The Instigator
badbob
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

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 4 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,400 times Debate No: 25003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

badbob

Pro

When I am speaking of the diversity of life, I am talking about whales,monkeys,fish in all thier varieties,birds,dinosaurs,etc. I am not talking about small changes within a species such as small changes in a beak. I am talking about new species coming forth and so far,evolution has not given us a satisfactory answer.It is time to find a new paradigm to work within that will be more effective.
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. I would like to offer forth some definitions.

Theory of Evolution: - a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals that is characterised by the idea that animals and plants will adapt to pressures from their environment e.g. longer beak etc. that help the animal survive

Abandon - discard the theory as false

Diversity of (??) - I'm assuming my opponent means that the theory of evolution doesn't show why there is a diversity of life on the planet

I look forward to my opponent's response!
Debate Round No. 1
badbob

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. It looks like you are thinking about micro evolution which I am not disputing. I am talking about species changing into other species. For insatnce, when Darwin saw finches on Galapagos he noticed changes in beaks. That is fine. However there were thirteen varieties (some say 13 or 17)then and are still the same number today. Consider the fruit fly-Life cycle is about 10 days. Excellent for research. There have been numerous experiments with them to cause mutations. Now there are different mutations such as deletions,insertions,inversions and fruit flies are good specimen to study. These studies have shown time and again what dog breeders know, there are limits to evolution. In one experiemnt the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and another for an increase in bristles. The original parent stock had an average of 36 bristles. After many generations they were able to get the average down to 25 bristles and what happened? They became sterile and died out. In the other they went up to 56 bristles, then sterility set in. There have been many more experiments with the Drosophila melanogaster,but no new species.Now what happens when we leave these guys alone after playing around with them. They quickly go back to the common fruit fly. I work in the field of education. Educational psychologists call this "regression toward the mean". Descendents generally move back to the mathematical average. Of course when evolution was developed by Darwin,he had no idea how complex things were on a molecular level even for a fruit fly. Science has moved on and we need to discard some of these old ways of thinking from 1859. We have not been able to develop new species in the lab so evolution uses conjecture, such as Ricard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker'. He talks about how a bat(he does not use that term) evolved from possible a squirrel. It is on page 89-90 if you want to look it up.He conjectures that an animal jumps from a branch and slowly over time develops a flap growing from joints and so forth until we get a flying creature. That argument leaves me unsatisfied because there is no proof in the fossil records, and so forth. There are many more examples I can give where evolution has failed us on the big questions. It does a real nice job of explaining diversity on a micro level such as different colored moths in Industrial England. Evolution has failed in trying to tell us the how different species developed.
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent and present my own case.


I am talking about species changing into other species.


For voter’s reference, this is also known as speciation.


These studies have shown time and again what dog breeders know, there are limits to evolution.


My opponent has provided no sources for these studies. The difference between these studies (which my opponent has provided no citation for) and nature, is that in nature these animals are FORCED to adapt in order to survive in their environment. I will be elaborating on this further in my contentions. My opponent has provided absolutely ZERO sources, so his points are voided until a citation is provided for where his “studies” and “evidence” come from.



CONTENTION: SPECIATION (a direct result of evolution) RESULTS IN NEW SPECIES


Evolution is the idea that a creature will adapt to its environment, and evolve with physical or biological adaptations. These adaptations allow the animal or plant to survive in their environment. Through evolution, these animals change so much that they become a different species, which is speciation. An easy example of speciation is in dogs. It is common knowledge that the domestic dog evolved from the wolf. Are Chihuahuas at all similar to wolves? Not at all, these are two different species created through speciation. Fossil evidence shows us how speciation has created distinct species, animals such as the Galapagos Turtles and Komodo Dragons. [1] Nature has shown us many examples of how speciation creates new species, such as in sea gulls, warblers, and salamanders. [2] Differences in lab speciation and natural speciation is obvious. When grown in a lab, tetraploid sporophytes were very different from natural ones. When grown in the lab, they grew far slower than natural ones, despite the scientist’s best efforts to make the conditions in labs as natural as possible.[3] Furthermore, my opponent has provided no source for any of his arguments, and I would invite him to cite his studies.


Clearly, speciation is a product of evolution. The creation of new species is speciation. Thus, evolution creates new species. Why would we abandon a correct theory? Thus, I have disproved the resolution. VOTE CON.


SOURCES



  1. http://curiosity.discovery.com...

  2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  3. http://www.talkorigins.org...

Debate Round No. 2
badbob

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding. Let me address a couple of things. You are saying I gave no citations when I clearly did on the Dawkins quote and you still ignored the agument. Second I saw no citations in your arguments. You said things such as :it is common knowledge dofs evolved from wolf" no citation and no evidence to show. You saying it does not makin it true. If all the people in the world say it still does not make it true. I offered studies to back up my points and you did not address them. You also said "nature has shown us many examples" with no refernece. Your arguments seem to be more tautology than evidence. However, you mention the fossil record. Let me address that- Even Darwin knew the fossil record did not support his theory. Conditions have not gotten better since then. Consider this statement "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record is still surprisingly jerky, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" Davis Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Palentology, Field Museum of Natural History,vol.50,no 1,1979,pp22-29. The late harvard palentologist Stephen Jay Gould said(he loved evolution by the way) called the "extreme rarity" of transitional animals "the trade secret of palentology"
Consider the Cambrian period, when life forms suddenly appeared on the scene fully developed. Let me quote Dawkins again"It is as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history. I have read many ways evolutionists have tried to explain this explosion but none with any great satisfaction.They mostly have conjectures like Dawkins from my previous argument trying desperatly to explain how bats or other flying creatures came to be with no evidence to back it up. Some said if only we could find fossils preceding the era they woulde show transitonal forms. However in 1984 palentologists did just that in China. What did it show-no transitional forms. So the fossil recod you have put forth does not explain how how the different life forms from plants to dinosaurs arrived. It just does not have evidence to back up macro-evolution. I think the paradigm is so strong that people stick with evolution as an argument even though there may be other answers out there. Hopefully my opponent will address my points including the previous ones where he acted like I was making up studies. Vote Pro---I want to thank my opponent for the debate!
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. Regarding sources, I believe for your sources to count, you must a website at which the information may be accessed with footnotes in your argument for the sites. Thus, your Dawkins quote and your sources from books are invalidated as you have provided no source.


You said things such as: it is common knowledge that dogs evolved from wolves” no citation and no evidence to show. You saying it does not make it true.


Yet it is true. Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiarus) is a sub-species of Canus lupus, or the grey wolf. Dogs and wolves are clearly very different, thus this is a prime example of speciation. Another great example of speciation is chimpanzee to humans. Humans are clearly very different from chimpanzees, yet we have evidence that humans were once chimpanzees. Human and chimp DNA are 97.5% similar.[2] Speciation between chimps into humans was thought to have occurred 6.5 million years ago.[1] All these examples show us that speciation is clearly correct.


“Nature has shown us many examples” with no reference.


I instead used a footnote.


Consider the Cambrian period.


My opponent once again has provided no source for his information. However, during the Cambrian explosion animals didn’t just appear fully developed. During the biological big bang, animals began growing claws, teeth, and tentacles. They began adapting to their environment (evolution). Vertebrates appeared after. [3]


Hopefully my opponent will address my points including the previous ones where he acted like I was making up studies.


My opponent has failed to address MY points and the studies that I provided a source for which clearly shows that laboratory experiments are very different from nature. Furthermore, the studies of my opponents has shown actually proves evolution. According to Darwin’s laws of evolution, animals that have useless adaptions will die out, while animals with useful adaptations will survive. Extra bristles serve no purpose to fruit flies, thus they died out, further proving evolution. As I have shown already, the laboratory is very different from nature.


Clearly, we see that evolution has provided the answer for the creation of species. Thus VOTE CON. I thank my opponent for a thought-provoking debate!


SOURCES



  1. http://www.nature.com...

  2. http://www.cs.unc.edu...

  3. http://scienceray.com...


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bencbartlett 5 years ago
bencbartlett
I would accept this debate; however, I am a little unclear as to what you are arguing. Are you arguing that evolution hasn't been able to explain some things in biology? Of course it hasn't, so if this is what you're arguing, it would be pointless for me to join. However, obviously, science sticks with the most logical explanations until a more logical one arises. If you are going to suggest a different theory, then 1) which one is it, and 2) will we be arguing on the relative validity of the theories?

If you either revise the resolution or clarify this in the comments section, I will definitely consider accepting the debate.
Posted by badbob 5 years ago
badbob
That was an intersting article 16k. Why don't you accept the debate?
Posted by davidtaylorjr 5 years ago
davidtaylorjr
Intelligent design?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
badbobishallannoyyoTied
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's argument pretty much boils down to the gene pool going back to the ESS, which is true. Pro assumes that all mutations are detrimental, which is not true and is the main reason for the gene pool going back to the ESS. Regardless, Con showed examples of speciation occurring and wasn't just an outright creationist dumbass.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
badbobishallannoyyoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty straight forward really, Con was able to provide the evidence, which really brought down Pro's case. Con got the sources because Pro never actually let us check them out, while we could fact check Con.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
badbobishallannoyyoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't have the patience to read badbob's arguments, because of the format.
Vote Placed by igaryoak 5 years ago
igaryoak
badbobishallannoyyoTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: The organization and readability of Con's arguments were far superior. He also provided more, reliable sources.