The Instigator
michaelmalachi
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

evolution is false

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  
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: 9/9/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,354 times Debate No: 13117
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

michaelmalachi

Pro

evolution makes absolutely no since for multiple reasons and i would like someone who feels otherwise to make their point and we can see where we get.

first off: each species of animal has a different amount of chromosomes in its cells which is why one species cant impregnate another, they just dont have the same mount of chromosomes. so when a creature evolves it would evolve a different amount of chromosomes because its a different species. well then how would a creature that evolved mate if it is the only creature of its kind?

2: why would birds evolve wings? before birds had wings how would growing wings in any way have benefited them? and while they were evolving these wings wouldnt that put them at a fairy large disadvantage? infact natural selection says that they would be more prone to die off rather than flourish.

3: the bible says nothing on the subject of evolution and in the first book utterly disproves it.

4: why did evolution stop when we started watching it? their is no sientific evidence that shows any evolution in any of our fossil records.

5:where is the missing link? there are no fossil records of evolution which is why their is no missing link or we would have found it previously.

that is my standpoint
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for creating this debate. I would like to start off straight away.
First off, I would like to point out my opponent has very poor spelling and grammar and that simply by looking at the first round, the audience should vote for me that way.

Refutations

"first off: each species of animal has a different amount of chromosomes in its cells which is why one species cant impregnate another, they just dont have the same mount of chromosomes."

How does a different amount of chromosomes matter at all? A breed of two different animals would create an animal composed of both genes. Until my opponent explains this better instead of simply claiming this, this point should be ignored. Evolution is not based on the idea that a monkey will mate with a tiger and have offspring. Evolution is about subtle genetic changes in an organism's body.

"why would birds evolve wings? before birds had wings how would growing wings in any way have benefited them? and while they were evolving these wings wouldnt that put them at a fairy large disadvantage? infact natural selection says that they would be more prone to die off rather than flourish."

Wings developed as a result of evolutionary development of birds many millions of years ago. Wings would have provided selective advantages for food and resource gathering along with in helping the organism to escape from predators more effectively. When did natural selection say that birds would die because of wings? They're still here, aren't they? They have wings, don't they? They never died out and the wings have been a benefit, as has evolution.

"the bible says nothing on the subject of evolution and in the first book utterly disproves it."

You cannot say that evolution is wrong because the Bible says so. I could say that evolution is right because the Bible is wrong. Until you have a much more reliable source, this point is invalid.

"why did evolution stop when we started watching it? their is no sientific evidence that shows any evolution in any of our fossil records."

How do you know evolution stopped? The matter could very well still be continuing on, little changes day by day. For more drastic changes, evolution requires a long amount of time. There is many scientific evidence in our fossil records that shows evolution. For example, if you look at sediment near the ocean, you will find that the layers near the top possess fish and other marine animal bones. Go down deeper and eventually you will have seashells.

"where is the missing link? there are no fossil records of evolution which is why their is no missing link or we would have found it previously."

Lucy, Iceman, other homosapiens, and dinosaurs. No fossil records? You are very, very mistaken.

Arguments

I would be interested to see what evolution means to my opponent. If he attends a Christian school, then most likely evolution is taught very poorly, or even in some other school. To me, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations [1]. This happens. We've observed it. The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. This change was, by definition, evolution.

Evolution occurs in labs and in nature.
For example, two fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce offspring in the lab over a four-year span. They then became two different species.
A new species of firewood was created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original wood.
From one species of mouse on the Faeroe Islands evolved numerous, multiples other species.
5 new species of cichlid fish have been formed in a single lake due to one species being introduced 4,000 years before.

Once again, there is fossil evidence. The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always relates to relative development. There are more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. There are constant discoveries of new transitional forms such as reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

There is genetic evidence. There is the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

Molecular evidence. These are commonalities in DNA which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record due to radiometric dating.

Homology. Same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

We also see how humans evolve. In 2006, a 4.2 million year old fossil was discovered [2]. Interestingly enough, it was found near seven other species of human, in a "fossil hotspot." Taking the bones previously discovered, scientists saw the chain of human evolution, which proves that humans evolve. There is, more recently, a fossil that was unearthed in April this year. It was a nine-year old boy that lived in a period of time when our ancestors began to climb down from trees and lived on the ground [3].

I await my opponent's response.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
3. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
michaelmalachi

Pro

First off I will point out my opponents disregard for macroevolution which utterly disproves his entire point. Also, saying that evolution was merely just the subtle genetic changes in an organisms body, than the transition from ape to human would still be a good bit more than a subtle genetic change. Plus apes have twenty four pairs of chromosomes while a human has twenty three pairs, would you consider this a subtle genetic change?

"Wings developed as a result of evolutionary development of birds many millions of years ago. Wings would have provided selective advantages for food and resource gathering along with in helping the organism to escape from predators more effectively. When did natural selection say that birds would die because of wings? They're still here, aren't they? They have wings, don't they? They never died out and the wings have been a benefit, as has evolution."

To begin with wouldn't it have taken very long periods of time in order to fully develop those wings to be able to use them to fly correct? well when they grew fairly large but still were not big enough to fly wouldn't these wings slow them down? and doesn't natural selection say that with those wings slowing them down they would be more likely to die off? Yes they are still here so there is evidence against natural selection right there. Why would they develop wings to get away from their predators rather than something that made more since like the ability to climb or dig or use camouflage? Wouldn't that be much easier than spending millions of years developing wings that ,until fully developed, would only get in the way?

"How do you know evolution stopped? The matter could very well still be continuing on, little changes day by day. For more drastic changes, evolution requires a long amount of time. There is many scientific evidence in our fossil records that shows evolution. For example, if you look at sediment near the ocean, you will find that the layers near the top possess fish and other marine animal bones. Go down deeper and eventually you will have seashells."

What do seashells have to do with it those seashells and every other fossil record shows no signs of alteration. Why don't we see the shells turning into fish? all you would find is shells and fish but nothing in between.

"Lucy, Iceman, other homosapiens, and dinosaurs. No fossil records? You are very, very mistaken."

That is besides the point none of these are the missing link you are avoiding my point and your point should be disregarded as irrelevant. Also you are using wikipedia and wikipedia can be altered by anyone who can read HTML and therefore none of your points can be proven true because your using an unreliable source.

"I would be interested to see what evolution means to my opponent. If he attends a Christian school, then most likely evolution is taught very poorly, or even in some other school. To me, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations [1]. This happens. We've observed it. The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. This change was, by definition, evolution."

Yes that is evolution, microevolution that is, which says that like you said is just subtle changes, which is true, there will be subtle changes you can't get around that so I will say that I didn't mention that I do believe in microevolution, but the moth is still a moth it did not turn into a canary. Once again you have totally ignored macroevolution. It is ridiculous to say that one day a cell just materialized then multiplied became a fish, randomly grew legs, crawled on land and became people that makes absolutely no since! This is what evolution means to me. I do not attend a Christian school I go to a regular high school, and am actually taking biology this semester.

"For example, two fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce offspring in the lab over a four-year span. They then became two different species."

I have absolutely no reason to believe this. Why did they become sterile? And how did that alter the species in any way shape or form?

"A new species of firewood was created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original wood."

Chromosomes just don't randomly double in nature! That is a man-made species and is not an example of evolution.

"From one species of mouse on the Faeroe Islands evolved numerous, multiples other species."
"5 new species of cichlid fish have been formed in a single lake due to one species being introduced 4,000 years before."

neither of these is clear. Also it is still a mouse and still a fish! they didn't both turn into dogs randomly. Before anything else is said on these two you need to clarify what they "evolved into."

"
Once again, there is fossil evidence. The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always relates to relative development. There are more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. There are constant discoveries of new transitional forms such as reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows."

That's microevolution its still a whale and still a cow. You have, once again totally disregarded macroevolution you prove to me time and time again that you don't know what your talking about.

"Molecular evidence. These are commonalities in DNA which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record due to radiometric dating."

If we branched off from apes six million years ago why didn't Neanderthals exist until 230,000 years ago?
And why don't we have fossils of creatures that are imbetween apes and men?

" Homology. Same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs."

Well if we have a common ancestor why do any of those creatures exist? If we evolved from them then why didn't they all just become humans and then die off because the evolved into humans? If an ape turned into a man then there is no point in an ape because it became a man it is imperfect and should have died off because of this. therefore your own point goes against it. "We also see how humans evolve. In 2006, a 4.2 million year old fossil was discovered [2]. Interestingly enough, it was found near seven other species of human, in a "fossil hotspot." Taking the bones previously discovered, scientists saw the chain of human evolution, which proves that humans evolve. There is, more recently, a fossil that was unearthed in April this year. It was a nine-year old boy that lived in a period of time when our ancestors began to climb down from trees and lived on the ground [3]."

Evolution says that apes came down from trees then evolved you just said they evolved from apes to men then came down from trees. Learn your stuff before you respond.
XStrikeX

Con

Refutations

"First off I will point out my opponents disregard for macroevolution which utterly disproves his entire point. Also..."
What in the world is this? How can you say that me not saying much about macroevolution means evolution is false? You don't prove it and you move on very, very quickly to another argument.

"Plus apes have twenty four pairs of chromosomes while a human has twenty three pairs, would you consider this a subtle genetic change?"

Why does it matter if it's subtle or not?

"To begin with wouldn't it have taken very long periods of time in order to fully develop those wings to be able to use them to fly correct?"

Yes, it would take a long period of time. Evolution doesn't happen instantly. But, that is besides the point. My opponent has offered these numerous questions as a shield for what he asked at first. Why did birds evolve wings? Because wings gave them advantages over other creatures. They can fly and pick off insects, reach fruit, and sip nectar. I don't see how your questions disprove evolution anyway. When did natural selection state that birds with wings will die? They developed wings to get away from predators because very few predators fly, only other birds [1]. Natural selection states that the weakest animals of a species die off, whereas the strongest carry their traits on to their offspring. Clearly, the birds have survived, and the trait of the wings has been a strong factor in their survival.

"What do seashells have to do with it those seashells and every other fossil record shows no signs of alteration. Why don't we see the shells turning into fish? all you would find is shells and fish but nothing in between."

Again, other cover-up. My opponent lets off on one argument, only to ask another question, hoping that I would fail in the response. And he even decides to make the falsified claim that you find shells and fish, but nothing between the two. Fish have changed throughout the millions of years so much. From jawless, armored Ostracoderms to bottom-dwelling, jawed Placoderms to our modern Osteichthyes fish [2]. Fish have been changing for years and years and will continue to.

"That is besides the point none of these are the missing link you are avoiding my point and your point should be disregarded as irrelevant. Also you are using wikipedia and wikipedia can be altered by anyone who can read HTML and therefore none of your points can be proven true because your using an unreliable source."

How is it besides the point? How am I avoiding your point at all? You stated there were no fossil records of any evolution. I said no, and gave a list throughout my entire argument. How do you know none of these are the missing link? Lucy is a ancestor of man and Iceman was the remnants of a human long ago. Have you never heard of anybody calling Lucy the missing link? She if often associated with it. Wikipedia is a fine source, so long as it possess sources. If you look at the Wikipedia I cited, you will find that there are 275 sources. Tell me that's not valid!

"Yes that is evolution, microevolution that is, which says that like you said is just subtle changes, which is true, there will be subtle changes you can't get around that so I will say that I didn't mention that I do believe in microevolution, but the moth is still a moth it did not turn into a canary. Once again you have totally ignored macroevolution."

Microevolution is evolution. If my opponent wants evidence that macroevolution exists, I shall supply. First of all, we there are transitional fossils, such as the famous Archeopteryx. I retained more qualities of theropod dinosaurs than it did of birds [3]. Ambulocetus is known as the "walking whale", it had attributes of a crocodile and showed the transition of a land-mammal to a whale [4]. In fact, just a thorough examination of the evolution of the horse, the most updated and completed evolutionary lineage of any other animal, shows many clear examples of transitional fossils.

"I have absolutely no reason to believe this. Why did they become sterile? And how did that alter the species in any way shape or form?"

This is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

"If we branched off from apes six million years ago why didn't Neanderthals exist until 230,000 years ago?
And why don't we have fossils of creatures that are imbetween apes and men?"

It's a long line of evolution, of course. Neanderthals are some of our closest relatives, and apes our farthest. But we still came from apes nonetheless, as our genetic material is very similar. If you browse through the site I will soon list, you will find the fossils and evidence of evolution through man [5].

"Well if we have a common ancestor why do any of those creatures exist? If we evolved from them then why didn't they all just become humans and then die off because the evolved into humans? If an ape turned into a man then there is no point in an ape because it became a man it is imperfect and should have died off because of this."

All creatures live in different environments. Creatures must learn to adapt well and sufficiently to survive in their environment. Some species die out like the dodo bird, out of sheer idiocy. Evolution is not always for the better. Apes can still survive because they are well-adapted to their environment. It's not like everytime something evolves, it's former self will just die off. There are still, to this day, creatures that evolved from another animal that still lives.

My opponent has cited absolutely no sources and most of his points are not credible. He insults me by saying that I have learned nothing and blatantly responded with sheer ignorance. If you want to challenge me to an insult fight, go ahead, do it. But in this debate, poor conduct goes against you.

Sources:

1. http://www.pbs.org...
2. http://www.lookd.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
michaelmalachi

Pro

First I would like to point out the many ways my opponent has gone back on his own logic. These are just some of his own statements:

"Evolution is about subtle genetic changes in an organism's body."
"Why does it matter if it's subtle or not?"

These are his own statement he has just let his entire argument fall apart because he is going back on himself showing that his argument is flawed.
Also, he attempts to point out my minor errors in grammar and spelling to cover up that his argument is flawed. And he points out that "wikipedia is reliable because it had over 270 sources for that particular subject," well if i brought 270 people to my opponent and said that cartoons are real would he believe me? From the looks of it maybe so.
My opponent tries to protray me as "the bad guy" to that people will vote for him rather than pay attention to the facts of the debate. Also he accuses me of "challenging him to a fight of insults" when, infact, I pointed out to him when he entered the debate that i would be attempting to keep this debate friendly, but he decided to comment on my depth of knowledge and when I reply attempts to make himself appear like a saint when indeed he started the unkindness. Well im going to end it here any more unkind statements are on my opponents head.

"Yes, it would take a long period of time. Evolution doesn't happen instantly. But, that is besides the point. My opponent has offered these numerous questions as a shield for what he asked at first. Why did birds evolve wings? Because wings gave them advantages over other creatures. They can fly and pick off insects, reach fruit, and sip nectar. I don't see how your questions disprove evolution anyway. When did natural selection state that birds with wings will die? They developed wings to get away from predators because very few predators fly, only other birds [1]. Natural selection states that the weakest animals of a species die off, whereas the strongest carry their traits on to their offspring. Clearly, the birds have survived, and the trait of the wings has been a strong factor in their survival."

I would like to point out that my questions are valid and are very relevant to the topic at hand. Birds growing wings would be of absolutely no benefit to them until after they were developed enough to fly, but their would have had to been thousands of years of growth of these wings. If we humans randomly started to grow a poisonous tail until that tail was fully developed and could sting it would just be a lump of flesh growing out of our rear. This lump of flesh in our rear wouldn't protect us from predators until it was large enough to sting, which would take a very large amount of time. If we were growing this to avoid predators wouldn't those predators kill us off long before our tails were large enough to protect us?

"Again, other cover-up. My opponent lets off on one argument, only to ask another question, hoping that I would fail in the response. And he even decides to make the falsified claim that you find shells and fish, but nothing between the two. Fish have changed throughout the millions of years so much. From jawless, armored Ostracoderms to bottom-dwelling, jawed Placoderms to our modern Osteichthyes fish [2]. Fish have been changing for years and years and will continue to."

I feel no need to continue on my argument because my points are clear. While my opponent merely states untrue statements repeatedly and is trying to avoid the point of my debate. And once again, IT IS STILL A FISH! That still does not show me how a seashell turned into a fish so my opponent is once again avoiding the point.
Also, my opponent has made multiple grammar errors.

"Microevolution is evolution. If my opponent wants evidence that macroevolution exists, I shall supply. First of all, we there are transitional fossils, such as the famous Archeopteryx. I retained more qualities of theropod dinosaurs than it did of birds [3]. Ambulocetus is known as the "walking whale", it had attributes of a crocodile and showed the transition of a land-mammal to a whale [4]. In fact, just a thorough examination of the evolution of the horse, the most updated and completed evolutionary lineage of any other animal, shows many clear examples of transitional fossils." Ok so an animal has traits of a dinosaur and a bird, so? And the ambulocetus was basically a whale with legs point remains the same it is still a whale! It didn't turn into a pigeon and fly away! Also it was a horse then and it's a horse now. microevolution says that small changes will occur to a species over time to help it adapt, but one species wont turn into another completely different species.

"This is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group."

How is it a new population? If it can't breed then that species dies with that animal. So that statement is illogical.

"It's a long line of evolution, of course. Neanderthals are some of our closest relatives, and apes our farthest. But we still came from apes nonetheless, as our genetic material is very similar. If you browse through the site I will soon list, you will find the fossils and evidence of evolution through man [5]."
But earlier you said that we also came from wheat plant. And now your saying that our farthest relatives are apes. Once again your going back on yourself.
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Most of what I said is from http://www.abovet...
XStrikeX

Con

"Also, he attempts to point out my minor errors in grammar and spelling to cover up that his argument is flawed. And he points out that "wikipedia is reliable because it had over 270 sources for that particular subject," well if i brought 270 people to my opponent and said that cartoons are real would he believe me? From the looks of it maybe so."

I mentioned your errors in grammar and spelling in the first round. It was my first statement.
Wikipedia is a fine source so long as you have evidence and sources.
I would not believe you if you had 270 people backing you up on cartoons, because we know as a matter of fact that cartoons aren't real people. Evolution, however, is a debatable topic.

"I would like to point out that my questions are valid and are very relevant to the topic at hand. Birds growing wings would be of absolutely no benefit to them until after they were developed enough to fly, but their would have had to been thousands of years of growth of these wings."

I suppose so, but I don't see how this has much relevance with evolution. Long ago, dinosaurs, who evolved into modern day birds, possibly could have used wings that we are not used to seeing today. For example, pterosaurs had wings of skin that evolved into feathered wings for better aerodynamics [1]. Besides what my opponent has been asking, birds have also been big factors for evidence of evolution. In the 1860s, a 150 million year old bird fossil was dug up called the Archaeopteryx. Now this dinosaur-like bird isn't the ancestor of all birds, but simply a link between the two. There are many other early period birds such as the Confuciusornis, the Enantiornithes, Yanornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and the Hesperornithiformes.

"While my opponent merely states untrue statements repeatedly and is trying to avoid the point of my debate. And once again, IT IS STILL A FISH!"
Also, my opponent has made multiple grammar errors."

To my opponent, I must say you explain nothing of the things you criticize me about. Which untrue statements? If I make them, I will explain them, but you need to tell me. You can't claim I make multiple grammatical errors when you don't tell me which. Something can still be something depending on how you would define it. Some of the earliest fish were the Agnatha. This was a jawless fish that was extremely armored with a rasping, sucking mouth [2]. Most species of this "fish" are extinct except for two others. There is also evidence showing that fish evolved into creatures that could walk on land. In south-central Poland tetrapod (four-footed creature) tracks were found preserved in marine tidal flat sediments. Some of the tracks show little prints, evidence that the animal walked on land [3].

"Ok so an animal has traits of a dinosaur and a bird, so? And the ambulocetus was basically a whale with legs point remains the same it is still a whale! It didn't turn into a pigeon and fly away! Also it was a horse then and it's a horse now. microevolution says that small changes will occur to a species over time to help it adapt, but one species wont turn into another completely different species."

So? So?? This is a very critical piece of evidence that dinosaurs EVOLVED into birds! This shows evolution, certainly macroevolution, as you requested. No, the ambulocetus was certainly not a whale. The ambulocetus was a crocodile that was mainly amphibious but could walk on land. It was simply nicknamed a "walking whale." It is not still a whale. It never was. This is proof of macroevolution and my opponent seems to have conceded. Species will evolve into other species. From monkey to man, from dinosaur to birds, and from fish to various tetrapods.

"How is it a new population? If it can't breed then that species dies with that animal. So that statement is illogical."

It's a new population, because members of a species mutate to a point where they're different than their former selves. They can still breed, just not with other insects, only themselves.

"But earlier you said that we also came from wheat plant. And now your saying that our farthest relatives are apes. Once again your going back on yourself."

I didn't say we CAME from wheat plants. I say we share a few similarities in genes with them. For example, wheat plant have two sets of chromosomes, just like humans. Wheat plants and humans share an XY sex-determination system. However, we do share many more commonalities with apes and primates, specifically 96%.

"Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons."

It's not about the chromosomes, it's about the genetics. Have you ever heard of the two-headed babies, or six-fingered people? This is due to genetic mutation within the body. Genes are like a computer program. Some of the features never show up or never have been used. Some genes are turned on, some are turned off. That's why no one looks alike. Environmental factors can emphazise the "turning on" of genes and "turning off" of genes.

The two last paragraphs my opponent has typed up are very strange. They don't sound like him. It sounds much more like plagarism, as there seems to be an increased vocabulary and better grammar and more evidence. Also, for some reason, I can't open up the source you cited. It could be a problem with my computer, so it's fine.

"The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed"

Most often, yes, DNA does not change rapidly. But sometimes, DNA does change, and it could be favorable. This is how new species are born. This is speciation and DNA/genetic mutation.

"Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory."

What does the seocnd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution? Can you state this in your own words? Evolution does have scientific proof. I have given evidence of fossils and genetic mutations and similarities in genes.

"Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile."

Mars has not been fully investigated. It's still a mystery. An atmosphere suitable to support life forms? There is poor oxygen to breathe. Currently on Mars, there are many sulfuric gases, hard for any life to exist except deep-sea creatures. Mars very well could have had oxygen back then, and lifeforms could have existed. However, this mystery is yet to truly be revealed.

I eagerly await the response. This has been relatively fun and interesting.

Sources:
1. http://www.pbs.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 3
michaelmalachi

Pro

To begin with I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the benefit of the doubt. The reason the link didn't work is because I went over the 8,000 word limit and it got cut off. Also this is my first debate ever and I have thoroughly enjoyed it.
Now back on topic my opponent has completely ignored his own mistake that I pointed out at the beginning of the last round showing that he has no awnser.

"Wikipedia is a fine source so long as you have evidence and sources.
I would not believe you if you had 270 people backing you up on cartoons, because we know as a matter of fact that cartoons aren't real people. Evolution, however, is a debatable topic."

That was merely an example the point im making is that no matter how many sources you have wikipedia can't be proven true.

"
I suppose so, but I don't see how this has much relevance with evolution. Long ago, dinosaurs, who evolved into modern day birds, possibly could have used wings that we are not used to seeing today. For example, pterosaurs had wings of skin that evolved into feathered wings for better aerodynamics [1]. Besides what my opponent has been asking, birds have also been big factors for evidence of evolution. In the 1860s, a 150 million year old bird fossil was dug up called the Archaeopteryx. Now this dinosaur-like bird isn't the ancestor of all birds, but simply a link between the two. There are many other early period birds such as the Confuciusornis, the Enantiornithes, Yanornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and the Hesperornithiformes."

My opponent has totally ignored my question and took the rest of the paragraph. Also will developing those wings of flesh the dinosaur would be at as big a disadvantage as the bird therefore my point remains the same.

"Some of the earliest fish were the Agnatha. This was a jawless fish that was extremely armored with a rasping, sucking mouth [2]. Most species of this "fish" are extinct except for two others. There is also evidence showing that fish evolved into creatures that could walk on land. In south-central Poland tetrapod (four-footed creature) tracks were found preserved in marine tidal flat sediments. Some of the tracks show little prints, evidence that the animal walked on land [3]."

The world shifts, water levels change, how do you know that the place was not covered in water then? Many fish walk on the bottom of the ocean how can you prove that it isn't one of them?

"So? So?? This is a very critical piece of evidence that dinosaurs EVOLVED into birds! This shows evolution, certainly macroevolution, as you requested. No, the ambulocetus was certainly not a whale. The ambulocetus was a crocodile that was mainly amphibious but could walk on land. It was simply nicknamed a "walking whale." It is not still a whale. It never was. This is proof of macroevolution and my opponent seems to have conceded. Species will evolve into other species. From monkey to man, from dinosaur to birds, and from fish to various tetrapods."

What does that have to do with dinosaurs turning into birds. We are talking about walking whale things here. And how is that macroevolution it was a crocodile then and it is the same thing now.

"It's a new population, because members of a species mutate to a point where they're different than their former selves. They can still breed, just not with other insects, only themselves."

Not only does DNA stop any mutations but what are the chances that multiple flies would mutate into the same thing at the same time? Its already incredibly unlikely that it would mutate in the first place but to go so far as to say that multiple would mutate into the same thing at the same time is out of this world unlikely. And didn't you say that evolution was subtle genetic changes? Is that subtle?

"I didn't say we CAME from wheat plants. I say we share a few similarities in genes with them. For example, wheat plant have two sets of chromosomes, just like humans. Wheat plants and humans share an XY sex-determination system. However, we do share many more commonalities with apes and primates, specifically 96%."

Then what is the point of that statement at all?

"It's not about the chromosomes, it's about the genetics. Have you ever heard of the two-headed babies, or six-fingered people? This is due to genetic mutation within the body. Genes are like a computer program. Some of the features never show up or never have been used. Some genes are turned on, some are turned off. That's why no one looks alike. Environmental factors can emphasize the "turning on" of genes and "turning off" of genes."

That is so wrong....Its the alleles that you get from the parents that decide all of that! Your alleles decide all your traits. That's taught by every science teacher ever.

"Most often, yes, DNA does not change rapidly. But sometimes, DNA does change, and it could be favorable. This is how new species are born. This is speciation and DNA/genetic mutation."

Wasn't that it doesn't mutate the point I just made?

"What does the second law of thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution? Can you state this in your own words? Evolution does have scientific proof. I have given evidence of fossils and genetic mutations and similarities in genes."

I just told you the second law of thermodynamics goes against evolution their both theory's so one of them has to be wrong right?

"Mars has not been fully investigated. It's still a mystery. An atmosphere suitable to support life forms? There is poor oxygen to breathe. Currently on Mars, there are many sulfuric gases, hard for any life to exist except deep-sea creatures. Mars very well could have had oxygen back then, and life forms could have existed. However, this mystery is yet to truly be revealed."

Thousands of years ago the air was breathable and their was water yet still no life. why is that? Why would a planet that's as livable as ours not have life?
None of these things ad up the same as evolution.

reference http://www.abovetopsecret.com...
XStrikeX

Con

"Now back on topic my opponent has completely ignored his own mistake that I pointed out at the beginning of the last round showing that he has no awnser."

I believe you are talking about the contradictory statement about subtle changes mattering and then not mattering?
Here is my response. I defined evolution as "subtle changes." It would appear that you didn't agree with me, arguing that I paid no attention to macroevolution, evolution over a large scale. So, it would appear that subtlety didn't matter anymore, since you did want large forms of evolution to be proven.

"That was merely an example the point im making is that no matter how many sources you have wikipedia can't be proven true."

You can't blatantly state your argument and then not explain it. Please explain why, in the case of a billion sources on Wikipedia, that Wikipedia cannot be true.

"My opponent has totally ignored my question and took the rest of the paragraph. Also will developing those wings of flesh the dinosaur would be at as big a disadvantage as the bird therefore my point remains the same."

I clearly, very clearly stated my answer in the very first sentence! There was no argument in this response. It was simply just a question. Developing wings of skin, not flesh, was an advantage for the dinosaur, due to the fact that it could take to the skies, find prey, and escape certain predators.

"The world shifts, water levels change, how do you know that the place was not covered in water then? Many fish walk on the bottom of the ocean how can you prove that it isn't one of them?"

Please list some examples of walking fish. Upon my research, I only find that there are fish that can crawl, but do not possess actual arms and legs. Also, I don't see how the water level could have changed that dramatically. The ocean is 14,000 feet. The water level could not have possibly shifted so largely, especially so negatively, when our ice caps are melting.

"What does that have to do with dinosaurs turning into birds. We are talking about walking whale things here. And how is that macroevolution it was a crocodile then and it is the same thing now."

We are talking about Ambulocetus' more specifically... Anyway, it is not still a crocodile. We're not 100% sure of what it truly was. But, we do know that it was the animal that evolved into our whale. I apologize for I mispoke about dinosaurs evolving into birds. Scratch that out. I was too focused on the previous refutation. But the Ambulocetus is a perfect example of macroevolution, due to the fact that it is a transitional fossil from land-living mammals to whales.

"Not only does DNA stop any mutations but what are the chances that multiple flies would mutate into the same thing at the same time? Its already incredibly unlikely that it would mutate in the first place but to go so far as to say that multiple would mutate into the same thing at the same time is out of this world unlikely. And didn't you say that evolution was subtle genetic changes? Is that subtle?"

DNA does not stop mutations. We have proof of mutations, or speciation. I think you have the wrong idea of mutation... It's not like everything will suddenly morph into an extremely different-looking bug. Speciation is small changes. It doesn't have to be at the same time. Perhaps a housefly encountered a strange substance and brought it back to the rest of the flies. Yes, these are subtle genetic changes. It's a small change in the species.

"Then what is the point of that statement at all?"

The point of this statement is relative to the point of your previous question.

"That is so wrong....Its the alleles that you get from the parents that decide all of that! Your alleles decide all your traits. That's taught by every science teacher ever."

Alleles determine distinct traits, not all traits. And plus, everything in a gene can be affected by mutation. If you have two-headed parents or a specific genetic mutation involved, you will end up have two-heads.

"I just told you the second law of thermodynamics goes against evolution their both theory's so one of them has to be wrong right?"

Yes, you just told me... You never explained it like many other arguments you claimed... Explain in the final round why thermodynamics goes against evolution.

"Thousands of years ago the air was breathable and their was water yet still no life. why is that? Why would a planet that's as livable as ours not have life?"

We do not yet know that it does not contain life. Mars has not been completely thoroughly explored yet. The point is moot.

I await the response.
Debate Round No. 4
michaelmalachi

Pro

michaelmalachi forfeited this round.
XStrikeX

Con

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited the final round, due to some circumstances. However, this is still at his loss and my gain.

Why PRO should win

The Proposition has refuted the main arguments of the Opposition.
The Proposition has given many more sources that are reliable.
The Proposition has listed examples of "transitional fossils" that show evolution through the years.
The Proposition has proved microevolution, which the Opposition agrees with, and has showed examples of macroevolution and speciation.
The Opposition has failed to refute the Proposition's arguments or restate arguments.
The Proposition has had superior spelling and grammar.
Conduct wise, it should be a tie.

For these reasons, please vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
Con, you just said why PRO should win.
Fail.
Anyways, I'll vote for Con anyways.
Posted by michaelmalachi 7 years ago
michaelmalachi
yall need to back off im having personal issues.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
RFD - Pro had poor spelling, forfeited a round, afield to adequately argue his side or refute Cons, and used one sources. All 7 to Con.
Posted by bss10506 7 years ago
bss10506
Might want to define words to gain points!
Posted by michaelmalachi 7 years ago
michaelmalachi
im sorry some stuff came up i couldnt post my reply.
Posted by michaelmalachi 7 years ago
michaelmalachi
say what you like but i refuse to say anything unkind to you christian or not it still isn't the right thing to do. btw nice debate you make a good point.
Posted by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
I can't wait to see what illogical response pops out!
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
The English moth example is just an instance of natural selection of pre-existing traits.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Yar.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
I know what you mean now, though. 5 rounds is just too much nonsense for me to handle.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I note that this debate is 4 years old, and I hope that @michaelmalachi has had time to rethink his position on this issue. The points he outlined were thoroughly unintelligent and it is to Con's credit that he persisted in this debate.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 Studious_Christian 6 years ago
Studious_Christian
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by michaelmalachi 7 years ago
michaelmalachi
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 innomen 7 years ago
innomen
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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 superdebater 7 years ago
superdebater
michaelmalachiXStrikeXTied
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