The Instigator
Spud
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
xxmanguyxx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Theory of evolution is valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Spud
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,171 times Debate No: 98761
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (46)
Votes (1)

 

Spud

Pro

I'm bored so starting a debate on this topic.

Basically, if you are of the opinion that "macroevolution" is not feasible, then this is the debate for you.

Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies over successive generations, and the subsequent diversification of life due to various factors. If you want to make a case for a different definition for evolution, go for it, but know that if you use "kinds" to classify populations of organisms in your definition of evolution, I will have no choice but to completely eviscerate your definition from the top down, thus showcasing it for being utterly void of any scientific applicability and therefore rendering it useless. So I would strongly advise against my opponent doing that. Trust me; it's not a road you want to tackle.

Rules: Maximum of 3 arguments are to presented, and then we'll go from there. These arguments would be against the theory of evolution of course. If anyone accepts this debate, gl and hf.
xxmanguyxx

Con

Definitions. If you disagree, just let me know.
mac"ro"ev"o"lu"tion
G6;makr!3;-evəG2;loV2;oSHən,-G6;ēvə-/
nounBiology
noun: macroevolution; noun: macro-evolution
major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

taxonomic group - taxonomic group
(Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.

Taxon
Definition noun, plural: taxa
(taxonomy)
(1) Any group or rank in a biological classification into which related organisms are classified.
(2) A taxonomic unit in the biological system of classification of organisms, for example: a phylum, order, family, genus, or species.

To begin with, my understanding is that cosmic rays damage DNA, and as it heals back, this process causes randomness in genetics. Sometimes, this results in a genetic change which is beneficial for the life form, and this trait can be passed onto offspring, giving them an adaptation which, when beneficial, enables them with an advantage, enabling their line to be more successful in bringing offspring to sexual maturity, than the ones which did not receive this trait.

Argument.
A popular example of evolution is Darwins finches, in which morphological differences in beak size and shape allow the island diversification to persist. Birds with thicker beaks, were able to break thicker seed, and birds with longer beaks, were more able to eat from cactus without injuring themselves.
There are several glaring inconsistencies, not with the observations, but with the conclusions.
1. As randomness is associated with evolution, but the traits were not random at all, as stated, birds which needed to break thicker seed, progressively got thicker beaks.
2. There has never been an enlightening observation of cosmic rays effects on DNA. More specifically, long-term evolution experiments with two populations of bacteria, one of which is shielded from background neutron radiation. According to theory, the shielded cultures should exhibit much lower rates for deleterious mutations, however it is also proposed that cancer and other mal effects are caused in part by this same process, which, is supportive of the law of Entropy, As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. Chaos within any closed system not specifically designed to handle such chaos, leads to disorder, not finely tuned perfection such as we see reflected in life.
3. Observed changes in life forms do not necessarily take into account environmental factors, which may or may not be observable or repeatable. For example, Birds on said island could have been the sole survivors of the severe droughts on the islands for the three years prior, leaving only the larger thicker beaked birds to carry on their genetics in the first place. It is impossible to reliably know how environmental factors effect different species adaptation to environments.
4. Evolution does not offer sufficient explanation of many complex biological systems, which without each individual component, would serve no purpose. Ex: parts of the eye, or parts of the kidneys, which, without a complete eye or kidney present to begin with, would not serve a purpose, and, according to evolution, would not have developed, or would have been useless biologically, therefore not being carried on to successive generations.
5. In the "theory of cosmological natural selection," which predicts that the parameters of physics are fine-tuned to produce many black holes, which is the case in our universe, as we see by its great chemical and astrophysical complexity. It turns out that a universe that makes many stars, and hence many black holes, is also filled with the oxygen and carbon needed for life, yet, the chance that the roughly 30 numbers"including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces"that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it, are finely tuned to a perfection which baffles even the worlds brightest minds. Simply put, if one number was even slightly different, stars would not even exist. If stars and black holes cannot exist without the values of so many numbers being perfectly precise, then creation is in fact a miracle, only to those who disbelieve in the possibility of an intelligent engineer.
6. We should be able to find intermediate species for many species, for any given point in time, if traditional views of evolution were true. For example. We should be able to line up fossil records for each species, from their most basic forms, to their current forms as the rule, not the exception. After 150 years of geological exploration with concern to evolution, this is still not the case.
7. Intermediate species should abound around us, from many species, giving a much more diversified life even in the present.
8. Fossil records show nearly identical species from millions of years ago which still exist today, such as dragon flies, in which the only notable difference is size, indicating an environment richer in Oxygen, while somehow dodging the other processes of evolution for millions of years.

Conclusion. While adaptation to environment is noted in many species on the planet, it is still conjecture to come to any solid conclusion concerning the overall validity of the modern perception of evolution, and it ignores the complexity of creation not only in individual organs in biological life forms, but even so far back as to the beginning of the universe itself.
Debate Round No. 1
Spud

Pro

Surprisingly enough, I don't have a problem with your definitions, so we can move right on forward.

Cosmic rays can damage DNA, that is correct, but mutations are not solely reliant on damage caused due to sun exposure; blue eyes are a mutation for instance; mutations can be caused due to a variety of circumstances; I'm not entirely sure why you are bringing up the sun in this argument. I will touch on your use of the word, "randomness" further on in this discussion.

Before we move onto the arguments phase, it unfortunately needs to be brought up that Con frivolously disregarded the rules of this debate, despite accepting this debate with the rules clearly stated in the first round. I stipulated that a maximum of 3 arguments were to be presented and yet, Con made 8 arguments in his list. I flat out refuse to be gish galloped, so I presented an olive branch to Con and allowed him to pick which 3 arguments he wanted to present. Con picked 3, 4 & 5 for me to respond to. I refused to even touch on point 5, since that has absolutely no relevance to this discussion which pertain to biology; point no. 5 is an argument which belongs to completely different fields, so that point will not be brought up in a discussion regarding biological evolution. Con still has not offered an alternative point to 5, so I will be responding to points 1,3 & 4 as a result.

Point 1) This is the point where I will bring up the "randomness" issue. There is a certain amount of chance when discussing the theory of evolution; that is why we use punnet squares to determine the chance of offspring acquiring a specific genotype for instance. However there is a difference between evolutionary process incorporating the chance of something occurring and that process being random.

Chance: (4a): "The possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome " [1]

Random: "Without definite aim, direction, rule, or method " [2] The evolutionary process doesn't have a specific aim, that is true, but there is most certainly a method to it, so it being random is not applicable.

To be honest, I was hoping to avoid this sort of nonsense. I don't like toing and froing over what words mean, unless absolutely necessary (i.e setting up definitions for the purpose of a debate, like we started off here). I would rather not have a debate where an entire refutation to a point is made up of this going over what words mean, and their applicability to a topic. It's mind-numbingly boring to be honest. But, because you didn't give me an alternative to point 5, this is the point I have to respond to. The fact that you have misconceptions about how evolution occurs, does not invalidate a century and a half worth of research in a field.

Point 3) To be fair, this argument wasn't as atrocious as the previous one, but it still isn't a very good argument. Because droughts are so frequent, there are of course gaps in our records, and especially as drought indexes are a fairly recent phenomena, knowing when and where a drought took place, can be fickle. However, that does not mean to state that we cannot know that droughts have occurred in the past [3]. That link explains how extreme droughts explain the pattern of a settlement being occupied, abandoned, and then re-colonised and it also goes over how they arrived at that conclusion. Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly. If you want to state that that's what happened, you need to provide evidence. It is in fact possible to know that a drought took place in the past; find evidence supporting this. Until you can do this, this point of yours is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Point 4) An argument from complexity; one of the more baseless and insufferable arguments I come across from creationists time and time again. What Con fails to realise is that many differing categories of eyes exist; the stigma, ocellus (which are two eyespots together - eyespots are also referred to as the aforementioned stigma) compound eyes, Cephalopod eyes etc. To exacerbate the problem, even the most basic of Wikipedia [4] searches on the evolution of the eye vindicates that yes, this most certainly did take place and there's even a diagram [5] which shows how evolution of the eye could have taken place, despite it being "too complex" apparently. From eyespots to our pupils, all those eyes are not half-formed. The same is in regards to kidneys as well. Pointing to a part of an organism, and then labelling it too "complex" to evolve, does not even come near a competent refutation.

Thus far, the 3 points brought up in this discourse, have been incredible easy to refute.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
xxmanguyxx

Con

You state
Point 1) This is the point where I will bring up the "randomness" issue. There is a certain amount of chance when discussing the theory of evolution; that is why we use punnet squares to determine the chance of offspring acquiring a specific genotype for instance. However there is a difference between evolutionary process incorporating the chance of something occurring and that process being random.
Rebuttal:
Randomness concerning genotype, is the natural order of things, as coded in organisms DNA, and required by the biological process of reproduction, as are the expression of those genes, and phenotypes. This is a completely different subject, than the non pre-existing biological data, especially with specific concern to evolution out of species. " DNA mutations which are acquired rather than inherited, such as cancer mutations, are not part of the individual's genotype; hence, scientists and physicians sometimes talk for example about the (geno)type of a particular cancer, that is the genotype of the disease as distinct from the diseased." https://en.wikipedia.org...
The specificity of the organization and interaction DNA, its processes and parts is composed of, is so spot on, we can map it as if it were a language unto itself, and some people do argue this point. If a computer programs html, or, other code, is off by even a single letter, or mark of punctuation, the entire program ceases to work. This is in fact a truth about computer coding, which is eerily similar to what we see when the DNA code is affected by things which disrupt it, such as handicaps, and diseases like cancer as I described earlier, the outcome being death or improper function, rather than improvement, and further supports entropy, leading to disorder, not finely tuned perfection such as we see reflected in life.
2. You state: Because droughts are so frequent, there are of course gaps in our records, and especially as drought indexes are a fairly recent phenomena, knowing when and where a drought took place, can be fickle. However, that does not mean to state that we cannot know that droughts have occurred in the past.

This statement shows that.. Yes, the reliability of information concerning climate on species is very limited, and even knowing when and where certain climate changes occurred can be fickle at best.. For instance, a drought which could kill off many within a species, can be as short as only a few months, which makes reliable analysis of changes within species from hundreds or even thousands or millions of years ago impossible.

3. You state: Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly.

Rebuttal: This article, shows that you are simply wrong. https://ncse.com...
This article shows the findings of continued observance of Dawins Finches, in much more recent times, and specifically speaks to droughts effects on the population.

4. You state: "What Con fails to realize is that many differing categories of eyes exist.."

Rebuttal: This has no bearing on the argument of the complexity, of each different type of eye. Even Darwin stated, ""To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Also, no progression of eye designs from simple to complex have been produced in the fossil world, however, "Although the "Cambrian animals were not the same species as exist today " nearly all the modern phyla had rapidly come into existence, fully equipped with eyes as far as can be told from the fossils" and during the Cambrian explosion.." http://creation.com... In other words, evidence points to the conclusion that though there are different types of eyes within different species, the eye itself was fully functional in all its complexity, at its inception.
Debate Round No. 2
Spud

Pro

1)And of course, Con brings up "coding" in DNA. As if his arguments didn't already have enough creationist cliche's already. DNA is not "coded" into organisms. The below are lines of code

public double computePayment(
double loanAmt,
double rate,
double futureValue,
int numPeriods) {
double interest = rate / 100.0;
double partial1 = Math.pow((1 + interest),
- numPeriods);
double denominator = (1 - partial1) / interest;
double answer = (-loanAmt / denominator)
- ((futureValue * partial1) / denominator);
return answer;
}

Above taken from Source [1].

There is no code in DNA with the equivalent of stop(); in Java, or to put it more generally, there is not lines of code written into DNA. DNA is merely a sequence of molecules which react in certain ways under set conditions. What we use to *describe* DNA is of course the DNA bases; A, C, G & T. Just because we use these letters to describe DNA, that does not mean that DNA itself intrinsically contains code. You'd do well to actually spend a bit of time in Notepad C++. Heck, even if it's looking over the code lines for Minecraft shader-packs of all things, you'd at least know the difference between lines of code and our interpretation of molecules reacting to specific circumstances.

2) Well, you screwed yourself here. Again. You're obviously trying to extend the observed effects of the 1977 drought to past events.

"The Grants study Darwin's finches, the birds that Darwin himself collected on his visit to the Galapagos Islands. The ancestors of these 13 species arrived on the islands approximately 3 million years ago according the studies on their DNA... The birds then rapidly diversified into many different forms, adapting to the many different opportunities the islands offered for finding food."

If you want to claim that evolution did not happen because of droughts, you need to present evidence of such droughts.

Great quote-mine of Darwin by the way. Real classy. If you actually read the Origin of Species (and let's face it; there's no way on Earth you've actually read it), you wouldn't have quote-mined. So let's take a look at the *actual* quote, shall we?

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." [2]

I am using the First British Edition of the Origin of Species which was published in 1859. You can find the entire quote on pg. 186-187.
What's next on the list of creationist to-do-list? Going to quote-mine Darwin about complex organs? Or are you next going to try and throw him under the bus for his use of higher races in the Origin of Species? Take this as a caveat the next time you want to try and get your information from Creation.com. Next time, at least have the dignity to read the actual source you're quoting, and not just regurgitate whatever some creationist hack of a website has to state on the matter.

4) No, actually it does have a bearing on your "argument." These differing categories of eyes form up an evolutionary pathway which can be traced back [3]. That journal goes over how early organisms evolved photoreceptors --> image forming eyes formed in Cambrian Explosion --> ospins --> eye-cup --> development of retina etc. and this is specifically talking about the evolution of eyes in vertebrates. As for the Cambrian Explosion, you'd do well to realise that soft-bodied organisms don't fossilise nearly as well as hard-bodied organisms. Hint: hard bodied organisms are prolific in the Cambrian Explosion. Riddle me that now why don't you.

Also, that journal quoted the exact same passage from Darwin that I gave lol. And funnily enough, they didn't quote-mine him. Because you know. That's dishonest an all that. Whereas I've actually given evidence to support my position, you've conflated DNA with being made up of code, you've performed a non-sequitur by attempting to imply that just because a drought had an influence of finches prior to that of the 1977 drought, that means that evolution didn't take place in the past, you quote-mined Darwin and the reason why I brought up those different categories of eyes, went completely over your head.

Also, if you're going to cite Creation.com as a source, please give me a trigger warning next time. Otherwise, I might reach for a bottle of cyanide to drown my sorrows <-- Yes, that's a joke. What I'm getting at is this: don't use Creation.com as a reputable source; don't use any other YEC hack of a website for that matter as well. If you do, you are easy pickings for people who have been debating this for a while. You use Creation.com as a reputable source, you are simply asking for your opponent to have a field day with you.

Sources:
[1] https://docs.oracle.com...
[2] http://darwin-online.org.uk...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
xxmanguyxx

Con

You state: 1)And of course, Con brings up "coding" in DNA. As if his arguments didn't already have enough creationist cliche's already. DNA is not "coded" into organisms. The below are lines of code.."
Whereupon you show examples of a form of code. Code, which is by its nature, sequences of data, which are able to be written and stored, read and understood. However, one code, can be very different from another. I will use YOUR example as one type of code. Another is language. It can be written, understood by others, and then even conveyed into words, a completely different code based on sound waves and frequency. Also music. Its so perfectly coded that musicians of today are able to play the great works of Wolfgang Mozart perfectly to the T. Not just the notes themselves, but the intricacies of timing and volume level, all from the written code of a sheet of music. Forms of language, able to transverse from lifeless ink on paper, into 3d sound waves in our lives. I wonder what else can be coded in 3d besides sound waves? Apparently, DNA is so perfectly sequenced, at least one company even offers scarves for sale, which have the precise coding of your DNA in a beautiful pattern.
http://www.livescience.com...
But, how would one derive a pattern from DNA? "A DNA sequencer is a scientific instrument used to automate the DNA sequencing process. Given a sample of DNA, a DNA sequencer is used to determine the order of the four bases: G (guanine), C (cytosine), A (adenine) and T (thymine). This is then reported as a text string, called a read. Some DNA sequencers can be also considered optical instruments as they analyze light signals originating from fluorochromes attached to nucleotides." https://en.wikipedia.org...
So here we have the beginnings of our ability to translate a chemical language from one form to another. Decipherable in text, math, even light, and, realized in our world, as the 3d things all around us which we call life. The perfect organization of every cell, and nervous system in all its complexity.. the information for the design and development of the brain, such a complex thing in itself we are only beginning to understand it. All of this of course, once mapped, will someday all be able to translate into electricity, and manifest itself through 1s and 0s on a computer screen as a complex code. And I suppose this brings us to the question of rather men created math, or only discovered it, if math is already an inherent part of the universe. Your small mind, only able to see the here and now, the facts, the data, the spreadsheets.. has no sense of greater vision, or depth of thought. A lesser developed mind only able to manipulate concepts for the purpose of achieving some practical end. The chimpanzee-- who puts the two sticks together in order to get at the banana, has intelligence, something you have in common, yet does he have reason, attempts to understand more deeply than whats on the surface? How deeply do you consider the facts right before your eyes, or, is it possible that reason is also on a bell curve such as intelligence, the short sighted on the lower end of that spectrum?

Again, I quote your statement: Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly.

Again, I give you the same source..
https://ncse.com...
If your reading comprehension is poor, and that's why you ignored this, I can explain it to you, however, assuming your intelligence, I will copy and paste directly from the pdf, so you can easily read why you are wrong.
"The Grants" team has found that beak size is heritable. Roughly 65 percent of
the phenotypic variance in beak length, and as much as 90 percent of the variance in
beak depth, is attributable to additive genetic effects of alleles (h2=0.65 and 0.90,
respectively; Boag 1983, Grant and Grant 1993). In other words, big-beaked birds tend
to produce chicks with big beaks, and small-beaked birds tend to produce chicks with
small beaks." "The Grants found that the size of a finch"s beak
could make the difference between life and death. In
1977, Daphne Major was hit by a major drought. Most of
the spurge plants died, leaving the medium ground finches without any small seeds
to eat. Many of the birds died, most likely because they couldn"t crack open the big
seeds from caltrop. The Grants discovered that within a few years, the population of
finches had recovered. But now the average size of their beaks was deeper."

Next, you bring up my Darwin quote, which you post:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
Again, I would ask you to Highlight brightly in your Origin of Species copy, Darwins first sentence.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

You State:
That journal goes over how early organisms evolved photoreceptors --> image forming eyes formed in Cambrian Explosion --> ospins --> eye-cup --> development of retina etc. and this is specifically talking about the evolution of eyes in vertebrates.
A more correct statement would be: "That journal "PRESUMES" how early organisms evolved photoreceptors.."
Every step has still not been found for even one species of life on the planet. If you disagree, Link. Even if you can find one example, its one in 8.7 million different species on the planet, minus ones without eyes of course. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Yes, I understand that soft bodied fossils are presumably more difficult to find due to the process of fossilization, however, the burden of proof lays on you, and as of now, an unproven scientific idea which is currently still theory.
You also downplay the complexity of the eye and its individual components, all the way down to the cone cells at the microscopic level. Your example of "Ospins-->eye cup--> development of retina ect." is so juvenile in understanding Darwins probably rolling over in his own grave.

Most of your debate, as an obvious belittling egotist, is more indicative of you suffering the Dunning-Kruger Effect, than you having any true depth of thought. This is ok though, as everything in the universe is fine tuned to perfection, and the top of the bell curve will always exist to create and innovate around intellectual monkeys, via depth of reason. Interestingly enough, In his book, "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking describes how the universe could not exist without quantum gravity, and that quantum gravity cannot be possible without a timeless wave function of the universe which enables spontaneous creation. This, self collapsing wave function mathematically, is the same thing which happens in our minds when we think. Is the spontaneous creation of the universe into instant perfection, by atomic weights so perfect that if one was even slightly off, that stars would not even exist, due to an intangible mathematical principle, whos only other similar wave function defines the actions of consciousness? If so would this master equation Hawking plotted mean that EVERYTHING in nature stems from mathematical equation? Translation from one language to another, the code of the mathematics of the universe giving rise to stars and planets, and then the life on them as well. Perhaps well never know, but, to keep an open mind, to not wholly subscribe to the most popular theory, because you know, deep down, it is only one theory of many, is to truly do justice to science, the most noble search for truth ever endeavored by man. The chances of our earth forming to support life may have been 1 in a billion, I'm sure with your intellect you can find the exact number, a number so high it violates the Law of probability multiple times over, yet, we exist, mathematically and physically so. In an alternate universe their scientists would look at that data and say, no, thats so unlikely it would never happen, yet this miracle did happen. Think on that over your tea and crumpets. The biggest question on my mind now though, is, Are you triggered?
Debate Round No. 3
Spud

Pro

Until you can provide a credible, scientific journal with a decent amount of citations which goes over why DNA intrinsically contains code, you have no argument. No, LiveScience isn't credible either. I"ve told you that DNA is simply reacting molecules and our way of interpreting that these, is simply that; an interpretation. DNA does not intrinsically contain code, and until you can give competent evidence for this, you are running out of fumes. The only times you will see DNA being referred to as "code" is in tutorials to the subject, lay sources and of course, creationist pseudo-science. Lay sources are good for an introduction to the topic, or a general background info, but if you want to delve deeper, you need to give good sources.

If you want to extrapolate from that drought on the Daphne Major and state that evolution didn't happen because of droughts all around the world (which you are implying), you need evidence for this extrapolation. I will not repeat myself again.

In regards to the Darwin quote-mine you committed, I find it odd how you think that simply regurgitating the same brutalization of said quote, is any competent rebuttal at all. You sourced this from Creation.com, and as a result you screwed yourself. I will copy and paste the rest of the quote (again, which you oh so conveniently left out).

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

As can be seen in that part of the quote, which you left out, Darwin then goes on to describe how the difficulty of explaining the complexity of the eye, can hardly be seen real when gradations occur. You have not read the Origin of Species, obviously since if you had, you would realise that Darwin constantly makes these sorts of rhetorical statements throughout his work. In order to make your arguments seem "robust," you have to resort to cutting out relevant context from a person's work which is widely renowned; and that's just dishonest. Like I said before, if you are going to quote something, make sure you read the actual work you are quoting from, and not from a creationist hack of a website. Otherwise, you find yourself in the position that you are now. You've been caught out quote-mining, and the best you have to offer as a "refutation" is repeating your same, debunked quote-mine. Honestly, if I didn't find your wilful ignorance so saddening, I probably would have burst out laughing by your sad attempt to try and justify this. Being ignorant is one thing, but refusing to admit that you are in fact wrong on this, is not meritorious.

No-one is stating that every step has been found, nor will it ever be. We do not need to find every missing link to know that evolution has taken place. That's an absolutely impossible standard to set anyways. It's a simplified version of how eyes progressed, yes, but it does eviscerate your "argument" from complexity. Whilst all you have done here is scream to the rooftops about how complex the eyes are, I've actually given evidence to support the claim that this was a gradation.

"That journal "PRESUMES" how early organisms evolved photoreceptors.." You need to give evidence of that assertion.

As for your claim that I have the burden of proof that hard bodied organisms fossilize better than soft-bodied organisms, that is correct. Don't know why this needs to be covered as it's so basic, but feel free to read below quote;

"The lack of hard parts in Soft-bodied organisms makes them extremely rare in the fossil record. Accordingly, the evolutionary history of many of the soft-bodied groups are poorly known. The first major find of fossil soft-bodied animals was from the Burgess Shale in Canada. Today, several sites with Burgess Shale type preservation are known, but the history of many groups of soft-bodied animals is still poorly understood" [1]

I would like to point out that Con is trying to derail the topic of this debate. As I have told Con in the comments, we are discussing evolution; not star formation, not black holes, and most certainly not the universe. Because these subjects are entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, there will not be discourse around cosmogony or astrophysics for that matter either. I would also like to point out that whilst Con has been domineering and bumptious, I have refrained from lowering myself to such egregious displays.

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
xxmanguyxx

Con

I was hoping your reply would have some kind of substance and bump it up a notch, but, I can see you have nothing.

You briefly mention code again, ignoring my last response. Futher refusing to accept that a code is something which can be written, understood by others, and reproduced, of which DNA has all these properties.
You refuse the scientific data concerning the droughts on Daphne Major effecting the life of that eco system, despite it being right in front of you.. You repost Darwins quote, yet again, which has been posted several times, running it into the ground screaming all the while. You provide no more detailed evidence of the evolution of the eye other than the amateur sputtle I already called out for its lack of complexity, and not even attempting to explain the cone cells I mentioned, which truly, are only one of many inconsistencies with the evolution of the eye and reducible complexity. You state that finding evidence of the evolution of the eye is an impossible standard, yet cling to the idea that it evolved, directly after stating that "I" need to give evidence that photoreceptors evolution is a presumption, despite your admission of it being an impossible standard, (evidence of your lack of comprehension.) You still cannot give a compete record of the evolution of even one species out of 8.7 million to choose from, yet feel a need to to put your full faith in evolution despite 8.7 million failures. This isn't a debate of politeness, you clarified that in your initial post in which you threaten to eviscerate your opponent, yet when you begin to feel yourself losing traction you try to play the blame game and frame me as the rude one. A weak mind certainly. When you ask for a battle dont act like a lily when someone brings it. You seek sympathy when what you really need is conclusive arguments. Try again. My stances are still defined, and your evidence is still lacking.
Debate Round No. 4
Spud

Pro

So, you refuse to cite a credible, scientific journal backing you up on this code nonsense. Surprise, surprise.
Nowhere did I refuse to accept the Dahpne Major flood and its effect; it's obvious that you are trying to extend this specific example to the past; and you need evidence of this. And surprise, surprise, you have not given any evidence to back up your implication.

Yes, you quote-minded Darwin. Unlike you, I quoted the whole passage of what Darwin actually stated, and that passage I quoted gave context to Darwins' quote, because you know. I don't quote-mine people. Because that's dishonest.

I have given you a basic rundown of the evolution of the eyes, and your entire argument is to scream that eyes are complex. Whilst I have given a credible journal to back up the evolution of the eyes, as well as Wikipedia, which does a much more general run-down of the issue, the best you have to offer is to state that the eye is complex. I don't think I need to state which one of us has the better argument here; it's self-evident.

"This isn't a debate of politeness, you clarified that in your initial post in which you threaten to eviscerate your opponent, yet when you begin to feel yourself losing traction you try to play the blame game and frame me as the rude one. "

So I bring you up on your quote-mine about Darwin, and for some weird reason, you thought it would be a good idea to... Paraphrase-mine me? You just made up a new logical fallacy. Congratulations, you've just stooped to a whole new level of ineptitude.

Let's take a look at what I *actually* stated, shall we?

"If you want to make a case for a different definition for evolution, go for it, but know that if you use "kinds" to classify populations of organisms in your definition of evolution, I will have no choice but to completely eviscerate your definition from the top down, thus showcasing it for being utterly void of any scientific applicability and therefore rendering it useless."

I did not state that I would eviscerate my opponent in the original post. I said that I would eviscerate my opponents' *definition* if they thought that defining differing populations of organisms as "kinds" would be a good idea. Nowhere in that did I state that I would eviscerate my opponent. Let's take another look at a quote I made, shall we?

"No-one is stating that every step has been found, nor will it ever be. We do not need to find every missing link to know that evolution has taken place. That's an absolutely impossible standard to set anyways. It's a simplified version of how eyes progressed, yes, but it does eviscerate your "argument" from complexity. Whilst all you have done here is scream to the rooftops about how complex the eyes are, I've actually given evidence to support the claim that this was a gradation."

I stated here that I eviscerated your *argument from complexity.* Nowhere have I ever stated that I would eviscerate a person, because for starters I'm not a psychopath. Not only that, people can look through the comments of this debate and see that you called me a coward for refusing to let you gish gallop all over me; if you want to go on about who's been rude, it's plainly obvious that the only person who has been bumptious throughout the entirety of this discourse, is you - you were the one who was first to use insults. Alas though, judging by your refusal to admit culpability for your Darwin quote-mine, and on top of that, you attempt to drag my name through the mud by claiming that I will eviscerate people (which is an absolutely laughable claim), I am calling it as it is; you are a habitual fabulist.

Throughout the entirety of our discussions, your mannerisms have been egregious, your debating "tactics" have been utterly deplorable, your arguments have been pitiful, you have refused to give me competent scientific journals on an issue when asked and you have been disingenuous in the extreme. I find myself ending this debate on a rather sad note - as is common with many creationists, you're arrogant, dishonest and you seem to lack self-awareness. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
xxmanguyxx

Con

For our final round I will respond point by point.

1. You refuse to acknowledge DNA as code, or even any similarities. As I previously stated, a code is simply, sequences of data, which are able to be written and stored, read and understood. I used the example of code you provided as one type of code, and I also offered music, a written code so precise, it can not only be read with the eyes, but reproduced perfectly to the T, including not only the notes, but the intricacies of timing and volume level as well. I brought to light that once heard with the ear, this code is no longer just symbols on paper, but is now a code of frequency, which can also be recorded, and perfectly reproduced.
I will give you some examples of how DNA is a code, according to scientists.
"The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides. These triplets are called codons."
http://www.biology-pages.info...
"The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells." https://en.wikipedia.org...
"Translation is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA, using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time."
https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The code defines how sequences of nucleotide triplets, called codons, specify which amino acid will be added next during protein synthesis." https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The DNA code contains instructions needed to make the proteins and molecules essential for our growth, development and health." http://www.yourgenome.org...
Decoding messages is also a key step in gene expression, in which information from a gene is read out to build a protein. In this article, we'll take a closer look at the genetic code, which allows DNA and RNA sequences to be "decoded" into the amino acids of a protein. https://www.khanacademy.org...
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism. The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, 1998
"The Information in DNA Determines Cellular Function via Translation" http://www.nature.com...
These articles which you requested, prove that you are simply wrong, anyone can see this except apparently, you. DNA is in fact, a complex genetic code.

2. You state: Nowhere did I refuse to accept the Dahpne Major flood and its effect; it's obvious that you are trying to extend this specific example to the past; and you need evidence of this.
I already called you out on this by copying your previous statement, and I will do so again. Here is your quote, yet once again, for everyone to see.
"Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly."
And yet again, Ill run this into the ground with the evidence you are wrong since you refuse to concede to your mistake.

"The Grants" team has found that beak size is heritable. Roughly 65 percent of
the phenotypic variance in beak length, and as much as 90 percent of the variance in
beak depth, is attributable to additive genetic effects of alleles (h2=0.65 and 0.90,
respectively; Boag 1983, Grant and Grant 1993). In other words, big-beaked birds tend
to produce chicks with big beaks, and small-beaked birds tend to produce chicks with
small beaks." "The Grants found that the size of a finch"s beak
could make the difference between life and death. In
1977, Daphne Major was hit by a major drought. Most of
the spurge plants died, leaving the medium ground finches without any small seeds
to eat. Many of the birds died, most likely because they couldn"t crack open the big
seeds from caltrop. The Grants discovered that within a few years, the population of
finches had recovered. But now the average size of their beaks was deeper."

Concerning Eyes. You recall yet again, the overall idea of how it is presumed to be possible, yet ignore the lack of complexity of the argument, still not addressing the formation of cone cells and other parts of the eye which function together, and would have no way to have developed on their own, as they are integral to individual complex systems within the eye, Meaning, entire systems within the eye would not have functioned unless they came into existence at the same time, as opposed to evolving slowly. This is important because as Darwin states.. ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

You state: "We do not need to find every missing link to know that evolution has taken place."
I would remind you that you have not found even one full evolution of a species in all of the 8.7 million species on Earth.
You may not "feel" you have to find every missing link, but to those of us who want solid evidence, its quite disturbing that you cannot even find one, on the entire planet, in 150 years of searching.

I would also remind you that morphs within species are documented, and that ADAPTATION to environment based on genetic code is evidenced all around us, yet, this is different from the conclusions brought on by traditional views of evolution.

I have made a case, as has science, that DNA is in fact, a code.
I have made the case that it is impossible to understand how sever climate changes could effect species as we have simply not done enough research into the subject. However, the research I did provide clearly shows that the results of many within a species being killed off by environmental factors could be misconstrued as genetic evolution. As I evidenced above with the birds on Daphne Major.
I offered to evidence, that the Cambrian Explosion offers the first fossils of eyes, and that these eyes are already complex, having shown no evidence of prior versions of the eyes evolution in any prior fossil record. My opponent holds that this is because the soft bodied organisms did not fossilize well. While this may be so, it may also NOT be so, there is no evidence of it, so, who is being more true to science? I would also argue that my opponent may well be very wrong about the fossilization of such organisms. For example, there are many many examples of soft bodied fossilization. This link from Berkeley will show you fossilized Cyanobacteria http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
You focus on a quote from a book which should be common knowledge and easily referenced in a conversation concerning Evolution, stating that I "quote-mined" it. A term Ive never heard, pardon my lack of debate experience. However, My concern was not the rest of his conclusion, as I know, and you know, and everyone knows what darwins conclusions on evolution were. My concern are Darwins own thoughts concerning what would debunk his theory, as he was truly a man of science who was seeking the truth, not just wanting to scam people into belief of a theory just because he created it. The first sentence of his statement did that for me, so I used it, so what? Are you concluding that we should disregard certain thoughts of Darwin when they dont suit your unreasonable faith in evolution? That is nonsense, and again, trying to frame me as dishonest due to your own lack of clarity.
The only thing that I believe you are one hundred percent correct on, is when you admit "I find myself ending this debate on a rather sad note.." Now, there's a quote mine for you buddy.

In conclusion, I feel I have decimated my opponent in every aspect of this argument. His hate for creationists is obvious, and blinds him to common questions even bright scientific minds acknowledge concerning evolution. I did not even state that I was a creationist, it was his assumption because that happened to be the site I grabbed Darwin's quote from. Im not going to dwell on the petty though. On every topic of importance to the argument, he failed to combat my stance effectively. For anyone who takes the time to read our debate, thank you for your time! It means a lot. Please remember to be non bias as possible whatever your stance. The judging is on our debate, not prior knowledge gleaned from elsewhere, so, in that vein, dont vote for me just because you believe in God, and dont vote for him just because your an Atheist, I only ask that you judge us based on the merit of our debate, and the information therein. Thank you! Fair winds and following seas my friends!
Debate Round No. 5
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@xxmanguyxx You don't prove anything in science; proof belongs in mathematics. Evidence is what is discussed in science, not proof. I could have sworn that we've already discussed this.

As for your comment regarding this, I do not care. I literally do not care about this, because we are not discussing abiogenesis. We are discussing evolution. We are not discussing monomers and polymers, we are discussing the change of allele frequencies over successive generations. Goddamn, is it so hard for you guys to keep to one subject? You did this to me xxmanguyxx, when you wanted to talk about stars and blackholes and now you're doing it again by following up on FollowerofChrist1955's rebarbative tripe. Evolution =/= abiogenesis! Find someone else who wants to discuss abiogenesis, because I don't care about it in this discussion.
Posted by xxmanguyxx 1 year ago
xxmanguyxx
Even if they did manage to create life in a laboratory someday, it would only be in perfect laboratory conditions with intelligent minds organizing the experiment, thereby proving nothing.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@FollowerofChrist1955 You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis, you complete and utter pillock.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Spud-nuts
Blah, blah, blah, facts Spud-nuts give me ONE evolutionary FACT.
What sentient creature can you show actually evolved from inorganic to higher life (sentient) .
What bacteria jumped to sentient life? Because that's what you are ... sentient, that's what flies are, sentient, that's what snails are sentient, that's what birds, whales, snakes, mice all life is sentient.
Name it spud-nuts or admit your stupid. Fooled completely by false ideology.

No more talk. I just gave you A FACT, no evolutionary experiment EVER created sentient life from inorganic matter, or from nothing to sentient Life ..... FACT. Disprove that fact spud-nuts, not with talk ... with evidence. Not theories, hypothesis, conjecture. Mine are facts, not opinion, prove them wrong by evidence, show us the sentient life created during evolutionary experimentation at any time between Darwin and Today's scientific evidence data. Facts, not hypothesis, suggestions are not facts spud-nuts. Put up or admit defeat! Admit your WRONG evolution is false.

I'll go one further, show even in a lab experiment where sentience was created from nothing or from a bacteria, microbe.

Doesn't exist cause all sentient life MUST COME from egg.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@FollowerofChrist1955 You haven't posted any facts at all. All you've done is showcase your ridiculous incompetence at this subject. No fault of mine that you have the mental capacity of a sparrow when it comes to discussions pertaining to evolutionary theory. Your questions are imbecilic, malformed and do nothing but highlight the fact that you don't understand Jack about the theory you are deriding.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Blah, blah, blah, can you answer the questions or not spud nuts?

You people jump all around the questions, making up all kinds of allegations NEVER posting a single fact, just thoughts, imaginings.

That's precisely how you got fooled yourself, you let them spoof you with big words that lead all the way BACK to opinions, impressions, but ZERO facts. Why in the world would I debate someone who never uses facts, just ideas? Opinions conjectures.

My questions ARE facts, which is "Why" you cannot answer them. So save it. Answer the questions or admit you can't and submit your wrong entirely with regard to the false system known as Evolution!
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@FollowerofChrist - Previous comment towards you got cut short.

This is way too much for you to respond to in a comment - therefore I suggest a debate between you and I to be set up.*
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@FollowerofChrist Your first definition is a complete copy and paste from a 5 second Google search

"Kinds" is not a thing in biological taxonomy, which has been a thing for nigh on 3 centuries when Systema Natur" was published in 1735. If you use Linnean taxonomy (which consists of Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus & species), that would be acceptable in a lay discussion. There are of course other classifications such as There are Subphylum, Class, Infraclass, Cohort, Magnorder, Superorder, Suborder, Parvorder, Superfamily, Subfamily etc."Kinds" is not an acceptable term to use for numerous reasons. You want to be nearly 3 centuries behind the scientific consensus, that's on you, but I and many others, do not hold by such stances.

Your second definition is far too vague for it to have any competent applicability whatsoever, since a person can define what is classified as "complex" on the fly. We see this all the time with creatards with their idiotic Intelligent Design nonsense. Not only that, your second definition is merely a symptom of evolutionary progression, not what evolution actually is.

I gave a good definition of evolution in the first round of this debate, and not only that I also warned against using "kinds" to define evolution. Instead of copying and pasting irrelevant shite on debate comments, you might actually want to read the debates.

If you can't be bothered to take this subject seriously, do not have the effrontery to call others stupid. It's better to be an arrogant, knowledgeable bastard, rather than an ignorant and arrogant bastard. Keep that in mind before you decide to run your mouth on things you clearly have a superficial understanding of. Like xxmanguyxx, you are way out of your depth and you have no place making insults. When you can form a competent argument, then you can get away with insulting the other side; not before.

This is way too much for you to respond to in a comment - therefore I suggest a d
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@xxmanguyxx This is from the guy who blatantly quote-mined Darwin twice. Get stuffed mate.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Spud;
Why do you whine, because you've no clue WHAT evolution means, you claim adaptation as evolution, nothing could be further from the truth. Speak in facts or stay quiet.

ev"o"lu"tion
G6;ev&#601;G2;loV2;oSH(&#601;)n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms:development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More

No proof whatever .... and your too stupid to know it! Answer the questions or be silent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
SpudxxmanguyxxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. The last line got cut off... "Due to various factors." ... I will actually say con did better than pro would say he did, were he to have stayed on topic and been better organized he could have swayed my vote.