The Instigator
logicaldebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MikeNH
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

There is no Observable Evidence for Macroevolution

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 2 votes the winner is...
MikeNH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,447 times Debate No: 40490
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

logicaldebater

Pro

I am asking for observable evidence for macroevolution (i.e., molecules-to-man type evolution). I want actual evidence that I can observe, not evidence I have to except by faith. I do not want evidence of microevolution, but macroevolution. If there is no evidence for macroevolution, then it cannot be considered science because science is a system of knowledge based on observations and experimentation.
MikeNH

Con

Macroevolution - Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species. (1)

I'm going to break down my argument into four simple primary points that any layman can examine:

1) Fossil - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species. For example, if we presume species X evolved from, or shares a common ancestor with species Y, over the course of Z years, we would expect to find fossil forms that change from X, to appearing to be X less and less like X and gradually more and more like Y, and those fossils should be independently dated and fit within the current hypothesis in terms of timescale.

2) Morphological - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study currently living organisms, we should find various parts of the body that are "left over" parts, remnants from presumed previous ancestor species that those older species would have used for various specific purposes in their specific habitats, but currently have no known use or existing function for the current species in it's current habitat, or would have current uses that might be drastically different than their ancestors and were co-opted for other uses to adapt to different environments.

3) Genetic - If we were to examine the genomes of all living things, we should find patterns and similarities connecting different species and they would be related to the extent that the species are related. Like the fossil evidence, we should find patterns over time that fit into their respective time scales, and presumed relatives should share parts of their genomes that correlate to the combination between each species genetic rates of change and the amount of time between the divergence of those species. Oversimplified example: Species X's DNA is known to change about Q% each generation, and we think that species X diverged from species Y approximately Z years ago, we would hypothesize the DNA of species Y to be at most Z * Q% different.

4) Convergence of Evidence - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between two species, we should find this hypothesis is supported by the genetic evidence, fossil evidence, AND morphological evidence, and that each provides strength and independent verification to the others.

If macroevolution occurred, we would expect to find evidence supporting the aforementioned hypothesis, as well as each distinct area supporting the others. While this is only an extremely small and oversimplified part of the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution, providing independent and converging evidence that supports each hypothesis would be very strong evidence for macroevolution and therefore your premise, namely "there is no observable evidence for macroevolution" would be demonstrated to be false.

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
logicaldebater

Pro

I, too, agree that certain groups of animals do evolve into variants of that kind. But they do not change kinds. For example, there are many species within the dog kind. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are both dogs, or, in other words, the original type of dog changed into different species but did not change into different kinds (i.e., it did not change into the cat kind). A kind is any group of organisms that can interbreed and produce offspring capable of reproducing. I do not use the word species in this definition because what determines the species of an organism is a highly controversial topic, thus there are dozens of definitions of species.

You stated that "[i]f we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species." The problem with this scenario is that, though there may be similarities between two kinds (or two species within a kind), the assumption is made that species X evolved from, or, like you said, "shares a common ancestor with", species Y. This is based on the presupposition that a certain kind of organism (say, an ape) can evolve into another kind of organism (a human being) even though we cannot observe (meaning, see or witness in our lifetime) this phenomenon. Their are examples in the present day of microevolution (Darwin's finches for example) that are observable, but the fact is (in the case of Darwin's finches) that the birds were still birds after Darwin had observed them gradually changing. Allow me to explain. Each type of Darwin's finches are in the kingdom Animalia, phylum Chordata, class Aves, order Passeriformes, and family Thraupidae(1). The differences in the finches occur in the genera under family Thraupidae, in which the finches belong to genus Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Certhidea, Pinaroloxias, or Platyspiza. And then, of course, there are various species under each genera. The fact is that the only evolution that we've been able to observe (without relying on the fossil record or missing links) is microevolution because the changes in the organism that is "evolving" take place within the that kind of organism (i.e., birds evolve into birds, bacteria evolve into bacteria, etc.).

The next point you make is referring to parts of the body that creatures have that appear to have no use (like the appendix in humans). In an article on Scientific America, "Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University" replied to the question "What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?", saying, "Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body."(2) Whether or not you were referring to the appendix, I do not know, but the point I am making is that we cannot assume that because the function of a certain body part is unknown that it is simply a "remnant" of our "primate ancestors," even if the supposed "primate ancestor" has the same part (i.e., ducks and chickens both have beaks but neither one evolved from the other).

On the topic of genetics, your claim that similarities between DNA is based on your presupposition that we evolved. In the same way, my claim that similarities in DNA just point to a common designer is based on my presupposition that we were created. Regarding genetics, EvolutionNews.org wrote, "This isn't a new 'breakthrough'--we've known about close genetic similarities between humans and chimps for over a decade. Sure, they just finished decoding the chimp genome but it actually lessened our knowledge of human/chimp similarities rather than upping it. Similarities could easily be the result of 'common design' rather than common descent--where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms. This doesn't challenge ID [intelligent design].

"But it turns out that similarities depend on how you measure them. One study which considered insertions and deletions realized that 'our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species [humans and chimps] appears to be erroneous, because this work [...] puts both species much further apart.' "(3)

You claim there is "overwhelming evidence for macroevolution," but the only evidence you have provided me with are scenarios that demonstrate the theory and not actual cases of macroevolution. The fact is, microevolution is observable in the present day, but in order to believe in macroevolution I need to assume that microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution and I have to assume that there is a missing link that connects me to an ancient primate found in the fossil record.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_finches
(2)http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(3)http://www.evolutionnews.org...
MikeNH

Con

"You claim there is "overwhelming evidence for macroevolution," but the only evidence you have provided me with are scenarios that demonstrate the theory and not actual cases of macroevolution."

You've clearly missed the entire point of my initial argument, which was to present to you an (admittedly simple version of a) scientific hypothesis, one that makes predictions and is falsifiable, to outline what my argument WILL BE. I haven't given specific evidence yet, but rather said that if macroevolution was true, we should be able to make the stated observations, and that IF we were able to confirm those hypotheses, that it would be some evidence, not even necessarily proof, but some evidence supporting macroevolution, which would disprove your claim that there is none.

"...the assumption is made that species X evolved from, or, like you said, "shares a common ancestor with", species Y. This is based on the presupposition that a certain kind of organism (say, an ape) can evolve into another kind of organism (a human being) even though we cannot observe (meaning, see or witness in our lifetime) this phenomenon."

There were no assumptions made at all, they were hypotheses that outlined what would support the argument for macroevolution if it were true. It was simply an opening preamble to the arguments I was planning on making. This is specifically how science works - it makes hypotheses and then attempts to make observations to sees if those observations fit the given hypotheses - it does not presuppose what you hypothesize is true.

"The fact is that the only evolution that we've been able to observe (without relying on the fossil record or missing links) is microevolution because the changes in the organism that is "evolving" take place within the that kind of organism (i.e., birds evolve into birds, bacteria evolve into bacteria, etc.)."

This statement displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concept of evolution and how it leads to the formation of new species. Let me make 2 quick points related to this:

1) Unfortunately, some things in this universe take hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years to happen, including formation of stars, planets, changes in weather patterns, etc., but the fact that we can't observe those changes happening right now in our lives doesn't make them not true. The timescale involved in the change between "kinds", in some cases millions of years, makes it impossible (in most cases, although not all - but I won't muddle this debate with details and go down another path I'd rather not) for us to "observe" any sort of evolving taking place in the way you're alluding to. It's almost as if you think that one day a dog gives birth to a cat, and that's macroevolution, and that is nothing more than a caricature of the position and displays a massive misunderstanding.


2) Take a look at this image as it does a brilliant job simply and succinctly showing this concept of small changes over time and how at any given point an observer wouldn't be able to see one form leading to another, but on evolutionary timescales such a change would be clear and obvious: http://i.imgur.com...


"Whether or not you were referring to the appendix, I do not know, but the point I am making is that we cannot assume that because the function of a certain body part is unknown that it is simply a "remnant" of our "primate ancestors," even if the supposed "primate ancestor" has the same part (i.e., ducks and chickens both have beaks but neither one evolved from the other)."

This is again showing a misunderstanding of the concept. I will say it again more simply to try to make it more clear for you - if macroevolution was a valid hypothesis, we SHOULD find homologies in structure and function of specific parts of the body, and that their usefulness or lackthereof is irrelevant to this because the specific similarities would support the hypothesis that such a change from one form to another happened. (I ran out of space so had to condense the following down significantly)

The evolution from marine lizard to modern snakes over the last ~80 million years is an interesting example as it shows the resulting loss of front and hind legs, and the remnants (whether used or not) of their lineage with hip/pelvic bones still present even though no legs are anymore. (1) See Pachyrhachis, Eupodophis, Haasiophis, and Najash, that all have the basic leftover leg structures from their ancestors the lizard. (2) If we hypothesize that snakes evolved from lizards, we would then hope to find fossil forms that showed stages in this transition, as well as find remnant pieces that the original species would have used that would either have been coopted for new uses or rendered unused as vestiges, and we have found this time and time again. I could name a dozen other examples between different species here, but it would be rather redundant. These observations, on their own, do not prove macroevolution happened, but they do provide excellent evidence that fit into the hypothesis and time and time again strengthen scientific hypotheses that are made about specific relationships between species.

"On the topic of genetics, your claim that similarities between DNA is based on your presupposition that we evolved. In the same way, my claim that similarities in DNA just point to a common designer is based on my presupposition that we were created."

This is it - this absolutely KILLS your argument and removes it from the realm of science. I want to reiterate here the entire crux of my argument, the hypothesis of common descent, and the scientific method in general, is that is is FALSIFIABLE. Science operates by making hypotheses, and then going out in the world and testing those hypotheses and seeing if the observations match. The strength of a scientific theory is it's predictive power - and it also overtly says what it would take for the hypothesis to be wrong. The theory that we were designed CAN BE MADE TO FIT any observation, it is a proposed theory that has an answer to everything, and a theory that explains everything explains nothing. What you're able to do is explain away anything you observe and say well yes that makes sense because the designer can do anything he wants, and that's not evidence for macroevolution because my design theory explains it away. It has absolutely no predictive power, and has the power to post-hoc rationalize any observations to fit the theory because, at it's core, it involves a supernatural power that can basically do whatever you want him to do. Science make hypotheses, sees if observations fit, and adjusts the hypothesis accordingly. If they are correct, the hypothesis is strengthened, if they are not, it is discarded. Design theory makes any and all observations fit the designer's design. It is an unfalsifiable theory with no predictive power, and subsequently is not scientific.

"but in order to believe in macroevolution I need to assume that microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution and I have to assume that there is a missing link that connects me to an ancient primate found in the fossil record."

Apparently 8,000 characters goes by very quickly, and I ran out of space, so in my final argument I will outline an extremely well known and accepted list of transitional forms between humans and their ape-like ancestors, showing gradual changes over time resulting in distinct forms/species.


I want to ask you this and I would much appreciate a direct answer - If I was able to show you examples of fossils showing gradual changes from great apes, approximately 15 million years ago, to modern humans, showing changes in traits like jaw shape/structure and brain size, moving from clearly ape-like to clearly human-like, would you consider that any evidence for macroevolution?

(2) http://dinosaurs.about.com...m

Debate Round No. 2
logicaldebater

Pro

"This is specifically how science works - it makes hypotheses and then attempts to make observations to sees if those observations fit the given hypotheses - it does not presuppose what you hypothesize is true."

One of the definitions of a hypothesis is "something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption"(1). Now obviously your hypothesis isn't an assumption, but the evidence that supports your hypothesis relies on the assumption that the earth is several billion years old. You wrote, "The evolution from marine lizard to modern snakes over the last ~80 million years . . .," which is a claim that relies on the assumption that the earth has even been around for the past 80 million years. I would very much like to known what method of dating you are relying on for this claim, because I need to be convinced of the reliability of the method before I can believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old (or, approximately 4.54 billion years old, like many scientists claim).

"Unfortunately, some things in this universe take hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years to happen, including formation of stars, planets, changes in weather patterns, etc., but the fact that we can't observe those changes happening right now in our lives doesn't make them not true."

Again, you are relying on a universe that creates itself over the course of millions of years. Logically, this is impossible to comprehend. When we read a book, we do not say "wow, I wonder how many years this took to evolve?" because we know there had to have been an author, even if we cannot see that author. A single amoeba's DNA contains about as much information as an Encyclopedia Britannica, but we still say it was not created, but instead we say that it evolved. I agree that just because we cannot witness something right now does not mean that that something did not happen, but if we chose to believe in a universe that is billions of years old, we must rely heavily on the method used and scientists involved in the dating of the universe, earth, etc. So either we need lots of evidence, and a little faith, or we need some evidence (with the addition of certain assumptions about the evidence based on a previous hypothesis, i.e., that any dating system that tells us the earth is billions of years old is right because it agrees with our previous hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old) and a lot of faith. And, according to Richard Dawkins, "faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

"It's almost as if you think that one day a dog gives birth to a cat, and that's macroevolution, and that is nothing more than a caricature of the position and displays a massive misunderstanding."

My point is not that a dog gives birth to a cat and that"s macroevolution, my point is that we cannot, in our lifetimes or our descendants lifetimes, observe a change in kinds. We can observe changes within a kind (like a mentioned earlier) but, like you said, we cannot observe a dog giving birth to a cat. I understand that you believe microevolution is, in a sense, just a small segment of macroevolution, like the photo you included in your argument clearly demonstrated. But let me ask you this, how does microevolution (like the changes in Darwin"s finches) eventually lead to the finches changing kinds (say, becoming reptiles in the next 50 million years)? We can assume that it will change kinds, but based on the evidence we are able to observe, it will only change in minor details (i.e., size, beak shape, color, etc., which are all changes that affect the species""or even the genera""that the bird belongs to but it will not affect the kind of animal it is: a bird.)

I find it interesting that intelligent design "absolutely KILLS [my] argument and removes it from the realm of science," even though some of the most well known scientists have believed in an intelligent designer, including, but not limited to, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Nicolaus Copernicus. It"s much less scientific to believe in a universe that is the result of a cosmic accident (which many scientists, including Richard Dawkins, believe) and that creatures have just evolved from lower creatures (like amoebae), even though logically it doesn"t make since to believe that such a large and complex universe with laws that make sense to our human minds could be the result of an accident. Believing in a creator makes much more sense, because in the natural world wherever there is organized information (such as a book), there is an organizer of that information. It"s foolish to believe that this only applies in this day and age, but that 13 billion years ago accidents caused by nothing(2) created everything.

"I want to ask you this and I would much appreciate a direct answer - If I was able to show you examples of fossils showing gradual changes from great apes, approximately 15 million years ago, to modern humans, showing changes in traits like jaw shape/structure and brain size, moving from clearly ape-like to clearly human-like, would you consider that any evidence for macroevolution?"

Again, how do you know that this supposed evidence for macroevolution is 15 million years old? Because you want a direct answer, I would only be able to believe the evidence is actually evidence of molecules-to-man evolution if the dating system was reliable and we could know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are past humans, and not just apelike creatures or intelligent humans (not dumb cavemen) that have a difference in appearance (i.e., larger skulls, etc., which, ironically, a larger skull would suggest a larger brain).

I want evidence for macroevolution that is undeniable, and so far the evidence you"ve given me is not convincing. If macroevolution is more than a theory (a.k.a. a law), then there must be evidence for it that I do not have to accept by my faith in the scientists, textbooks, or dating equipment. If there is observable evidence for macroevolution, it should be as plain and obvious to me as gravity.

(1)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(2)http://old.richarddawkins.net...
MikeNH

Con

"I want evidence for macroevolution that is undeniable, and so far the evidence you"ve given me is not convincing. If macroevolution is more than a theory (a.k.a. a law), then there must be evidence for it that I do not have to accept by my faith in the scientists, textbooks, or dating equipment. If there is observable evidence for macroevolution, it should be as plain and obvious to me as gravity.”

Once again this is an amazing example of a blatant fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. I do not mean this as an ad hominem, but it MUST be stated - you lack even a high school understanding of the simple basic scientific concepts. Laws are not superior to theories, as you stated, they are two different concepts. It would be absurd for me to go into detail as to why you are painfully wrong, so I will provide a couple quotes a few links so you can look it up yourself. You NEED to learn the difference if you want to have scientific discussions.

"We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.” (1)

"Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.” (2)

"Now obviously your hypothesis isn't an assumption, but the evidence that supports your hypothesis relies on the assumption that the earth is several billion years old.”

Basically, your first two paragraphs deny that the earth is billions of years old. Once again, I can't waste precious characters explaining something that is observed, measured, tested, used, and confirmed by scientists daily in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, biology, physics, geology, chemistry, etc... Every single aspect of science relies on the same measurements. (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)

"...even though logically it doesn"t make since to believe that such a large and complex universe with laws that make sense to our human minds could be the result of an accident. Believing in a creator makes much more sense, because in the natural world wherever there is organized information (such as a book), there is an organizer of that information. It"s foolish to believe that this only applies in this day and age, but that 13 billion years ago accidents caused by nothing(2) created everything."

This is a massive argument from ignorance. You don't understand it, therefore God did it. Look up this logical fallacy, because you're guilty of it here. Can't spend too many characters addressing every fallacy here, but I will like to point out that the laws of the universe that we use are DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. You've got it backwards. We created "laws" of the universe to describe how the universe operates, rather than a god creating laws that the universe must obey.

"and we could know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are past humans, and not just apelike creatures or intelligent humans (not dumb cavemen) that have a difference in appearance (i.e., larger skulls, etc., which, ironically, a larger skull would suggest a larger brain)."

In what way is the latter ironic? That is THE reason why we developed larger skulls over time, for larger brains.

For ape to human evolution, reference (11)(12)(13):

"One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.(http://www.talkorigins.org...)

      • (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
      • (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
      • (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
      • (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
      • (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
      • (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
      • (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
      • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
      • (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
      • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
      • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
      • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
      • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
      • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern"

Also, we have well known and documented transitional forms between fish, snakes, lizards, and frogs, between whales, dolphins, and other land mammals, between reptiles and other proto-mammals, between birds and dinosaurs, etc. (10) The evidence is astounding. There is no serious debate in science whether or not common descent happened. You can quote a handful of scientists that say the earth is 6,000 years old and that radiometric dating proves the bible, and other nonsense, but within the scientific community as a whole, there is no controversy. It's like the flat earth and the solid state theory. People still believe it and often come up with clever arguments, but they are full of misunderstandings and fallacies. Nobody takes them seriously anymore, and this includes creationists. We are apes, primates, this was determined decades ago, feel free to reject it, but the evidence is staring you right in the face every time you look in the mirror.

(1) http://thehappyscientist.com...
(2) http://science.kennesaw.edu...
(3) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...;
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...;
(5) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...;
(6) http://www.universetoday.com...
(7) http://www.aip.org...;
(8) http://pubs.usgs.gov...;
(9) http://ncse.com...;
(10) http://www.transitionalfossils.com...;
(11) http://www.talkorigins.org...;
(12) http://www.talkorigins.org...;
(13) http://www.talkorigins.org...;

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jrelkins 3 years ago
jrelkins
Regarding Con's supposed proof of Change over time being not really noticeable his graphic falls short. His conclusion that if macro evolution doesn't happen you are still reading words in read is not tenable. the fact of his illustration is that micro evolution happened in that the words changed from red to blue. Exactly where they changed color is undetermined via his graphic.

The fact is at the end of his illustration the words remained words and did not morph in to another medium or communication. Instead of red words you now have blue or purple words. The illustration I believe was to prove that observable change is not exact and to that point there is probably agreement. To the point of using this to prove macro evolution this illustration falls short because at the end of the day the WORDS have not changed other than in color. That is a micro change that can be tracked. There is no significant macro change that can be detected.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Does anyone here have a background in Biological sciences? Because honestly the level of ignorance in these comments is exasperating. People are debating things and making statements that anyone educated in the field is literally facedesking right now.
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
http://evolution.berkeley.edu....

Here's proof of macroevolution. Apparently hippos and whales are related.
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
Recently astrophysicists were able to glimpse the furthest galaxy yet spotted, one so far away the light from that galaxy is as it was about 700 million years after the Big Bang, why I say Big Bang is because of the high star formation rate spotted and the high amounts of energy witnessed. It is not faith anymore, my friends, that allows one to suppose a universe older than 6,000 years nor to suppose 80 million years for a Marine Lizard to evolve into a Snake.
Posted by logicaldebater 3 years ago
logicaldebater
For the simple organism I meant to refer to an amoeba not molecules, so I apologize for the mistake on my part. And yes, something more complex is usually better than something less complex. For example, humans are better (in the since of being more complex, able to solve greater problems, and do many other things""like debate) than amoebae (which, as far as I know, do not debate with each other). And I'm not wrong because macroevolution cannot be proven by operational science (experimenting, etc.) but can only be interpreted based on the evidence that is available because it falls into the category of historical science. Therefore, creationism and evolution are both interpretations of the evidence based on a presupposition. Believing in a Creator is, based on observations made, much more scientific than believing in a "big bang" which has no observable evidence to back it up, whereas believing in an orderly and logical Creator makes much more since because we live in an orderly and logical universe.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
"How can you say that "No, it's simply not", when macroevolution (molecules-to-man) is clearly one simple organism (molecules) becoming a more complex (thus, better) organism. You obviously misunderstood what I have said."

You're making some sort of value judgement that complexity is somehow better. Can you demonstrate that something that is more complex is necessarily "better", and by what you even mean by "better" in any case? Also molecules are not organisms, you do know that right?

"You're just contradicting me for the sake of argument"

I'm contradicting you because you're wrong. ;)
Posted by logicaldebater 3 years ago
logicaldebater
"No, it's simply not. Once again look at the graphic where tiny changes in color overtime changes something from clearly red, to clearly blue. Just like taking a Honda and swapping out each part one at a time with a Ford part, will eventually end up being something we no longer consider a Honda, and now consider a Ford."

How can you say that "No, it's simply not", when macroevolution (molecules-to-man) is clearly one simple organism (molecules) becoming a more complex (thus, better) organism. You obviously misunderstood what I have said.

"No it doesn't. The fossil evidence is supported many other independent fields."

You're just contradicting me for the sake of argument. Besides, evolution is an historical science(1), therefore everything we discover about it is based on our previous assumption. Do some research. Below I've included some articles to help refine your basic understanding of science:

(1)http://www.answersingenesis.org...
http://www.icr.org...
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
@logicaldebater - "while macroevolution is vertical (the species are "upgrading" or becoming better)"

No, it's simply not. Once again look at the graphic where tiny changes in color overtime changes something from clearly red, to clearly blue. Just like taking a Honda and swapping out each part one at a time with a Ford part, will eventually end up being something we no longer consider a Honda, and now consider a Ford.

"and requires faith that creatures found in the fossil record are the ancestors of creatures that exist today."

No it doesn't. The fossil evidence is supported many other independent fields.
Posted by logicaldebater 3 years ago
logicaldebater
Pontob, this is a very false assumption. Microevolution is variations taking place within a species (sometimes genera) and can easily be accepted without macroevolution because microevolution is horizontal (the changes do not better or degrade the species), while macroevolution is vertical (the species are "upgrading" or becoming better) and requires faith that creatures found in the fossil record are the ancestors of creatures that exist today.
Posted by pontob 3 years ago
pontob
Macro evolution is just lots of small micro evolutions. You can't accept one without the other.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
logicaldebaterMikeNHTied
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: Pro didn't seem to ever understand what it is he's arguing. Pro also used words like "kind" without any definition at all. Species is a well-defined term. It felt like Pro didn't want to use the word "species" because Pro knows that there is evidence of speciation. Pro accepts that there can be lots of little changes but provides no mechanism for keeping those changes from accumulating until a big change has happened. Con's picture simplifying macroevolution is a really good example.
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
logicaldebaterMikeNHTied
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: Con provided more convincing arguments and showed to have a better understanding of the scientific method and evolutionary process.