The Instigator
everseeingeye
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
multislack
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

evolution is a big lie. we did not ocme 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: 5/17/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,898 times Debate No: 4077
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (18)

 

everseeingeye

Pro

I can't imagine how you can believe we came from monkeys. doesn't it just make more sense to just say we adapted? Just because we changed our environment doesn't mean we automativally can mutate ourselves and just "evolve." When people get mutetions, they suffer from various illnesses. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad.

How can you explain how things so complex such as the eye can just have "evolved"? you can't. The fact is, evolution takes faith. How you can believe in something that is so absurd with no evidence is beyond me. Do you realize the probability of us getting here by "chance" is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes.

Every time I talk to athiests, they can't back their claimes up. All they do is resort to ad-hominem attacks, because that's all they've got. When it all boils down, they have no evidence.

So I challenge you, show me the FACTS, show me the Evidence, to justify this belief, because when it all boils down to, you really have none, don't you.
multislack

Con

Let me begin by explaining the difference between "adaptation" and "evolution".

ad�ap�ta�tion
noun 1. the act of adapting.
2. the state of being adapted; adjustment.
3. something produced by adapting: an adaptation of a play for television.
****4. Biology. a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.

ev�o�lu�tion
noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
*****3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

I don't recall any remotely intelligent human ever claiming that we as a species (or any other species for that matter) hold the magical ability to wake up one day and decide to "evolve" or "mutate" into something entirely different. Had I been under the assumption that I could, I would mutate into a 30 foot bear and devour your entire family right now.

But in all seriousness, you ask for one mutation that has had a positive effect on its host. I offer you this:

Welcome to Africa!
Population: MALARIA

The sickle cell mutation is a like a typographical error in the DNA code of the gene that tells the body how to make a form of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in our blood. Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity. These sickled cells become stuck in small blood vessels, causing a "crisis" of pain, fever, swelling and tissue damage.

Why then, is SCA so prevalent? Up to 40% of the population in areas hard-hit by Malaria carry at least one of these mutated genes. The reason is that this disorder helps protect one against Malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape.. and the parasite is eliminated along with them.

Now personally, I'd rather be stricken with Sickle Cell Anemia than die from Malaria or "live" with severe brain damage.

Now my next point will be countering your belief that we are made in the image of God and why it's so impossible for something as complex as the human eye (which isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. The anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" is ridiculous. If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.)

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they almost immediately poke at the human eye. "How could something so complex have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?" they spit.

Well, what we now refer to as an eye originated as a simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of a disgusting little creature roughly 550 million years ago. This small light-sensitive spot on the skin gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. (Or do you not understand how a camera works?)

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It had arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago, as I said and, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

The FACT that you can't comprehend the FACT that just because something is improbable (your God for instance) does not make it impossible. I love the argument that "the probability of us getting here by 'chance' is so miniscule that it takes more faith for you to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in unicornes" because so is the probability that you will draw a deck of cards in any certain order. I implore you to get a deck of 52 cards, draw them one by one and tell me what they were. How probable was it that you would draw them in that order? Not very, true. But *did* you draw them in that order? Yes.
Debate Round No. 1
everseeingeye

Pro

everseeingeye forfeited this round.
multislack

Con

Well, since my opponent seems to have his hands wrapped up in all the other arguements of the same name, I think I'll post a couple recent articles that are:

a) Related to the topic at hand... more or less.

b) Much more interesting than two rounds of me making frowny faces.

:(

http://www.livescience.com...
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue EyesBy Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 31 January 2008 08:34 am ET

People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.

A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.

The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.

"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.

The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.

If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

"It's exactly what I sort of expected to see from what we know about selection around this area," said John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, referring to the study results regarding the OCA2 gene. Hawks was not involved in the current study.

Baby blues

Eiberg and his team examined DNA from mitochondria, the cells' energy-making structures, of blue-eyed individuals in countries including Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. This genetic material comes from females, so it can trace maternal lineages.

They specifically looked at sequences of DNA on the OCA2 gene and the genetic mutation associated with turning down melanin production.

Over the course of several generations, segments of ancestral DNA get shuffled so that individuals have varying sequences. Some of these segments, however, that haven't been reshuffled are called haplotypes. If a group of individuals shares long haplotypes, that means the sequence arose relatively recently in our human ancestors. The DNA sequence didn't have enough time to get mixed up.

"What they were able to show is that the people who have blue eyes in Denmark, as far as Jordan, these people all have this same haplotype, they all have exactly the same gene changes that are all linked to this one mutation that makes eyes blue," Hawks said in a telephone interview.

Melanin switch

The mutation is what regulates the OCA2 switch for melanin production. And depending on the amount of melanin in the iris, a person can end up with eye color ranging from brown to green. Brown-eyed individuals have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production. But they found that blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes.

"Out of 800 persons we have only found one person which didn't fit — but his eye color was blue with a single brown spot," Eiberg told LiveScience, referring to the finding that blue-eyed individuals all had the same sequence of DNA linked with melanin production.

"From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor," Eiberg said. "They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA." Eiberg and his colleagues detailed their study in the Jan. 3 online edition of the journal Human Genetics.

That genetic switch somehow spread throughout Europe and now other parts of the world.

"The question really is, 'Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?" Hawks said. "This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately I won't be able to post the second article. But believe me, it's a realy doozy! The death of the father. Catchy, isn't it? That was a rhetorical question, of course it's catchy.

I'll tell you what... I'll post the link and if nothing else piques my interest by the next round, I'll post the entire thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
everseeingeye

Pro

everseeingeye forfeited this round.
multislack

Con

multislack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Everseeingeye: I am serious bro. You just might be literally insane:

Insanity: Derangement of the mind in regard of a single subject only; also, such a concentration of interest upon one particular subject or train of ideas to show mental derangement.

Also the common refrain; Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I would seek counseling.

(I am going to post these on every Evolution debate you have had...just so I make sure you see it. And maybe more than once so it will possibly sink in)
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Yeah I kindof agree, though CON responded decently, he could've better..
Overall though, CON still wins.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
I just abstained, because, frankly, neither of their arguments were particularly good.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Yes, yes I know Vi.
:D

Initially I didn't vote, but I'm over it now, I voted CON despite his arrogant tedencies...
:D
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Now dont commit a fallacy, Alexander ;) Vote for the best argument, not who's personality you like.

Voted Con.

I also argued Pro and his arguments suck and are retrieved from an uncredible source *read my debate to find out*
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
After I read this debate I was tempted to vote in favor of CON...
Then I read his comments...
:(
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
"I repeated what i said in more detail because you my friend, are not in this debate. I am not obligated to get over-involved with a spectator."

You do realize that that explanation makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. you recapitulated my point in GREATER detail, because I am not in this debate?

Nobody is forcing you to respond to my comments, least of all me.

I will absolutely challenge you to a debate after I finish my debate with ghegeman on the same topic.
Posted by multislack 9 years ago
multislack
Okay, I'll make it simple for you:

SICKUL SELL UNEMIUH EFOLFED AS A JUNETIK BLASST DORE AGENST a SOOPER SWEAT MULARIUH BOM.

I repeated what i said in more detail because you my friend, are not in this debate. I am not obligated to get over-involved with a spectator.

If you'd like me to, feel free to challenge me to a debate like a big boy.

Now scamper off, sport!
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
By the way, you essentially repeated, in more detail, what I said in my previous comment. I'm not sure how that amounts to an argument...
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Well, you're not obligated to reply to any of my comments if you think them unworthy of your attention. Clearly you do, so I will proceed.

An excellent trade off indeed, and I wouldn't even begin to disagree with anything you said in your last comment, but nothing you said provides a shred of evidence for the possibility of evolution. What you have just told me, and it agrees with everything I've ever read, is that the frequency of alleles can oscillate depending on environmental factors. Unfortunately, evolution requires a lasting change in gene frequency, not an oscillation.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 LadyA 9 years ago
LadyA
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 attrition 9 years ago
attrition
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 LedLegend 9 years ago
LedLegend
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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 SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
everseeingeyemultislackTied
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