link I mentioned was most likely the one from Talk.Origins called "Lies, Damned Lies, and Abiogenesis")

In simpler words: abiogenesis is not only possible, but likely on a planet with the ingredients ours had.

As the rest of his post is just anger, and not arguments, I feel my rebuttal is sufficient.
Debate Round No. 1
everseeingeye

Pro

everseeingeye forfeited this round.
Lucretius

Con

Lucretius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
everseeingeye

Pro

everseeingeye forfeited this round.
Lucretius

Con

Lucretius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
We can't discuss this forever. It's fun for a while but pointing out flaws in your worldview is an activity I can only engage in for a limited time. We won't know "when we die" because that's utterly stupid. There's plenty left after we're dead... it doesn't work any more and starts to rot. I never saw any good reason to suppose there was a soul much less that it survives the death of the brain... which clearly does all the things people consistently suggests souls do. Further, if there were some disembodied thing as such why does nature waste so much energy making a power hungry human brain?

"If one believes in a God... the universe was purposefully designed by God"

Notice the fallacy there. You're assuming God and using that assumption to conclude that God exists. That's pretty well fallacy 101. You might as well declare that the Bible proves God and God proves the Bible.

--

Try limiting your discussions to your failure to understand evolution or basic physics, when you attempt proofs you're going to get your thwacked with basic logic.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
nice finishing there, stevor. I just want to state that a believe in God is the safe way to go.
Posted by stevor 8 years ago
stevor
We can discuss this forever, and it has been fun doing so. I appreciate the various things that you have pointed out. Since we won't know until we die (unless you're one of the people who believes that after death there is nothing left of any sort of soul), it's all mainly for our own amusement(Arguing with anybody about it would be assinine, so I TRY to not go there).

What it boils down to is one's beliefs. If someone is a Buddhist (or another belief system that believes in reincarnation) who believes that everything always has and will be, I suggest they visit http://celestialmechanic.com...

If one believes in a God, then think about it. If you were God, would you let the universe happen randomly and just watch for your entertainment? If nothing happened (due to expecting pure randomness to come up with something), it might not (and in my opinion wouldn't) be too entertaining. If you wanted to make sure some beings/creatures did come to existence, you might lay out a plan for it to happen (some think randomness did result in what we have but I don't). I think that (as in the talk from the above link describes) the universe was purposefully designed by God to make it favorable for life on earth (not just humans, but for all plants/animals).

Anyhow, as I said, it's been fun to discuss it, but the discussion (If it's not scientific, I'm not interested) could go back and forth forever and I don't have the time to keep investigating counter points to others points.

So, thanks again for the discussion but I'm not likely to respond any more.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
The eye to nervous system and brain processing steps need to happen as the eye is developing at each stage. Much of our ability to see is interpretation of the inputs and not just the inputs themselves. Though, the brain is a very plastic organ. If you splice in a gene for seeing color into mice (which naturally lack the pigment) they see in color. The brain processes that stuff pretty effectively without needing any changing in the expression of other genes. Likewise there's some projects which help the blind to see by simply feeding them input of what is in front of them. This is done by cameras and sensory inputs on the skin. After a while their visual cortex starts to fire up again.

Please do go into the problems with the exceedingly well understood process. The eye is well understood. Also, as more of a side note than an argument, the category of apes includes orangutans, gorillas, and chimps and as such if of any taxonomic merit at all should properly include humans. We evolved from other apes and share a common ancestor with monkeys but that doesn't ignore the fact that we are apes and primates ourselves.

If you were intelligently designed why are the nerves and blood flow in that wonderful eye of yours on the inside where the light needs to pass through? Why is your lower back prone to problems, wisdom teeth too crowded for your jaw, knees haphazard crap, ulnar nerve run outside the humerus? -- All of which makes sense as a product of evolution. The knees and spine are much better suit non-bipeds. The jaw better made for an ape with a protruding face. And a better eye is a better eye even if the nerves are on backwards. Stranger yet, it doesn't need to be like that. Squid have an eye with the nerves initially running towards the brain.

You may argue that you're designed, but if so your designer is a nincompoop with absolutely no foresight at all and makes errors even a three year old could catch.
Posted by stevor 8 years ago
stevor
Interesting video (the first one). Thanks for finding it to share.

So, this "eye" just has to attach to a nervous system. That nervous system just has to attach to a brain (not just any spot on a brain). The brain has to recognize the signals (not what they mean, but that they are something at all. The brain has to learn to interpret those signals (Oh, yeah, since way back when it was merely "skin cells", it had to attach to a brain and interpret them then, but that part of the "evolution" was neglected.)

I won't bother to go on with all the other problems with this theory. They're not worth my time.

It'd be much easier to believe that humans evolved from apes than that an eye evolved in the amount of time that it had to do so, and I didn't come from any apelike creature. I was "intelligently designed".
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
One doesn't need a gel. In fact, a gel isn't the way it goes at all. You need a photosensitive skin cell. Basically you need a nerve which either gets hit with a photon or reacts to the heat or light. Then more similar cells are also recommendable as each step gives that much information. Any pocketing also give yet more information even to the point of a pinhole eye. Then the lensing is the only real move from there, which looking at the evolution of the vertebrate was instigated by the expression of a gene which notably already existed but did something radically different.

These are all forms which exist in nature. The eye is pretty easy to evolve because there's a whole lot of very useful information within those wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Posted by stevor 8 years ago
stevor
RE evolution of the eyes: That PBS video clip proved nothing. It was a suggested route for evolution. I looked up "photosensitive gel" and found this description for one - "The effects of UV irradiation on the properties of xAl{sub 2}O{sub 3}{center_dot} (100{minus} x)SiO{sub 2} gel films, which were obtained from aluminum butoxide chemically modified with benzoylacetone and partly hydrolyzed silicon ethoxide, have been studied.". I really doubt that it could be created randomly in nature. More "sol-gels" were described, they all having silicon in them. NO eyes have silicon in them, so no known photosenstive gel is likely to have evolved to any eye.

Your example for eye evolution is 1829 steps. I want to see each of those steps, be told what would have to "evolve" between each step, tell if ALL intermediary steps would be useful or bad to a creature with each step first. All that is mere speculation and NO PROOF!

The structure for cytochrome C, per Wikipedia: "The complex is a large integral membrane protein composed of several metal prosthetic sites and 13 protein subunits in mammals. In mammals, ten subunits are nuclear in origin, and three are synthesized in the mitochondria. The complex contains two hemes, a cytochrome a and cytochrome a3, and two copper centers, the CuA and CuB centers[1]. In fact, the cytochrome a3 and CuB form a binuclear center that is the site of oxygen reduction. Cytochrome c reduced by the preceding component of the respiratory chain (cytochrome bc1 complex, complex III) docks near the CuA binuclear center, passing an electron to it and being oxidized back to cytochrome c containing Fe+3. The reduced CuA binuclear center now passes an electron on to cytochrome a, which in turn passes an electron on to the cytochrome a3- CuB binuclear center. The two metal ions in this binuclear center are 4.5 Å apart and coord
Posted by Lucretius 8 years ago
Lucretius
Stevor, are you referring to Spinoza?

He's actually a very famous philosopher from a few centuries back. Not someone I "follow" though, as he held views very different from my own. Your argument that Spinoza claims "life can't make non-life" would be moot by the very fact that, if the universe and intelligence (which, by your claim, you are assuming is living) then nothing would be "non-life" and abiogenesis as described is still very possible because in the end your argument changed nothing. Besides, a philosophical view is easily trounced by experimental science. The origin of life scenarios are very plausible and aspects of them have been tested. I would suggest getting the book Genesis by Robert M Hazen. He talks about modern abiogenesis research.

Plenty of experimental evidence exists in favor of evolution. One I love to mention because it is really irrefutable is the cytochrome C gene. 10^92 possible sequences (that work) and all life shares just about the same sequence (the differences increase the further back we go.) The only reason for such similarity is evolution; it is statistically nigh impossible for two creatures to have the same sequence if they aren't evolutionarily related.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Expelled was such utter crap. I was glad to the Jewish Anti-defamation League condemn that holocaust denialist piece of crap (an odd variety of denialist, as it grossly invents a complete BS "cause" for the holocaust).

The entire filming was terrible and most of the claims made were complete lies:

http://expelledexposed.com...
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Yes. Eyes can evolve. In fact, the eye is one of the better understood organs when it comes to evolution. It has evolved a great many times. From as far back as Darwin the outline of how the eye could form was well established.

* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these are viable as all of them exist in different forms within the animal kingdom. Calculations suggest that it would take a 350,000 generations to evolve an eye, which even given a 20 year generation time would still be finished in simply a few million years.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

They eye has evolved many many times. It can happen in a fairly short period of time as effectively it's light hitting a nerve, then a serious of nerves then it pockets, deep pockets and lenses.

Also, Stevor seems to strongly suggest that it needs to evolve other things too. However, this neglects that gradual improvement is gradual improvement and need not be directed at any system at the same time. One could evolve land walking limbs out of fins while at the same time evolving lungs out of gas bladders. You aren't limited to evolving one thing at a time. If a mutation is useful for an organism it gives them an edge to edge out the other organisms in their species in that niche... period.

Very few mutations need to occur in sequence. They often do build off each other (and therein lies much of the power) but more often than that it's all paralleled. Every species on the planet is evolving every system they have all the time. I'm amazed anybody considers the process to be slow.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Paradox 8 years ago
Paradox
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LadyA 8 years ago
LadyA
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
everseeingeyeLucretiusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03