The Instigator
giuocob
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
joze14rock
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

We did not come from monkeys!!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,904 times Debate No: 4293
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (11)

 

giuocob

Pro

Seriosly...how can anyone believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys...that's just ridiculous.....
joze14rock

Con

*sarcastically*
Dude I know what you mean!? Crazy stories out there!! I heard of this theory in a book that said that we were made by the dirt of the ground and that females were made from another man's rib!! Crazy right?

.....

And yes, fundamentalist do believe in the literal account from Genesis 2.

I believe the best question to ask here, before I proclaim certian empirical evidence that points to the contrary of my opponent's view, is:

How can anyone NOT believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys?
Their are hundreds, possibly thousands, of creation stories around the world about where man came from:
From the dirt of the ground manipulated by an omnipotent God to Aliens transmitting their semen across the earth's surface.
Their are people who believe these stories.

And the Theory of Evolution is simply another story in the vast intellectual imagination of man.

So I ask my opponent, once again:
How can anyone NOT believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys?
Debate Round No. 1
giuocob

Pro

My opponent has asked me how I can possibly NOT believe in a theory that we came from monkeys.

The simple answer is, I don't, and neither does the scientific community. Not a single reputable scientist believes in the idea that we came from monkeys. In fact, I believe in evolution. This is a theory that states that many million years ago, there was a species that resembled neither monkeys nor men. This species diverged and eventually evolved into both monkeys and men, while going extinct itself. There is a wealth of evidence to support this hypothesis, but I see no reason to dive into it. My opponent claimed to believe in evolution, as I do. On that point, we agree. If my opponent believes in the modern branch of evolution, which states that men did not evolve from monkeys, but shared with them a common ancestor, he has made a grave error in accepting this debate.

I eagerly await your rebuttal.
joze14rock

Con

No, actually I do not assert
how my opponent can possibly NOT believe in the theory
but rather
how my opponent can possibly NOT understand why people would believe it?

I made no grave error in accepting this debate. And actually I am a philosopher
and that entails me to say I do not not know; I do and do not believe in evolution is what i'm trying to say I guess, lol.

I think it is rather fallacious for my opponent to say that most of the scientific community believes that the monkey theory is ludicrous. I have confidence that my opponent, in the next round, will bring forth evidence substantuating his claim.

Their is plenty of evidence that shows that Modern Man diverged from an Ape like creature. I think the fossil record and genetics is best in supporting such evidence.
98% of human DNA makeup is similar to Chimpanzeen DNA. Now I know their is much controversy about this proclamation between Geneticist, so let us stray away from arguing solely on this.
But their are some who argue this and have plenty of evidence to point to it.

But besides genetics, look at the fossil record. From Australopithecus to Homo Habilis!!
Let us infer logic here- As the fossil record shows, these creatures are the closest in similarity (besides the Neanderthals, which I will get into a bit later) to us than any other creature on the planet. Homo Habilis were the first creatures to utilize fire!!!

And here is my final brief support: Their is no other way to explain the link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens than by Monkey Evolution theory. Neanderthals share an even closer genetic similarity with humans than chimpanzees (99.9%) and this is rarely disputed by Gentecists, Physical Anthropologists, etc.
The Monkey theory claims that the link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens comes from a common ancestor (Homo Something... I forget what it is called) that were somewhat different due to Geographic location. That's why Neanderthals have bulkier bodies and a shorter stature because they could live in the freezing temperatures of Western Europe and effectively ambush from behind tries.

But I did not want to rely by whole argument on empirical evidence. Rather, I want to argue that my opponent doesn't really give me much argue him against, and thus I should win.
And since he doesn't give me anything to argue against, I am forced to draw the ignorance from his decree: "how can anyone believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys...that's just ridiculous....."

Well, how can anyone believe that we are made by the dirt of the earth? Well they do, and they have reasons for why they do

Same in the Monkey-Evolution theory.

I have faith that my opponent will bring forth true arguments against the monkey-ape theory in the following rounds so to allow me to refute them.
Debate Round No. 2
giuocob

Pro

No, I don't think you quite understood my argument. I agree with absolutely everything you said there. I believe in evolution. I do not believe we came from dirt. But you are misrepresenting your own beliefs unwittingly by saying you believe in monkey evolution, which is the idea that there is a direct evolutionary link between humans and monkeys. As you said here:

<>

You clearly believe in the common ancestor theory, which states that humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor, which was neither human nor monkey. If you disagree with that claim, then you disagree with the entire scientific community, and you need to present some real evidence to back up your claim. But if you believe in evolution, as you have said you do, then you agree with the topic title (we did not come from monkeys, which is part of the theory of evolution) and made a grave error in accepting the debate.
joze14rock

Con

Sadly, my opponent as misconstrued what I have been saying throughout this debate.

First off, this is not about what I believe or do not believe. This is a debate. Meaning- you choose a side, I choose the opposite... and we defend our sides.
It's like being a lawyer for a rapist murderer, knowing that he did commit the crime, but you having to defend him.
In the same sense, I am defending the Idea that man evolved from monkeys.

Well, i'm trying to defend. My opponent really gave me nothing to debate him about!! So i've had to show his ignorance on this whole thread.

And I am a bit offended in your statement that I have "misrepresented" my own beliefs. I believe I know my own beliefs better than you do.
BUT AGAIN, this debate is not about what I believe, but about debating that man did come from monkeys.

Your statement: "If you disagree with that claim, then you disagree with the entire scientific community, and you need to present some real evidence to back up your claim"
Is utterly fallacious. I challenged you in Round 2 to bring evidence of your own. Ughhh, like the point you repetitiously bring up that the "scientific community" believes the contrary.
Which I highly doubt, because I've seen enough History Channel Specials telling me that I come from an evolved monkey.... oh dear, I guess their is one source of evidence for me.
My opponent has ... well... none.
So 1 source of evidence as compared to none... I think I win? Yes?

No, let me give a most definite evidence that makes my opponent look really weak in light of his assertion that most of the "scientific community" is opposed.
Let me go to a notable website, biology.org, and see what they say
"But all in all, the human ancestral line involves the hominid family, who diversified from the apes around 6 to 8 million years ago. Since then our evolutionary path has proved to be nothing short of phenomenal"
http://www.biology-online.org...

I am arguing that man did come from monkeys. Why? Well outlined that in Round 2-> Genetics and Fossil Record.
Nowadays, people are most convinced by empirical evidence instead of utter speculation.
http://answers.yahoo.com...

I think it's important to point out the fact that Australopithecus, the type of animal that evolved into the Homo Habilis etc.,
is a giant ape. It's a monkey. Period. Look at the drawings and tell me they don't look like apes!!!
I know this sounds like a shrewd argument, but think about it. What is a monkey or an ape?
Maybe we didn't come from Chimpanzeens, but the evidence is almost definite that we evolved from the Austrolopithicus. Look at this conjured up picture by a computer artist
http://cgi.ncrv.nl...
It looks like a monkey doesn't it? What is a prehistoric monkey? Well I think the picture says it all.

And to put the cap on the bottle, let's get a bit philosophical- All mammals diverge from one kind of animal. (source: biology.org) Actually these first mammals were very small, burrowing creatures. Now, most scientist believe, the reason why Mammals came to dominate the planet after the dinasours became extinct was exactly because these first mammals lived underground (So maybe the story of Genesis has some validity in claiming man to come from the ground...)
Scientist are most convinced that a giant asteroid triggered the mass extinction of dinasours, which caused major ecological change that they could not live on. But those early mammals lived underground, not entirely effected by the cataclismic event in the earth's history. Well, eventually these early mammals evolved, several types of mammals arose, and eventually man came around.
Now, I understand that this does not conclusively proove the validity of the monkey-evolution theory. But it gives us a starting point. We all (i.e. all mammals) came from one type of ancient prehistoric mammal that evolved.
So if we can evolve from one type of mammal, how can we not say that maybe we evolved from monkeys or apes themselves?

Now about the Neanderthals. My opponent completely misunderstood me. So let me reiterate:
Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens have a common ancestor, homo habilis. Homo habilis comes from Austrolopithicus, which is a giant ape-monkey.
This theory is the only one with empirical evidence that can demonstrate where Neanderthals, a different specias of humans, came from.

I believe I won this debate in the very beginning because my opponent clearly had unsubstantiated arguments.
I didn't really have anything to argue with him against because he didn't bring anything up!
I brought forth some evidence that pointed toward the Monkey-Ape evolution theory, but he did not refute any of it and did little but gripe about it.

Take Care
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 5 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
I don't think I've ever come across a theory that humans evolved from monkeys. The theory of human evolution is solely based on the common ancestor.
Posted by giuocob 5 years ago
giuocob
I never expected to win. I voted for your side. I would be incensed if I won.
Posted by joze14rock 5 years ago
joze14rock
I think I like that excuse...
I think i'll use it whenever I just can't finish a debate
or I have
obviously lost.

lol, just dickin around.
Posted by giuocob 5 years ago
giuocob
Amazing! Now I've got my own troll to follow me around! I can tell I'm going to have a great time on this site.
Posted by scorpionclone 5 years ago
scorpionclone
I think all your debates seem to turn out that way
Posted by giuocob 5 years ago
giuocob
Just so you know, this was meant to be an utterly stupid debate.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LadyA 5 years ago
LadyA
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 5 years ago
Hypnodoc
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 5 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 5 years ago
Derek.Gunn
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 5 years ago
Jamcke
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by tremendoustie 5 years ago
tremendoustie
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 5 years ago
scorpionclone
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by giuocob 5 years ago
giuocob
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Spiral 5 years ago
Spiral
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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 
Vote Placed by biophil 5 years ago
biophil
giuocobjoze14rockTied
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