The Instigator
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Skepsikyma
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

There is No good evidence for evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 9 votes the winner is...
Skepsikyma
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,747 times Debate No: 29370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (9)

 

FritzStammberger

Pro

There is no good evidence to support the theory of evolution.

The Six Meanings of Evolution
1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang"
2. Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen.
3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds.
4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter.
5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
6. Micro-evolution: variations form within the "kind"

According to Creation Evangelist Kent Hovind, Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. Hovind writes, "For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400+ varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense."

what do you think?

Let's see your best evidence for The first 5 definitions of evolution.
Skepsikyma

Con

I take it that "good evidence" in this context refers to a study which has withstood the rigors of peer review? If so, then I shall begin.

1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang"
The "nothing" point is a straw man, as the big bang does not claim that the singularity was "nothing". Evidence for the big bang includes the cosmic microwave background and redshift. [1] [2]

2. Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen.
This is supported by the fact that the most common elements in the cosmos are H, He, O, Ne, N, C, S, Mg, Fe, and S. [3] These are also, save hydrogen, the elements formed through stellar thermonuclear fusion. [4] Considering the nature of said fusion, it follows that stars are converting hydrogen into heavier elements. As to whether all matter was once hydrogen until the beginning of stellar fusion, this is a straw man. The big bang produced helium alongside hydrogen. [5]

3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds.
This is a readily observable phenomenon; we can literally watch nebulae undergo this process at many different stages at any given moment. Accretion is also inevitable given the known laws of physics. [6]

4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter.
Unlike cosmic, solar, planetary, or biotic evolution, this was a relatively brief and localized event. This makes it nigh impossible to test how precisely it happened; the only evidence that can be provided are studies concerning how it possibly could have occurred. These are numerous, the most famous being the Miller"Urey experiment. [7] [8]

5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Ring species are evidence for this. When a population migrates away from the main body and adapts in small ways it is still able to mate with the original population. There are instances, however, of this expanding arm circling around some obstacle and meeting either the descendants of the original population at the point of origin or another divergent arm and being unable to mate with them. Examples include a gull which circles the Arctic, a songbird which circles the Himalayan Plateau, and a salamander which circles California"s Central Valley. This presents a problem for taxonomists because one of the defining features of a species is the ability to interbreed, which would make the two species at the extremities of the ring separate species. [9]

1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
2. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
3. http://education.jlab.org...
4. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
5. http://www.umich.edu...
6. http://www.britannica.com...
7. http://www.abenteuer-universum.de...
8. http://www.britannica.com...
9. http://darwiniana.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FritzStammberger

Pro

1. You have provided NO good evidence that the big bang came from nothing nor have you given any evidence for another theory of what caused the big bang. Stephen Hawking does in fact claim that the big bang came from nothing.

"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Stephen Hawking said that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing."(1)

2. If the "big bang" produced hydrogen and some helium how did the other 105 elements "evolve"?

3. Nobody has ever seen a star form.

4. Nobody has ever seen life begin from inanimate matter nor is there any evidence that it can happen. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller"Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible.
(we can discuss these experiments in more detail if you wish but it will not help your argument.)

5. Animals of the same kind becoming unable to breed is a LOSS of genetic information not a gain.

Thus my opponent has provided absolutely NO good evidence for evolution. I maintain that there is NO good evidence for evolution. If evolution were true there should be ample evidence to support it. It is a simple fact that there is NO good evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Skepsikyma

Con

1. The big bang theory does not state that the universe came from nothing. Stephen Hawking may say that he believes that the universe came from nothing, but that does not show that this is what the big bang theory states. The big bang theory simply states that the universe is expanding from a single point which was its origin. The two sources which I provided in my initial argument support this. What that origin was is an entirely separate debate and is still a matter of contention among physicists. The man who developed the theory of the big bang, Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lema"tre, certainly didn't argue that the universe arose from "nothing". My opponent's argument is clearly a straw man. [1]

2. They were created from the stellar thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium. This is also called stellar nucleosynthesis, and is the source of the immense energy radiated by stars. [2] This process can be observed on earth in a limited manner during the detonation of thermonuclear bombs, also known as H-Bombs. [3] The ten most common elements which I presented earlier are those produced during the normal life of a star. The rest of the elements are produced during a supernova, where, to simplify things, the meeting of the outward pressure of the explosion and the inward pull of gravity produce enough pressure to momentarily allow the fusion of such heavy materials to take place. Other processes involved include proton capture, neutron capture, and photodisintegration. This accounts for the greater rarity of such materials. The source explains this process in greater detail. [4]

3. Patently false. I will link two images from deep space telescopes of stars in mid-formation. You can argue that these clouds will not eventually collapse due to gravity, or that they will not ignite and commence nuclear fusion once this has happening. But to do so you will have to refute every modern concept of gravitation and nuclear physics. [5] [6]

4. I have already conceded that there is no hard evidence for this particular form of evolution. In depth discussion on whether or not it is possible seems like a derailment of the original issue.

5. This is a complete non sequitur. Triploid watermelons cannot reproduce because they have an extra copy of each chromosome. This is how we get seedless watermelons. [7] The loss of the ability to breed does not necessitate a loss of genetic information, and a loss of genetic information does not disprove that gradual natural selection resulting in speciation. The idea that having more genetic information is a sign of advancement is simply incorrect, unless my opponent is willing to admit that the human race is inferior to pteridophytes, a group with an incidence of polyploidy at 95%. [8]

1. http://catholiceducation.org...
2. http://www.ohio.edu...
3. http://www.britannica.com...
4. http://www.stanford.edu...
5.http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu...
6. http://ts3.mm.bing.net...
7. http://cuke.hort.ncsu.edu...
8. http://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
FritzStammberger

Pro

1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang".

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics."
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

"We don't know" = No good evidence.

2. Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen.

"In the beginning, hydrogen created the heavens and the earth."

Harlow Shapley
evolutionary astronomer and
long-time head of the Harvard University Observatory.

Thus we are left with hydrogen as the originator of everything else, even though we don't know how it did this.

we don't know = No good evidence.

"It's been said there are approximately two million different proteins in the human body. Clearly, nature would have had to randomly create ALL of them for Chemical Evolution to be true. But let's keep it simple and look at the odds that just ONE could have been formed by chance.

Since proteins are made up of amino acids (amino acids are chemical compounds), and given that there are 20 amino acids in the human body, and assuming a given protein contains only 100 amino acids(the longest presently known is 26,926!)"the mathematical probability that a human protein could accidentally arise from random combinations of those 20 possible amino acids into a specific human protein is 1 chance in 20100, or well beyond 1 in 10100."

http://www.religiouslyincorrect.com...

Carl Sagan estimated this probability to be approximately 1 in 10130 (Carl Sagan, Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Thus, even the formation of one, simple protein is so far beyond mathematical impossibility that anyone who seriously believes it happened is uniformed, deceived, or incapable of grasping the truth.

There are approximately 2,000,000 currently discovered proteins in the human body.

3. There are NO stars forming in these pictures. These are two pictures of distant stars and some debris. How do you interpret stars forming from these pictures? This is terrible evidence for stars forming. This is like me taking a picture of a rock in the snow and saying "see, look! the rock is forming from the snow."
This is just stupid.

This next one better be good, so far I am not impressed"

4. You have conceded #4

ok"I guess it all hinges on #5 let's see here.

5. Macro-evolution
My opponent has stated;

"Triploid watermelons cannot reproduce because they have an extra copy of each chromosome. This is how we get seedless watermelons."

becoming seedless is not a beneficial mutation. There are No beneficial mutations.

the number of chromosomes (the threadlike bodies within cells that contain the inheritance units called genes) in a normal watermelon plant is doubled by the use of the chemical colchicine.

The truth is that producing seedless watermelon is a very difficult and complex operation that contains many steps. This is horrible evidence for evolution.

In Conclusion,

I have stated that there is No good evidence for evolution and my Opponent has utterly failed to provide any good evidence to support the theory of evolution.

"evolution" is a lie and a massive deception.

For more information on the subject of creation vs evolution I recommend this series of videos presented by Kent Hovind.
Skepsikyma

Con

Seeing as my opponent seems to either dismiss my evidence and arguments outright or attack straw men instead of my actual arguments, I would have to conclude that I have won the debate. The statement that he is defending is that there is NO good evidence for the five forms of evolution that he listed.

In the first instance, that of the big bang, I provided evidence for the expansion of the universe in two cases: the cosmic microwave background and redshift. These points were completely ignored as my opponent proceeded to argue over the semantics of the theory and then rather fallaciously concluded that since the singularity could not be completely explained there was no good evidence for the theory. Seeing as the two pieces of evidence were never addressed, this alone should constitute a concession of the point and, seeing as my opponent is defending the position that there is NO good evidence, award me the debate. But I will continue.

In the second instance, that of stellar nucleosynthesis, my opponent also seems to ignore my numerous sources, explanations, and citations and proceeds to conclude that "we don"t know how it did this". I can either conclude that my opponent does not believe that thermonuclear fusion is possible or that he does not understand it, seeing as he never so much as acknowledges any part of my argument. In any case this is also a clear concession of the point in my opinion.

In the third instance, that of stellar formation, my citation of articles explaining accretion and photographs of newly formed stars in nebulae have failed to convince my opponent, despite his inability to effectively argue against said evidence. At this point he becomes slightly abusive, calling my argument "just stupid" after making a false equivocation between snow on earth and an interstellar cloud. In addition to my opponent"s inability to debunk the rather copious evidence indicating that it is possible for stars and planets to form via the accretion of gas and dust, which constitutes another concession, I believe that his behavior justifies the allocation of conduct points to me.

In the fourth instance, I conceded.

In the fifth instance, that of "macro-evolution", also known as speciation, my opponent fails to address the idea of ring species. First he claims that this does not demonstrate speciation ("macro-evolution") because the inability to procreate indicates a loss of genetic information, which indicates a lack of evolution. I provided evidence to the contrary, including the fact that diploid watermelons can reproduce while triploid ones cannot, despite having more genetic information. I then pointed out that the gain or loss of genetic information is irrelevant when it comes to speciation. My opponent then brought up his thoughts on the process by which watermelons are made triploid, which has no bearing on the fact that the existence of triploid sterile watermelons debunks his criticism of ring species as an example of speciation.

Due to my opponent"s inability to satisfactorily address any of my offerings of evidence and his rather testy demeanor in the final round, I humbly ask to be named the victor, as my victory under his conditions hinges on producing just one piece of "good evidence" supporting evolution as he defined it in his introduction.

Thank you to everyone involved for this opportunity to test my mettle.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 5 months ago
SeventhProfessor
alright skep i bet your emails are turned on for this debate. https://hangouts.google.com...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
You are mistaken. The score is 4 - 52 in your opponent's favor. You have lost decisively.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Science is either the devil or involved in a massive conspiracy or you are delusional :)

Recognize12:59--Its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is to disprove cumulative evolution by natural selection :)
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
I am confident that I succesfully defended the premise of this debate. I would gladly debate anyone else on this issue.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
"The Lamest Statements a Human Can Ask" magazine released its Top 100 Lamest Statements of all time.

Last years winner was "There is no good evidence for water"

Ths years winner: "There is no good evidence for evolution"

WAKEUP 2:2--Cornell University is a very respectable institution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, ALL AGREE with this, A Very brief guide for the curious and confused...

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu...
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
I ment as like space pointed out not deadly kris my apologies
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
Deadly kris pointed this out before I could yes, I as a creationist believe in micro evolution changes and diversity of animals within there own kinds. Macro involves new species coming from other species. Such as the flu there is changes among there own kinds not a flu virus changing into a bird( yes I know very dumbing it down) I never said I do not believe in all types of evolution in fact every creationist with a brain and every person has to except changes within there own kinds which is the only sort of evolution we can prove.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
If there was a valid distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, then I might agree. But they're simply the same concept at varying scales.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Deadlykris -

The various flu strains could be explained by microevolution.

Pro conceded microevolution in the resolution and was rather arguing against more dramatic forms of evolution. In other words, he agrees the many types of dogs are probably related. He disagrees that monkeys and men, dinosaurs and birds, etc. had common ancestors.

This has been a long-standing defense of creationists, to draw a line between the smaller "micro" changes we have concrete evidence for, and the more dramatic "macro" changes we are making educated guesses about. The micro/macro line changes over time.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
If there were no evolution, then no new flu strains would ever come about.

But then, if there were no evolution, then the first life form to exist would still be the only one.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Proof of evolution is happening as we speak.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
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: Evolution and sun rises, the latter is more unlikely :)
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to address all of Con's assertions properly, and thus failed the motion, as Con provided some good evidence for evolution, which was all that was required. S&G didn't seem bad enough on either side for points, Conduct for the behavior as noted by Con, and sources for what should be obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
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: Sorry Bro, Con takes this. You might still not have won but you'd have been far better off to not attack all of the "different theories of evolution" and just stick with one you could defend effectively. I think you mis-understand micro vs macro evolution. Humans don't have postanal tails, but there is a good possibility that we were once 'set-up' to have them. Just because something adapts to it's environment and phases out unnecessary mechanisms doesn't mean it's suddenly going to "turn into corn" I'm always so amazed at how closed-minded people seem to be when they defend things with their religion. I consider myself a Christian, but I think it's absolutely foolish to attack science on the basis of it not being religion.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
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: As pro failed to deliver any proof required by his instigation, and challenge of the status quo; the debate cannot be awarded to him. Pro's resolutlefts hackled his position with the impossible task of having to disprove published scientific evidence. Conduct was highly disresctful (use of personal insults), and many, many capitalization S&G; thus, both to Con. Pro's source's are biased, lack credibility and form all of Pro's arguments?to the point of plagiarism.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
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: Bad form, Pro.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more convincing; by pointing out that atheists require faith to hold on to the idea that the Big Bang came from nothing, he proved that by atheist's own standards, there is no --good-- evidence for evolution; at least, not better than the evidence for creationism. I have conduct to Pro because Con tried to point out fallacies by name and I hate that; it's annoying. Since Con cited several websites, including .gov sites, and Pro mostly just embedded videos, I give sources to Con.
Vote Placed by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Because religion has opposed the study of the world from other angles that are not its.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
FritzStammbergerSkepsikymaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Full Forfeit for plagiarism.