The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

There Is Reasonable Cause To Doubt The Theory Of Common Descent

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 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,333 times Debate No: 43495
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thanks in advance to whomever accepts this debate!

First round is acceptance only.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

I will accept this debate.

I wait to hear my opponents opening argument and thanks for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will define the Theory Of Common Descent as such:

All life on earth descended from a common ancestor.”

Now I will explain why there is reasonable cause to doubt this. Here we go!

First, it's not proven. If something isn't proven, then there is reasonable cause to doubt it.

Second, no single celled organism has ever been observed evolving into a multi-cellular organism. Even though an evolution experiment involving mind-boggling numbers of bacteria has been underway for over two decades, and is past the 50,000th generation, not a single cell has evolved into a double-celled creature.(1)

All results derived from this experiment prove that life can create beneficial mutations. It doesn't prove that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single-celled organisms.

A typical excuse from Common Descent proponents is a lack of time, but this is irrelevant to this particular case because they have artificially sped up time by orders of magnitude and have yet to produce a single double-celled bacteria from it.

Thirdly, bananas share 50% of their DNA with humans.(2) To claim that this means bananas evolved from humans would be silly. All this proves is that humans are half as delicious as bananas.(3)


Fourth, the Bible is clear that God formed man of the dust of the ground, not of bacteria.(4)

Fifth, if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around today?(5)

Good question...

Sixth, The Theory Of Common Descent is unfalsifiable. When a life form is found to have no other very similar life form, proponents of Common Descent just assume that there are “missing links,” instead of admitting that this is evidence against Common Descent.

Seventh, Trilobites. If Common Descent were true, than Trilobites would have evolved from a similar, but less complex, organism. However, after 200 years of searching we are yet to find any multi-cellular ancestor of Trilobites. According to Stefan Bengston, Professor of Palaeozoology: (the study of fossil animals)

  • "If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukariotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."(6)

In his book, The Neck Of The Girraffe, Francis Hitching elaborates:

  • The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser.”(7)

Eigth, Chimpanzees. It was once thought that we were closely related to them; however, new findings show this isn't the case. According to Todd Preuss, Ph.D, of Yerkes National Primate Research Center:

  • It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical”(8)(emphasis mine)

Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D, goes into more detail:

  • [Between humans and chimpanzees, the] amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.(9)(emphasis mine)

Ninth, Natural Selection can't afford to maintain mutations past a certain point. Any organism that mutates too much will be driven to extinction through the accumulation of a lethal amount of slightly detrimental mutations. Most mutations are negative. However, they are only slightly negative (10), so Natural Selection can't beat them using tricks like Sickle-Cell Anemia.

No positive mutation which would outweigh the effects from a few slightly detrimental mutations would be capable of being selected for. This is because of “Genetic Linking.” Genes huddle together in linkage groups. You pass genes down to your children in these groups.(12) Any group in which would be the beneficial mutation to supposedly override the slightly negative ones would be passed down to the next generation in the same group, so it can't be selected for! Also, the number of slightly negative mutations in a group tend to outweigh the beneficial ones by a lot.

So slightly negative mutations like to accumulate (very negative mutations quickly kill off members of a species who have produced it, so afflicted members pose no real threat to the rest of the specie's population). As this number grows, the chance that the species becomes extinct increases exponentially. This means that Humans should have become extinct less than 20 million years after they evolved.(13) Within the time frame accepted for evolution, humans would have been driven to extinction over a 100 times!(11)

Tenth, Genetic Degradation. This is really just an expansion on the previous point, but it's looks more impressive if I have as many points as possible so please don't hate.

The genome has a very strong tendency to degrade over time, not advance. The vast majority of mutations degrade the genome. This includes both detrimental and beneficial mutations. Thus, even if beneficial mutations outnumber bad ones, the net effect is still a degradation of the genome. A solution that has been proposed is “extreme truncation.” However, it's improbable, leaving reasonable doubt. Allow me to copy & paste a large chunk of academic text packed with scientific jargon that you probably can't understand in order to demonstrate my intellectual superiority insecurity:

  • The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction. The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − eU. For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness. In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.”(14)

But seriously, read it. It's really fascinating.

Eleventh, The Minimum Gene Paradox. Did I just reach 11 points?! Not only that, I managed to use the word “paradox” for the second time! Anywho...

The Minimum Gene Paradox goes something like this:(15)

There must be a minimum number of genomes required to support life. Bacteria have the smallest number of genomes. To be more specific, a certain species of parasitic bacteria, Nanoarchaeum equitans, has the smallest genome in the world. Were Common Descent true, than genomes would have evolved into larger, more advanced genomes. This would mean that more advanced life evolved from Nano. e., but Nano. e. requires a more advanced host (Ignicoccus) to even exist! This mind-blowing paradox, if not fatal to the Theory Of Common Descent, is at least reasonable cause to doubt it.(16)


Good luck Con! =D

(1)http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

(2)http://www.mirror.co.uk...

(3)A member of the Korowai tribe of south-eastern Papua who requested that I keep his identity confidential (for obvious reasons)

(4)Genesis 2:7

(5)An ignorant creationist.

(6)Nature, vol. 345, 1990, p. 765

(7)Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27

(8)Preuss, T. M. 2012. Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:10709–10716.

(9)Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 63-69.

(10)mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/6/1007.full

(11)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

(12)http://www.cod.edu...

(13)http://journals.cambridge.org...

(14)http://www.genetics.org...

(15)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

(16)I wanted to reach 16 sources
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Firstly, let me apologize to the readers and the voters.

To my opponent I am in a state of amazement. I actually am not sure what to say, I rechecked if this was a science debate. I rechecked if it was a debate regarding holes in the Theory of common debate. Turns out I did accept the correct debate, and I am not amused. If I wanted to debate the creationism/intelligent design versus evolution I would have but this is a waste of my time.

If my opponent is serious about his topics I will have to explain the theory of evolution to him and this is far better done in another format. Is there even a point in presenting the DNA evidence for common descent when you have to contend with ridiculous arguments like why are there still monkeys?(1) I will put two links here for my opponent to read regarding DNA evidence if he wishes to.(2,3)

Now, I ask again is my opponent serious about this debate? If you are and you want these arguments to hold in a scientific debate. You have one burden of proof, prove the existence of your Biblical God. The only acceptable source will be peer reviewed accredited scientific journals after all this is the science debate section.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://humanorigins.si.edu...
(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(3) http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Firstly, let me say to you Con that I'm sorry you aren't amused. Let me just point out that you aren't alone, because the Kiwis aren't amused either:

As for your concerns regarding my knowledge of the Theory Of Evolution, I have to say that they are unfounded. Thanks to Facebook, I understand it perfectly:


Many thanks for the couple of links to talkorigins, by the way. They look very interesting and easy to understand. That is something my only partially-evolved brain desperately needs.

Am I serious about this debate? Yes, I am serious about this debate. Not too serious, though. I know a guy who would like to have a word with you...

Anyways, I'm surprised you say my only burden of proof is to prove the existence of God, because that simply isn't true. My burden of proof is only to prove that there exists reasonable cause to doubt the Theory Of Common Descent.

I'm kind of offended that you are trying to strawman me, twist my words around, and convince the voters that this debate is something totally different than what it actually is.

I'm also offended that you say only “peer reviewed accredited scientific journals” are acceptable sources, as if I had not provided SEVEN of those. You know who else is offended? The person from my 5th source:

Don't mind him, he hasn't finished evolving yet anyway.

I now hand the debate back to my opponent. Please note that every single of my arguments still stand as Con hasn't provided any rebuttals. Remember the resolution:

There is reasonable cause to doubt the Theory Of Common Descent.

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

My opponent has said that all his evidence holds and that he is not wasting my time. For this reason, I will answer the claims by reference to his comments and by looking at the sources cited. As such my rebuttals are numbered according to the sources cited by my opponent.

1) http://myxo.css.msu.edu...
Great resource which undoubtedly proves natural selection. The fact that a multicellular organism has not evolved is not the aim of this experiment, so I am not sure why this is proof that common descent is not true. Additionally, 50000 cycles is long for humans but not for prokaryotes.

Regardless, my opponent will be pleased to know that in fact single cells can move to the next step through co-operative functioning as has been shown by Ratclif et al.(1)

(2) http://www.mirror.co.uk...
Waste of time.
No one claims that bananas evolved from humans, this statement makes no sense. "To claim that this means bananas evolved from humans would be silly." Not even sure why this is here, maybe my opponent wants to clarify. This has nothing to do with the debate.

(3)A member of the Korowai tribe of south-eastern Papua who requested that I keep his identity confidential (for obvious reasons)
Waste of time.

(4)Genesis 2:7
Waste of time.
Prove god according to my statement from round 2.

(5)An ignorant creationist.
Waste of time.

(6)Nature, vol. 345, 1990, p. 765
This is a brilliant example of a creationist using a website and not bothering to actually read the relevant article. For example if my opponent had read his reference 6 he would have known that Profesor Bengston did not mention the word trilobite in the opinion piece. So this manuscript has been dishonestly used by my opponent to express a view that is not present. I ask that my opponent please clarify this deception to the voters in his response.

Regarding this nature paper maybe we should note that Professor Bengston was excited about the discovery reported (reported in the same issue of Nature) of the finding of a complete halkieriid fossil. He was excited as it helps to give a clearer picture of common descent.

(7)Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27
Waste of time.
My Opponent cites a quote from Francis Hitching. This is the same Francis Hitching who is an author of paranormal books and member of a dowsing association (i.e. he is a dowser), in other words someone who believes that supernatural powers exist.(2,3) He believes something which has never been proved so please see point 4.

Regarding evidence for trilobite evolution, a possible ancestor for the trilobites Primicaris larvaformis has been found and identified by Zhang et al. in the journal Paleontology. (4) Additionally, my opponent may wish to consider the existence of the Parvancorina fossil which is from an earlier time than the Primicaris fossil mentioned in reference 3.(5) This Parvancorina fossil is now thought to be an ancestor to the trilobites. Interestingly, this trilobite evolutionary link denied by creationists has been elaborated on by others. (6,7)

(8)Preuss, T. M. 2012. Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:10709–10716.
I am not sure what my opponent intended with this reference. He was pointing out a single sentence from the abstract of the article by Preuss in PNAS to say that humans and chimpanzees are not the same or not as closely related. I think everyone knows this, you just have to see a human and a chimpanzee together to know they are not the same. I should also add this is a statement with no proof of the claim. I will add here a link to a recent study showing that in fact this statement by my opponent is disingenuous as the data does show that 99 % of our genetic makeup is the same as Chimpanzees and Bonobos.(8,9)

What is interesting is that if my opponent had read the article he would have seen that this article is just another among the thousands that actually proves common descent. It does this by showing that various DNA mutations are responsible for human characteristics (such as speech) compared to other species.

(9)Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 63-69.
Waste of time. Not an accredited journal, and comes from a creationist perspective hence see point 4. Additionally, as I have shown above that we are genetically close to Bonobos and Chimpanzees.

(10)mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/6/1007.full
Great proof of the fact of common descent. In this paper the researchers say that the rate of evolution in humans and other species are actually underestimated. So what my opponent is claiming is proof against common descent is actually proof for common descent. The manuscript goes deeper into the reasons why the statistics calculated using the McDonald–Kreitman statistical tests are not to be trusted as they are underestimating adaptive evolution.

(11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Here my opponent is using the title of a publication to dishonestly present the views of the author. The author is not saying humans should have been extinct 100 times, the author is saying the mutation rate is high and a possible consequence of not dying out must rely on either epistatsis or soft selection.(10, 11)

(12) http://www.cod.edu...
Fantastic resource showing how epistasis works see point 11 above. Epistasis is when genes act in groups to either make a trait occur in an organism or not occur in an organism. i.e. (the genes abcdefghijklmno should be present to cause disease x, however if any 1 gene is missing then disease x is not present). What my opponent is presenting here as to much mutation killing of a species is a horribly incorrect interpretation of mutations and adaptation.

(13) http://journals.cambridge.org...
Another article which my opponent uses as proof for mutations killing species and another misinterpretation. Mullers ratchet is a theory that explains the evolution of sexual reproduction.(12) The paradox that arises from Mullers ratchet relies on a set of premises which are not happening in society. These premises are according to the paper cited by my opponent.
(i) recombination is absent,
(ii) population size is finite,
(iii) slightly deleterious mutation rates are high and
(iv) purifying selection is too weak to remove all new deleterious mutations.
If these premises are not happening in the human population then the paradoxes of Mullers ratchet are only of interest theoretically hence a theoretical paper.

(14) http://www.genetics.org...
This manuscript again deals with epistasis likely been the reason behind harmful mutations. I think my opponent needs to carefully understand epistasis to realize that one mutation does not mean death or improvement. One mutation can mean nothing if not in association with other mutations.

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Unfortunately, I could not get access to the full source for this article. But let me just state that I believe my opponents interpretation is incorrect as the abstract to this manuscript says, "These facts may lead to an ostensibly paradoxical conclusion that the size of a minimal genome is restricted by the physical size of a DNA molecule able to replicate rather, than by the amount of genetic information." This leads me to believe that the paradox has to do with gene size and not with common descent. Could my opponent elaborate on this point please, as it is clearly not obvious how his argument and this research are even related.

Please can my opponent clarify what is Nano. e? I believe my opponent could be referring to Nanoarchaeum equitans but this archaea is a parasite, and so that it needs a host to live is not remarkable and reason to doubt common descent. Like a virus some things need others to live.

(16)I wanted to reach 16 sources
Waste of time

In closing I have shown that the most of the arguments of my opponent were misleading and dishonest. I hope my opponent can reply clearly in his rebuttal to the opinions I gave of the sources that are meant to cast doubt common descent but are in fact proving common descent.

(1) http://www.pnas.org...
(2) http://evolutionwiki.org...
(3) http://www.talkorigins.org...
(4) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
(5) http://www.landesmuseum.at...
(6) http://www.trilobites.info...
(7) http://www.palaeontologyonline.com...
(8) http://www.nature.com...
(9) http://www.amnh.org...
(10) http://www.blackwellpublishing.com...
(11) http://www.nature.com...
(12) http://www.jstor.org...
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

1. It doesn't matter if it proves Natural Selection. I'm a firm believer in Natural Selection. My position is not that Natural Selection is false, nor am I arguing that Common Descent is false. I am only arguing that there exists at least one reasonable cause to doubt Common Descent.

Con strawmans me here. He says that he isn't sure why the E. coli experiment proves Common Descent is false, but I never argued that it's proof, only reasonable cause to doubt.

It also isn't relevant what the aim of the experiment is. That doesn't mean I can't use it as evidence for something it wasn't intended for.

You provided a study that showed that yeast cells tend to clump together. You tried to use this as evidence for evolution of single cells into multi-cellular life, but it isn't so. Yeast is thought to have evolved (“devolved”) from multicellular life, so this is not evidence for Common Descent at all. It's only evidence that Yeast has retained features from it's ancestors.

I'm going to spare you the trouble of bringing up the algae experiment, in which algae (which is not thought to have “devolved” from a multi-cellular ancestor, unlike Yeast) is also found to clump together when conditions promote it. Here it is (note that it clarifies that yeast had a multi-cellular ancestor):

http://www.newscientist.com...

I know a bit about algae; I have a whole YouTube channel dedicated to microaquatic life (youtube.com/microgrammer) which I recorded myself.

Here is one of my videos where I recorded colonial algae:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NqyHXjAwkE

Here is another video, this time of the far more interesting Volvox algae:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqDjUl2uoeY

Despite the fact that these algae, which are single-celled organisms, tend to form cool structures, at the end of the day, they are still single-celled organisms. They are just colonies.

While cells of Volvox do establish themselves as either of 2 types (reproductive and non-reproductive) once arranged in a particular fashion in the spherical network, a certain property of the colony highlights the distinction between this form of cellular aggregation and a multi-celled organism:

The multi-cellularity of the colony is unsustainable, as part of the life cycle of Volvox involves every single cell separating from one another. (The reproductive cells swim away and the non-reproductive cells just die.)

This algae, as cool as it is, is not evidence of Common Descent.

6. “This is a brilliant example of a creationist using a website and not bothering to actually read the relevant article.”

My opponent is extremely offensive here, basically accusing me of citing a source without reading it. But he's mistaken; I did read it.

If anyone has trouble finding the quote I used, here it is directly from a free source:

http://www.readcube.com...

[...] if my opponent had read his reference 6 he would have known that Profesor Bengston did not mention the word trilobite in the opinion piece. So this manuscript has been dishonestly used by my opponent to express a view that is not present. I ask that my opponent please clarify this deception to the voters in his response.”

If anyone is decieving the voters, it is my opponent. He's trying to convince you, the voter, that I misrepresented my source. I did not do any such thing.

I am very aware that Profesor Bengston did not mention the word “trilobite” in his article. However, the reason that I used his paper to support my “trilobite” argument is because he implicitly referenced “trilobites” as close as one possibly can without actually saying the world “trilobite!”:

If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over […] The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants”

What animal is the most primitive known to date that also has “most of the attirbutes of [it's] modern descendants”? Trilobites, of course, which also “emerged out of the Precambrian [layer]”.

If my intention really was to trick the voters into thinking that Professor Bengston mentioned the word “trilobite”, then why didn't I sneak in the world “trilobite” whenever I quoted Professor Bengston directly?

Regarding this nature paper maybe we should note that Professor Bengston was excited about the discovery reported (reported in the same issue of Nature) of the finding of a complete halkieriid fossil. He was excited as it helps to give a clearer picture of common descent.”

Halkieriid are thought to have evolved from trilobites (by evolutionists) since they are higher up in the cambrian layer. This does nothing to damage my argument.

7. Regarding Francis Hitchens, my opponent is right in this case. He has some really silly beliefs so I regret using him as a source. However, my trilobite argument still stands as he wasn't the only source I used.

Having said all that, I'm going to drop the trilobite ancestor arguments since it seems that the general consensus is that a closely-related trilobite ancestor actually has been found. I spent a lot of time reading your sources (and others) but after feverishly googling for 2 hours, I couldn't come up with a convincing argument on this point.

8. “the data does show that 99 % of our genetic makeup is the same as Chimpanzees and Bonobos. “

I going to spare you the accusation of misrepresenation of your sources here, and assume that you simply misunderstood them. (even though you weren't so kind to me)

Your Bonobo paper did not say that 99% of human genetic makeup was the same as Bonobos; it was only comparing a very small piece of the entire DNA of Bonobos to a small piece of “corresponding” DNA in humans. Here is the quote:

two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions [of the Bonobo]” are 99% “identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome.

Your source which says that “Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA” is flat-out wrong. It's not even a peer-revied, scientific journal anyways.

I'm going to have to point out that my source, which is newer than your bonobo source, and also is a scientific, peer-reviewed and accredeited journal, pointed out that research which concludes that humans share 99% of their DNA with these animals is way off:

It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) (it was received for peer review in February of 2012 according to PNAS.org; your bonobo paper, although published in 2012, was received by Nature in 2011, so my source is more recent)

In reference to the quote from my source which I just posted, you said:

I should also add this is a statement with no proof of the claim.”

This makes it obvious that you haven't read my source:

One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (<three citations which my source uses as evidence>), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.”

So not only does my source demonstrate that human DNA is not as similar as much research makes it out to be, measuring the similarity as a single percentage is overly simplistic and by extension, misleading.

9. “as I have shown above that we are genetically close to Bonobos and Chimpanzees.”

As I have just shown, that is an over simplicficatoin, and terefore misleading.

10. I used this source only to show the abundance of slightly-deleterious mutations. You haven't contested this.

11. You're right, I misinterpreted the author's question as being rhetorical when it wasn't.

12. I wasn't using this source as evidence against Common Descent. I only used it to back up my defintion of Genetic Linkage.

13. “I find that a surprisingly large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations would lead to the extinction of the human line over a period of 20 million years[...] Future work will have to explore which of these actually solves the paradox [produced by Muller's Ratchet]”

This quote from the source contradicts your claim that it “relies on a set of premises which are not happening in society” and “are only of interest theoretically”.

14. “I think my opponent needs to carefully understand epistasis to realize that one mutation does not mean death or improvement.”

I'm well aware of this, else I wouldn't be discussing slightly-deleterious mutations.

One mutation can mean nothing if not in association with other mutations.”

Which is exactly why slightly-deleterious mutations accumulate and cause the extinction of a species.

15. “This leads me to believe that the paradox has to do with gene size and not with common descent. Could my opponent elaborate on this point please, as it is clearly not obvious how his argument and this research are even related.”

The paradox is indirectly related to Common Descent because it has do with genes.

Please can my opponent clarify what is Nano. e? I believe my opponent could be referring to Nanoarchaeum equitans but this archaea is a parasite, and so that it needs a host to live is not remarkable and reason to doubt common descent. Like a virus some things need others to live.”

That fact that the organism with the smallest genomes requires another organism with a bigger genome to survive is, indeed, remarkable, for this demonstrates that the larger genomes couldn't have evolved from the smaller ones, since the smaller ones needed the bigger ones to live in the first place.

That's the paradox.

If Con shows all my arguments aren't reasonable cause, vote Con.

However, if a single of my points stands as reasonable cause to doubt Common Descent, vote Pro!

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

In my last round I cited a yeast study as proof for the next step in common descent. Here, I would like to say I agree with my opponent that they are still single cells acting together, but they are acting in unison and rely on each other. This acting in unison is seen in most cells when we consider the mitochondria. The mitochondria is extremely interesting as it has its own DNA apart from the cell nucleus. The fact that mitochondria has DNA does not make sense unless it is viewed from a common descent perspective.(1) So this working in unison is what I was referring to when I was talking about the next step in common descent.

Interesting thing is my opponent says that yeast is likely to come from a multicellular life " Yeast is thought to have evolved (“devolved”) from multicellular life, so this is not evidence for Common Descent at all." If this is the case then surely evolution from single to multi cell is possible also and not such a far leap?

Trilobites seem to be a closed case in this debate, and so this is no longer a reason to doubt common descent.

My opponent has discredited the Nature citation to the Bonobo genome study by using this sentence. "two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions [of the Bonobo]” are 99% “identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome.” I will put the full sentence for clarity that the 99.9 % refers to the accuracy of the test of the two different alleles in the Bonobo and actually has nothing to do with the human genome accept that there is a 98.7 % match. "On average, the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi genome are approximately 99.9% identical to each other, 99.6% identical to corresponding sequences in the chimpanzee genome and 98.7% identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome." This was a full genome study this was not based on a single chromosome!

My opponent also say his manuscript cited is more relevant as it was published later. This would be true if it was a genomic study and was not citing sources which were done years before the Bonbo study were published. Bonobo study (2012), opponent sources (2007, 2002, 2006). Again let me reiterate my opponents citation has nothing to do with a full genome study and the values it cites come from previously published papers.

However, the manuscript my opponent cited shows common descent as I pointed out in the previous round. If anything, the fact that me and my opponent are arguing about 1 or 2 % genetic difference on 98 % is irrelevant as it is a far cry from the 66 to 76 % difference cited by my opponent in his round two argument.

My opponent has stated that I did not contest his 10th citation. So I will say again like in my last round, this is not proof against common descent this is proof that more mutations occur that was previously thought. In my own words; "Great proof of the fact of common descent. In this paper the researchers say that the rate of evolution in humans and other species are actually underestimated. So what my opponent is claiming is proof against common descent is actually proof for common descent. The manuscript goes deeper into the reasons why the statistics calculated using the McDonald–Kreitman statistical tests are not to be trusted as they are underestimating adaptive evolution."

My opponent claims I have misused his source by showing what Mullers ratchet actually means. Here is his quote :"I find that a surprisingly large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations would lead to the extinction of the human line over a period of 20 million years[...] Future work will have to explore which of these actually solves the paradox [produced by Muller's Ratchet]

Here is the quote in full and I will let the readers decide if I misrepresented the manuscript or if we should realize it is a theoretical model which relies on premises as pointed out in my previous argument. "After compiling realistic values for the key parameters in human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) I find that a surprisingly large range of biologically realistic parameter combinations would lead to the extinction of the human line over a period of 20 million years – if accepted wisdom about mtDNA and Muller’s ratchet is correct. The resulting genomic decay paradox complements a similar threat from extinction due to mutation accumulation in nuclear DNA and suggests evaluation of unconventional explanations for long-term persistence. A substantial list of potential solutions is given, including compensatory back mutations, mutation rate heterogeneity and occasional recombination in mtDNA. Future work will have to explore which of these actually solves the paradox. Nonetheless, the results presented here provide yet another reason to minimize anthropogenic increase of mutation rates."

My opponent agrees with me on epistatsis, and says “Which is exactly why slightly-deleterious mutations accumulate and cause the extinction of a species." This can be true but can also be false so I will push forward my last example and expand on it.

Epistasis is when genes act in groups to either make a trait occur in an organism or not occur in an organism. For example the genes abcdefghijklmno should be present to cause disease x, however if any 1 gene (say c) is missing then disease x is not present. Additionally if any one gene is replaced by another gene (say q replaces h) then this is an adaptation and a benefit. Hence not all slightly deleterious mutations are harmful.


In the final arguments my opponent has said that the paradox he has pointed out is indirect evidence against common descent. More importantly he goes on to say that Nanoarchaeum equitans is remarkable as "this demonstrates that the larger genomes couldn't have evolved from the smaller ones, since the smaller ones needed the bigger ones to live in the first place." This makes no sense as I pointed out the case of Mitochondria earlier in this round, additionally Nanoarchaeum equitans is a parasite as I pointed out in the previous round and as such it needs a host.

I believe I have shown that to doubt common descent requires some serious jumping through hoops when the simple answers are far more easier to understand.

Over to the voters.

(1) http://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
If any of these arguments were meant to be taken seriously, the satirical ones should have been left out I think (and the serious ones elaborated upon). Throwing 11 micro-arguments at Con doesn't do much to satisfy your burden of proof and doesn't give him any room to rebut all of them and (or not) present his own arguments. I'm guessing that Con will accuse you of using a certain bad debating technique, do his best to address your points, and the rest of the debate will have a whole bunch of random, unrelated points being jumbled about with only a paragraph or two being said on each which will make this painful enough to read, much less vote on.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
good idea
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
You could post it in the beginning of the second round.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
i didnt realize i could have edited it
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
In your arguments he means.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
"All life shares a common ancestor."
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
You should add a definition of the theory of common descent in order to avoid confusion.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Yes, it's a little known fact that AIDS was engineered by homosexuals to take over the world.

It backfired doe.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
I don't know, but I remember in the late 80's, there were conspiracy theories about the AIDS virus being engineered.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Has a virus ever been created in the lab from scratch? That would be cool.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
GarretKadeDupreiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had too many arguments (meaning that each was poorly developed), and used way too many jokes in his argument, which hampered the credibility of his argument. Con, on the other hand, is more concise and to the point in presenting a case for the theory of common descent. I think he relied a little to much on the sources he presented instead actually posting in the argument, but it's still a good case. Pro never adequately refuted con's case either, using the same mistakes as in his first argument. Overall, con had a superior performance in this debate, and easily edges pro here.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
GarretKadeDupreiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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: This debate would have benefited from more focus on a few arguments. Of Pro's eleven micro-arguments, only 9 and 10 sufficiently helped Pro's case in support of the resolution, but due to the amount of space wasted on jokes, unrelated bs, and undeveloped arguments, they were poorly supported. Con's approach to addressing Pro's shotgun of arguments by dealing with his sources was interesting, and because much of the support for Con's arguments rested on their sources, effective. At one point Pro attempts to pass off a genome-wide comparison as "only comparing a very small piece of the entire DNA of Bonobos to a small piece of 'corresponding' DNA in humans" while leaving out relevant words from the source to support this claim and simultaneously presenting Con as the one who was misrepresenting the source. Overall, Con sufficiently addresses the support for Pro's arguments and better uses sources to support his claims; arguments and sources to Con.