The Instigator
Simplegirl
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Enji
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The theory of evolution is false

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Enji
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,746 times Debate No: 30467
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

Simplegirl

Pro

I believe that the theory of evolution is false for numerous reasons
Enji

Con

I believe the theory of evolution is true for numerous reasons.
Debate Round No. 1
Simplegirl

Pro

Well firstly, there is not enough evidence to back up evolution. Secondly, if humans really have evolved from apes then why are apes still around? And also if evolution is the theory to explain how everything has evolved from something else, then the theory should also explain what the planets and the sun evolved from. And many people very rightly argue that humans have probably not lived long enough for 'evolution' to occur, as there is no evidence to suggest that humans have lived on this Earth from the start of time.
Enji

Con

"There is not enough evidence to back up evolution."

Evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution from a universal common ancestor over alternative evolutionary explanations (multiple common ancestors) and creationism. In “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry”, Douglas Theobald compared the likelihood of a universal common ancestor for explaining the observed homology between organisms with the possibility other hypotheses of multiple ancestors finding that a universal common ancestor ist least 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis (to put that number into perspective, NASA estimates that there are only 1080 atoms in the observable universe). The closest competing hypothesis was evolution with descent from separate ancestors for bacteria and for Archaea and Eukarya, not biblical creationism. [1] Cladistic analysis and phylogenetics of fossils and morphological and molecular traits of organisms also supports the theory of evolution, showing the evolutionary relationships between organisms. [2][3]

"If humans really have evolved from apes then why are apes still around?"

Contrary to belief amongst some creationists, humans did not evolve from apes; rather, apes and humans have a common ancestor. Even Answers in Genesis, a creationism biased source, acknowledges that this is an argument that should not be used against evolution. [4]

"If evolution is the theory to explain how everything has evolved from something else, then the theory should also explain what the planets and the sun evolved from."

The theory of evolution deals with the changes in inhertable traits in organisms over successive generations, not the origins (or evolution of) planets and the sun; evolution does not explain how everything has evolved because not everything has evolved. Theories in astronomy and cosmology explain the formation of stars and planets and the universe. [5]

"Humans have probably not lived long enough for 'evolution' to occur."

I'm not sure why humans would have needed to live on earth for all time in order for evolution to occur (in fact, if there were evidence that humans existed on earth for all time, then one could satisfactorally conclude that evolution did not happen). [6]

[1] http://www.nature.com...
[2] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[5] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Simplegirl

Pro

First of all, thankyou very much for your argument...
As for the suggestion that there IS enough evidence to backup evolution, in actual fact scientists over time have only found a coffin full of bones that somehow prove the theory of evolution to be somewhat cosiderable.Surely a coffin full is not enough evidence. I do understand that it is quality more than quantity but even then we can clearly see that none of those evidence are powerful enough to change views against the theory of evolution as it is still considered just a 'Theory' ,that itself states that there is not enough evidence to promote the theory to a fact.

Now, you have just told me that I was wrong in thinking that the initial claim of evolution is that humans have evolved from apes and that it is more true to say that humans and apes have common ancestors, and I accept that the mistake here is mine.I apologise for that.
Anyway even then I would like to ask that doesn't having common ancestors of the two different species
(humans and apes) mean either humans evolving from apes or apes evolving from humans. And if you are saying that acually us humans and the apes have evolved from a completely different species, which e have no clue of,' then aren't we being a bit mythical here? Do you not think that if there were this 'other species ' then we would have found some evidence of their existence in the prehistoic era. I mean we have even gone to so much depth as to find evidence of dinosaurs, then surely finding the creature that were our forefathers is no challenge for us humans in the 21st century.
Okay so next point, sorry but I guess you just don't know what planets and stars have evolved from.( I know, cheeky right? I guess making the point about 'cosmology' and not 'evolution' was a bit stupid of me...have to be honest here)

But as for humans not being around for long enough I should most probably clarify. What I initially wanted to suggest is that maybe us humans have been around a short enough period of time to realise that there was no evolution.

Thankyou hope I haven't said too many stupid things, you should know that this is my first time debating, you can probably tell.
Enji

Con

"There's not enough evidence; the theory of evolution still considered just a 'Theory'"

Evidence for evolution comes from morphological and molecular from living species, and from fossil data. Empirical evidence from the fossil record is useful in determining phylogenetic trees despite the fossil record's incompleteness. [7] The criticism that evolution is "just a theory" is also listed amongst Answers in Genesis's arguments which shouldn't be used; the term "theory" in science means something substantially different in science than in colloquial use. [4] Scientific theories don't get promoted to facts or laws.

"Doesn't common ancestry mean humans evolving from apes or apes evolving from humans?"

Common ancestry doesn't mean that humans evolved from apes or apes evolving from humans any more than common ancestry means that two siblings or cousins evolved from each-other. Ring species provide intersting insight into the process of speciation, illustrating how populations of organisms which were once the same species diverge so that the groups that are most distantly related are unable to interbreed but they can interbreed with intermediary populations. Phylogenetic analysis of DNA and fossilized data provides good evidence for the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. [8]

"Perhaps humans have been around a short enough period of time to realise that there was no evolution."

Evidence suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for 3.5 billion years.

Thanks to my opponent.

[7] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[8] http://www.nature.com...

Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
simple girl. loll
the kids.
the poor girl.
the evolution theory sucks.
not make sense only fools follow the thought of person who lived alone on a island to make peoples fool.
if one specie can exist than why not other. why the evolution is stopped.
yet we made a clone of sheep with wings.
what happened with that.
genes overlapping is devastating. what you say about genes transforming. could it be medically proved.
where is this evolution now when there is most suitable time of to evolve throughout the universe.
as some fools will help evolution to do that. and the earth is on its max potential.
the theory said. the sparrow was of same type but there beak was change according to the food which was available. On what they were surviving during evolution to have big or smaller beaks.
what can i talk with kids.
leave it further more is more complex.
Posted by Simplegirl 3 years ago
Simplegirl
Thanks likespeace. I am new to this so I need all the advice I can get.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
That's true, as became apparent later in the debate.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
Given pro's use of "apes", I didn't think the semantics were overly important; pro meant the argument as modern humans evolving from other modern apes.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
RFD:
Pro fielded four arguments:
1. "not enough evidence to back up evolution."
This is a bald claim, not an argument, not effectively supported. It doesn't meet the burden of proof.

2. "if humans really have evolved from apes then why are apes still around?"
That's like saying, "If you are descended from your parents, why do you still have siblings?" It's a nonsense argument, and Pro repudiated it. (Nonetheless, I wasn't entirely happy with Con's response. Con denied that we are descended from apes. We humans are apes, and the ancestor we have in common with the other extant apes was also an ape.)

3. "explain what the planets and the sun evolved from."
That's a separate theory, not the theory of evolution. Pro repudiated this argument.

4. "humans have probably not lived long enough for 'evolution' to occur"
This doesn't make sense. Pro didn't back it up or explain it. It does not apparently support Pro's case.

Pro abandoned, repudiated, or failed to support all four of her points. Victory goes to Con.

Con's spelling and grammar was better.
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Pro, many of your opponent's sources are quite reasonable, if you want to learn what we know, theorize, and guess about where humanity came from. :)
Posted by Simplegirl 3 years ago
Simplegirl
oh sorry, the acceptance requirements are : age between 15 and 20 and level 3 or below, just so I don't feel weird debating with someone a lot older than me and well more experienced than me. Apologies to those who have tried to accept my challenge but couldn't; maybe next time I will make the range higher.
Posted by The-patriot 3 years ago
The-patriot
Read my debate i have lots of proof
Posted by The-patriot 3 years ago
The-patriot
lol i agree 100% read my debat on it its called evolution, does it make sense?
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
Looks like I fit whatever the criteria are :O
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
SimplegirlEnjiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not do a great job but con used same tired sources that everyone uses and was not convincing.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 3 years ago
Billdekel
SimplegirlEnjiTied
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: Pro just did awful. Misunderstanding of the word theory, ignoring evidence, holding unto the old outdated "why are there still apes" argument. I suggest pro hit the textbooks, then come back. Con pointed these out and had sources.
Vote Placed by induced 3 years ago
induced
SimplegirlEnjiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con refuted pros uneducated arguments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
SimplegirlEnjiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
SimplegirlEnjiTied
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: Sources: Pro used none. Arguments: Con had a great case, while pro had some not really convincing arguments and bare assertions.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
SimplegirlEnjiTied
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: Pro made four arguments that evolution is false: (1) There's not enough evidence, (2) if humans evolved from apes.., (3) it should explain the planets, (4) humans haven't lived long enough for evolution to happen. Pro conceded arguments 2 & 3. Pro did not substantiate argument 4 and Con cited the commonly accepted age of humanity. Con demonstrated that there is reasonable evidence for the theory of evolution and Pro did not provide any theory that better explains the evidence. Thus, Con would have met the burden of proof even if the debate were "Evolution is true." Pro clearly did not meet the burden of proof to claim "Evolution is false." I also award sources to Con for providing many mainstream sources that directly backed up his arguments. Pro, they're good reads. :)
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
SimplegirlEnjiTied
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: Con defended evolution sufficiently by answering each of Pro's questions/criticisms of the theory. With nothing to weigh against it, the theory of evolution stands. If anyone needs clarifications I can do so in the comments.