The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
platoandaristotle
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There is No Evidence in Favor of evo THEORY

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
platoandaristotle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 103410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

evo THEORY is nothing but a biologically impossible myth
that has never happened, is not happening now,
and shall never happen in the future.
Prove me wrong and win $5,000.00 by watching this short video: https://www.youtube.com...
platoandaristotle

Con

I don't plan to watch that video, becuase it is age-restricted by YouTube.
Could you perhaps summarise yout point?
Even creationists agree that there is evidence for evolution (and yes, it's a theory, meaning that it's not a hypothesis and is supported by some evidence). Let's go over some of it.
1. Fossils
There is a clear and documented progression of fossils throughout the fossil record, including hundreds of fossils of transitional species like Ambulocetus natans(pakicetid to whale) and Homo habilis(Gorilla-like ape to human).
2. Microevolutionary experiments
There have been experiments in which new species are created in a lab - in fact, several have been done with flies. New species can develop in small, isolated populations of flies after several years.
Ever wonder why you have to get new flu shots every year? It's because the flu virus is evolving to evade detection by your immune system, and flu shots boost the ability of said system to detect the new virus.
Also, if you watch news regularly, you've heard of a strand of bacteria that cannot be killed by any known antibiotic.
If (as is very likely) life on earth has been aroud for billions of years, it is probable that evolution happened on a larger scale.
3. Imperfection
The human body has several "vestigial" organs - organs with no clear purpose. The wisdom teeth, tailbone, and some ligaments are examples.
Also, there are several examples of "bad design" such as the fact that images are reflected on the retina upside-down and that the brain is more emotion-driven than reason-driven.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Because you're underage, here's the rated "G" version:

https://www.youtube.com...
platoandaristotle

Con

Alright, so you want me to refute that video! Fine.
First, read my previous statement in full for evidence of evolution.
Inter-species propogation is not required for evolution unless you don't understand it. Evolution is about the development of new species through a series of beneficial mutations leading to genetic isolation.
As for two species which have successfully propogated - it depends on what you mean by successful.
Housecats and wildcats (different species) have been bred to create fertile children, though with varying degrees of success - Savannah cats are an example.
Lions and tigers have bred to create infertile "tigons" in captivity.
But let me remind you - those have little to do with evolution.
The link that Ockham gave you is a list of Wikipedia articles detailing these hybrids - take a look at those.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Inter-species propogation is required for evo THEORY to be true unless you don't understand it.

"Savannah cats are an example."

You mentioned housecoats and Savannah cats.

Are you alleging that housecoats and Savannah cats have ever produced genetically viable offspring? If so, then please provide evidence for that claim.

Lions and tigers have bred to create infertile "tigons" in captivity.

Yes, and infertile tigons are not a genetically viable species.

You lost the debate.
platoandaristotle

Con

https://en.wikipedia.org... - Savannahs are bred between servals and domestic cats. They can then breed with other domestic cats to produce less wild Savannahs.
Looks like you still have failed to refute my opening. Fossilization works when empty areas in an organism are filled with minerals. That is not exactly complex.
Speciation happened in a lab - did God intervene? I don't see the need for a God in order for random mutations to genetically isolate a species. http://darwinwasright.org...
"You lost the debate"
I'll let the judges decide that. I ask them to look at the comments as well.
Now that I have shown you the Savannah cat, where's my 2 bitcoins($5000)?
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Phenenas// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is over 9 months past the end of the voting period, and is therefore past the statute of limitations for vote moderation.
************************************************************************
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
And he implied that he was a troll, too!
Posted by smurfy101 11 months ago
smurfy101
We did it reddit
we got him off the site
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts.

My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment.

I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment.

Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website.

If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now.

You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on.

Good-bye! =)
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
The fat that no one has ever sided with Purushadasa, probably suggests that he's not a very smart person.
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
"The voters do not face any structure whatsoever to ensure rationality, lack of bias, intelligence, or even to understand how logic or debate work."
You should be happy about that. That means you can vote. (mic drop)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Those are the ONLY requirements for the so-called "voters" to vote on this site: The voters do not face any structure whatsoever to ensure rationality, lack of bias, intelligence, or even to understand how logic or debate work.

Therefore it is an inherently and hopelessly biased and unreliable system, and has no bearing whatsoever on the actual issues or the actual conclusions of the debates on the site. The so-called "voting" system on this site is a ridiculous sham and is nothing but a big joke. LOL SMH =)
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
What about the requirement to complete 3 debates and enter a phone number is biased? Are phones secretly spying devices for the deep state that deactivate whenever you advocate conservatism?
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"So it's not the voting system, it's the voters."

The biased voters are part of the biased voting system on this site.

"Did you know that you could actually just select judges to vote?"

All of the voters on this site, who are all biased, are selected by a biased selection system.
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
So it's not the voting system, it's the voters.
Did you know that you could actually just select judges to vote? You could even select 10 Christian-conservative judges that will vote for you 100% of the time.
Like I said, conservative PC police think that things have a liberal bias every time they don't have a conservative bias.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaplatoandaristotleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.
Vote Placed by QueenDaisy 11 months ago
QueenDaisy
PurushadasaplatoandaristotleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not provide any actual arguments, as external links may only be used as sources, not arguments. Pro provided evidence for evolution, and hence wins arguments. Neither side had any conduct or SP&G issues. Both sides provided sources, but neither stood out as more reliable than the other.
Vote Placed by philochristos 11 months ago
philochristos
PurushadasaplatoandaristotleTied
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 placed the burden of proof on Con in the first round by saying, 'prove me wrong.' Con gave three lines of evidence in his opening to show that there is evidence for evolutionary theory. pro never offered a rebuttal to those lines of evidence, so Con wins the debate. links do not count as arguments. Con had no obligation to respond to the video.