The Instigator
baus
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Trooper
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Whether creationism or evolution is true, natural selection is a fact.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 586 times Debate No: 55434
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

baus

Pro

Natural Selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Con is welcome to define the other two words as long as they source the definitions and do not try to derail it.
Trooper

Con

If evolution did happen,
1) Where did the "animals which humans come from" come from and who made them
2. Why aren't the "animals" evolving now
Debate Round No. 1
baus

Pro

1) Where did the "animals which humans come from" come from and who made them?

The same thing that made God.

2. Why aren't the "animals" evolving now?

They are, just over hundreds upon thousands upon millions of years, bit by bit. We look extremely different form humans of the Middle Ages and Roman Empire. We're taller and darker skinned than the middle aged people of whatever race we are and short and paler than the Romans. Over time, we will eventually find that a certain male babies mutate to a level where they are not quite as 'human' as we like now and this baby's mutation may well will give it a huge advantage in mating with as many women as it can before it dies.

The next generation will compete with each other to see which is most adapted to their environment and the one most adapted will survive longer and produce more offspring, on average , compared with its maladaptive rivals.
Trooper

Con

So what made God or the "animals" that are our "Ancestors"

Science proves yes the earth could make it self but why, why would it make it self.
One of the Rules of science"An object can't move unless it's pushed. PUSHED.

If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.

The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?

In short, the theory of evolution states that lower life evolved over eons into higher life forms. Many lower life forms (generally single cells or plants) are asexual, which is what one would expect if the theory of evolution had any validity. If the evolutionary process was to continue however, we would expect the continuation of asexual characteristics or possibly hermaphroditic characteristics (i.e. having both sets of sexual reproductive organs). Moreover, an evolving hermaphroditic creature should be able to self-fertilize itself. Without asexual characteristics or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic characteristics, how possibly could a mutant entity reproduce? The chance of such a mutant finding an exact complementary mate within its lifespan would be extremely remote given the infrequency of mutations, and especially fertile mutations.

Yet scientific observation reveals that of all the hermaphroditic creatures, only the flatworm is self-fertilizing. Moreover, there are no (or a statistically insignificant number of) creatures that we might suppose or rationalize as evolving. Given the eons of time for evolution to take place,we should expect to see many creatures at all stages of the evolutionary process. But we don't see any missing links to speak of, or creatures in transition. (Once in a while some "scientist" will speculate and publish some "finding" which is generally discarded later)

When we find a mutant in the higher level creatures, it is nearly always sterile. Furthermore, the offspring of cross specie types are always sterile (such as the mule, an offspring of a horse and donkey or the offspring of one type of dolphin mating with another type of dolphin.).

Again, how can possibly sterile creatures reproduce and continue the evolutionary process? They can't!!!

The answer to the male-female problem is pretty obvious. Genesis 5:2 states: "He (God) created them male and female and blessed them."
Debate Round No. 2
baus

Pro

Key:
Q = Question asked by Con
A = Answer given by Pro
C = Contention by Con
R = Rebuttal by Pro

Q: So what made God or the "animals" that are our "Ancestors"?
A: God may not even exist and so doesn't have to have been made. What made the animals is either God, via Creationism, or random events that led to biological matter arising from the Earth.

C: Science proves that the earth could make itself.
R: No it doesn't; the Earth did not ever make anything, its an inanimate rock with an atmosphere.

Q: Why would it (the Earth) make it self?
A: I don't know, you tell me.

Q: f single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs?
A: By random mutation meaning that one happened to be a two-celled organism and found a huge and being this and sexually dominated all of its one-celled rivals by reproducing itself several times by many times. The fact is that if any nutrients entered one side of the other cell, the other would reap the benefits, so accessibility to surrounding nutrients has been optimally maximized. Thus, if one of them happened to mutate to a 3-celled organism (by not splitting properly in the reproduction then this would destroy all competition and take up more room. This is, indeed, possible because zygotic twins (and triplets) have been born. Now, the way that cells work is they band together to make tissues and eventually form organisms. Whether this was done via creationism or evolution is not my concern since whichever it was, natural selection holds true as the most adapted to their environment will be the ones to go on and reproduce and survive. In fact, cells have no sexuality at all. It is natural selection that advanced hermaphrodites to bi-gender species, not the other way around. The in-between states are not sterile because species didn't exist in the beginning of the world. Species came later on. At the beginning, everything reproduced asexually.

C: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females
R: Whether Creationism or evolution is true, natural selection is still a fact within the living entities in a given environment.

Q: Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?
A: I am not sure of this, which is why Creationism may be true. Whichever one is true is irrelevant to my side of the debate.

C: In short, the theory of evolution states that lower life evolved over eons into higher life forms. Many lower life forms (generally single cells or plants) are asexual, which is what one would expect if the theory of evolution had any validity. If the evolutionary process was to continue however, we would expect the continuation of asexual characteristics or possibly hermaphroditic characteristics (i.e. having both sets of sexual reproductive organs). Moreover, an evolving hermaphroditic creature should be able to self-fertilize itself. Without asexual characteristics or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic characteristics, how possibly could a mutant entity reproduce? The chance of such a mutant finding an exact complementary mate within its lifespan would be extremely remote given the infrequency of mutations, and especially fertile mutations.
R: Again, whether evolution or Creationism is true is irrelevant to this debate.

C: Yet scientific observation reveals that of all the hermaphroditic creatures, only the flatworm is self-fertilizing. Moreover, there are no (or a statistically insignificant number of) creatures that we might suppose or rationalize as evolving. Given the eons of time for evolution to take place,we should expect to see many creatures at all stages of the evolutionary process. But we don't see any missing links to speak of, or creatures in transition. (Once in a while some "scientist" will speculate and publish some "finding" which is generally discarded later).
R: That is great to know, Creationism also has no evidence and whichever one may be true is irrelevant to my side of the debate.

C: When we find a mutant in the higher level creatures, it is nearly always sterile. Furthermore, the offspring of cross specie types are always sterile (such as the mule, an offspring of a horse and donkey or the offspring of one type of dolphin mating with another type of dolphin.).
R: The fact that the mutant dies off without producing offspring is proof of natural selection in action. The mutant is not well-adapted to its environment and shall submit to its better-adapted rivals or die trying.

Q: How can possibly sterile creatures reproduce and continue the evolutionary process?
A: Evolution being true or Creationism being true is not a concern of the Pro side of this debate. The fact that they fail to reproduce is evidence that being more adapted to their surroundings would have directly increased their chances of producing offspring.

C: The answer to the male-female problem is pretty obvious. Genesis 5:2 states: "He (God) created them male and female and blessed them."
R: Creationism being true doesn't disprove the resolution.
Trooper

Con

Trooper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
baus

Pro

Extending all arguments.
Trooper

Con

Trooper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
baus

Pro

baus forfeited this round.
Trooper

Con

Trooper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
bausTrooperTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: In a debate specifically on the factuality of natural selection, it's surprising to see that the word only comes up 6 times in the debate (including the title and initial round where no arguments are presented).
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
bausTrooperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff'd 1 less round