The Instigator
person1234
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
numberwang
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Theory of Evolution

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 1 vote the winner is...
numberwang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,539 times Debate No: 61158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

person1234

Con

Round 1 - accepting

Round 2 - beginning arguments

Round 3 - rebuttals

Round 4 - Rebuttals

Round 5 - conclusion

List your sites & resources
numberwang

Pro

I havent debated in a while so I wanted to get back in it with something I know and have done before. I accept, and since my opponent hasn't really clarified, I will take the position that the ToE is sound theory and a good explanation for genetic variation and speciation.
Debate Round No. 1
person1234

Con

person1234 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Pro

As discussed in the comments I won't be posting arguments this round so my opponent can post his round first.
Debate Round No. 2
person1234

Con

person1234 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Pro

I don't have an opponent so I will just retoast some old debate arguments for evolution I have. The following is a counter argument for an old debate, but I don't think anyone can count laziness against me when I don't have anyone to debate against.

Transitional Fossils

1. http://en.wikipedia.org.........
2. http://www.transitionalfossils.com.........
3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu.........
4. http://www.transitionalfossils.com.........
5. http://rationalwiki.org.........

Transitional fossils are the 'links' between things we have seen in the fossil record and things we see today. They also show links between species we see very early in the fossil record and fossils we see later in the record. I don't know how better to explain transitional fossils besides to say examples that are present and link the sources, so I guess that's what I'll do. 1 specific link for a change from an older species and a current species is gray whales. There is a fossil which shows the transition from pakietus to gray whale. The transitional fossil shows which shows the nostril moving up the skull, which was a major change between the pakietus and the whale (3). This is just one of many examples of transitional fossils that have been found. There are also extensive fossils of fish in transition land (2), and more than a few fossils of our ape ancestors transitioning to humans. There are also examples of transitions of dinosaurs into birds (2,4) and reptiles to mammals (2,5). To say that there is no evidence of transition is simply untrue. I do not want to explain all of them, but if you are so inclined feel free to look at them, they certainly do exist and they certainly do prove evolution.

What's more is that we have seen species changing in nature. We have seen one species become another. That's about as evolution prove-y as it gets. Here a couple examples (also used in a previous debate, if that counts against me, which I doubt it does).

Fruit Flies (5.3.1 of above link)
http://www.talkorigins.org.........

Two biologists, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, made a new strain of fruit fly by breeding Drosophila paulistorum flies in a lab. A new strain was born of a female of the old strain and after reproducing with hybrids the new Llanos strain was unable to have fertile offspring with the original Orinocan strain. From one species of fly came another, and then there were 2.

London Mosquito
http://phylointelligence.com.........
http://knowledgenuts.com.........

A new species of mosquito evolved when isolated in the London underground system. After becoming isolated in the underground the mosquito adapted to the new environment, which was much different than above ground. It was first reported in 1999 but may have existed much earlier without being documented. 2 completely different species of mosquito!

Some Scottish flowers
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com.........

It's easier to see speciation in plants than in more complex organisms because they can reproduce independently, making it much easier to pass on mutations to offspring. In Scotland, mimulus has two forms, guttatus and luteus with 14 and 30 pairs of chromosomes respectively. A new strain peregrinus has appeared and is different than the hybrids of guttatus and luteus. When it self reproduces enough to have a large population it will be a new species.

Those are just a few of very many examples of speciation that confirms evolution, not to mention the loads of observed changes within species (commonly called microevolution) which even creationists acknowledge as having happened. So between the fossils and the observed speciation it is pretty clear that evolution is a viable model with lots of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
person1234

Con

person1234 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
person1234

Con

person1234 forfeited this round.
numberwang

Pro

extend vote pro
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
Evolution wins again.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
Isn't numberwang the maths quizz that simply everyone?
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
I've just finished a similar debate for anyone it may interest. "The theory of evolution is well established". It's my first complete debate (first one opponent forfeited).
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
I don't know if you are a troll or not but reading your comments is giving me headaches. It's really difficult trying to discuss these types of things with stubborn people who confuse science with dogmatic ideals. You sit there talk about scientific theory and scientific sense right as you declare that THE theory of evolution isn't being modified when I am easily modifying it with evidence that can easily be tested over and over again. It's really too simple. Everything we know of is made up of molecules, which according to the source that you posted, evolution deals with the biological process of molecules. So therefore everything can be linked to the evolutionary process, so everything has to be linked into the theory of evolution. You can't have a theory of evolution without including the very biological process. or else that theory is widely wrong. I am not generalizing anything, I am being just as specific as you are. I am only talking about the very fundamentals of how "life" came to be. If THE Theory of Evolution does not include the attempt to figure out how the first life forms came to be, then the theory is worthless because until that is figured out it is just a guess at how biology works. Having it accepted amongst the scientific community does not mean anything, because history has shown the scientific community to be very uninformed in the past.
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
"Again, you are vastly undermining the very purpose of the scientific process and the very idea of what a theory is. A theory is something that can be changed over time."

Nor am I undermining anything. You're sitting here and saying things but you aren't adding to or creating a new theory. In a scientific sense, a theory is a well developed, testable, repeatable, observable and peer reviewed statement about how and why something happens the way it does. Your statements are a "theory" insofar as you are "theorizing" about how something may have happened, but not in a scientific sense until you have some real testable evidence, you've gotten it published, peer reviewed, and the scientific community generally accepts it. So no, I don't think I'm doing anything except using a different definition of "theory" and a different definition of "evolution".

And even IF you DID do all of those things to develop a theory about how life came to exist or the universe came to exist or whatever, that theory wouldn't necessarily be part of the theory of evolution. In science you're allowed to make up completely new theories to explain things, even if there existed some overlapping principals they wouldn't have to be the same theory.

If you managed to demonstrate that the same forces that drive biological evolution drive some other form of evolution that resulted in a new part of that theory, then you could say that you are adding or modifying the theory of evolution. But, since you have yet to do anything but postulate and confuse what "theory" means in a scientific sense, you can't argue that you've done that. So I think I'm being completely fair when I say you aren't talking about THE theory of evolution, nor is what you're talking about a THEORY of anything. It's just postulation.
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
"Saying that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION doesn't discuss that when I am sitting here telling you that I have proposed A THEORY O F EVOLUTION that does is just being plain ignorant, or arrogant, on your part."

You agree with me. I am talking about a specific theory that has already been developed and has nothing to do with stars or galaxies and everything to with and only with biology. Youre talking about A theory, not THE theory, A theory about the evolution of something that isnt in THE theory of evoltuon that Im talking about. Go make as many theories about whatever the hell you want, but right now, your "theory" is not part of THE theory of evolution that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Surely we agree on that much. Yes, you're theorizing about evolution in general, but you aren't in any way modifing THE theory of evolution.

Im not being arrogant, Im being specific and youre being an idiot. You and I basically agree, dont be a dick about it.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Read the very first paragraph of the article you posted:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

I am pretty sure molecules have been discovered to make up pretty much every form of matter. So the solids, liquids, gasses, and plasmas that make up the "galaxies" and "solar system" fall under the category of biological.

Again, you are vastly undermining the very purpose of the scientific process and the very idea of what a theory is. A theory is something that can be changed over time. Saying that the theory of evolution doesn't discuss that when I am sitting here telling you that I have proposed a theory of evolution that does is just being plain ignorant, or arrogant, on your part. I am developing the theory like theories are supposed to be developed, like any good scientist does.

And while we are on the matter of terms, the whole origin of life quest is stunted by it's own term. "Life" is a meaningless term that humans use to try and describe something that they really do not seem to understand. There is no difference between "life" and non-life. This has been proven by the discovery of the same chemical compounds making up everything known to man, as well as the discovery that everything is made up of star dust.
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
You're using the verb evolution to describe how the universe came to exist and how the galaxies and our solar system and planet formed and how, eventually, life came to be. Semantically speaking you are correct, things did slowly "change and develop" over time to reach the current state of affairs.

However, I hope you will agree that none of the things before life existing to the scientific Theory of Evolution.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The theory of evolution only encompasses biological diversity. Could you argue that the galaxies "evolved" after the Big Bang? Yes, technically they did slowly form over a period of time. Could you argue that the solar system did "evolve" into the current planetary alignment? Sure, there was gradual change to get where we are now. But the Theory of Evolution doesn't discuss any of those things. Just because the word "evolution" can be applied to something (for example, my political views have "evolved" as I became more informed) doesn't mean that the applicant has any connection to the theory of evolution.

So the point is, although semantically you can technically correctly say that things evolved before life began, those things aren't in the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution is a biological theory. You are using evolution as a verb/adjective to describe anything. pick am using evolution as a noun to describe a scientific theory. That's the disagreement we are having.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
Evolution
biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time

: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time

: a process of slow change and development
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Evolve

verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition.

There is the definition you speak. Now what I am saying is that life evolved, developed gradually by a natural process over a very long time, from simple particles. Two particles crashed together to create a giant explosion. This explosion eventually cooled down and allowed the development of chemical elements which eventually developed, evolved, into gasses, liquids, solids, and plasmas, These states of matter became a breeding ground for more chemical processes which led to developments of simple organisms, thus you have the origin of life through the biological process of Evolution, a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time. What am I missing?
Posted by person1234 2 years ago
person1234
okay numberwang it doesn't matter to me, thank you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
person1234numberwangTied
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: Forfeiture