The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)

evolution=survival+adaptation

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
creationtruth has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 94512
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

selection isnt natural, natural selection is false.. its really adaptation

one that fits the only hole to escape, can escape by the hole.. evolution

genetic change=ex, muscle growth

a genetic code is reflected in my physical form

random cause+effect=chaos(all natural change including evolution)

hm invironmental pressure, imagine 2 polar bears, one with shorter fur than the other, the one with thick fur has greator chance of surviving if the one with the short fur hasn't got thick enough fur to survive, so the one with thick fur survives and new ones with thick fur can live on if it get babies, random. like, the bear with thick fur has greater chances of surviving because of the logic that is the bears fur is better fit to survive the cold, and its all random, random cause+effect=chaos(all natural change including evolution)
the bear that has the thick fur, is naturally the one that survives, because of logic, and its random because why didn't the other bear have the same fur, but now it dosnt matter because the one with short fur isn't around, perfekt balance
same with a bear with to thick for, if its to thick it wont survive and wont breed, random, no choise involved

same with a bear with to thick for, if its to thick it wont survive and wont breed, random, no choise involved

some notes.. fire away
creationtruth

Con

Unfortunately for your case, sequences of genetic code which give rise to the phenotypic traits you describe are not random by any means. It is nice to imagine simplistic scenarios such as this to make sense of how evolution may have given rise to all the phenptypes displayed in living organisms, however, upon observing an organisms' genome and the mechanisms by which it functions, any simplistic story is certainly thrown out the window of reality.

Regardless of the mind boggling complexity of the genome, what we now know from genetics eliminates the plausibility of evolution by means of natural selection acting on random mutations which induct novel genetic information. Redundant genes, which were once considered "junk DNA" are sequences of non-coding backup genes which inhibit significant alterations of the genome. While mutations may occasionally get passed on to offspring, these same sequences of redundant genes serve to correct mutational errors thus insuring the continuity and robustness of a genome.

While many traits can seemingly arise as novel products of natural selection, we now know that many of these cases are the result of prexisting sequences of genes being "switched on" and are not the product of mutations whatsoever. There is no known example of a germ line mutation giving rise to a novel trait which was not already coded in an organisms' genome.

Without a scientifically observable mechanism for for the induction of novel genotypes, evolution is dead in the water. Thus whatever mechanisms of evolution which are actually observed are not random and without question display evidence of design. If evolution is to be simply defined as adaptation and survival, it is certainly not a random process but a process driven by an organisms' programmed ability to adapt to changing environments given its genome's informational content.

Chaos is the last adjective one would use to describe the structure of a super computer, likewise, one ought never to call a biological process such as genetic adaptation chaotic.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

true is simple, lies are complicated

im not saying evolution is random mutation... environmental pressure presupposes adaptation for one to survive or evolve.. if the animal fits the invornment it will not change

i dont believe in dna.. and every random mutation has a positive side to it.. like drastic environmental changes can favor an animal that was bound to die as the environment was.. im just going by the definition of random mutation here, im not sure what you mean by random mutation.. third leg?.. but with a bear with to long fur for the environment as it is, if maybe an ice age took place it might be the only of its kind to survive.

natural selection can not exist, selection is specified.. nature equals random

hm, so a butterfly can not grow a human hand by random mutation i agree..

those evolutionary mechanisms are not adaptation.. animals are not designed, nature is not a machine.. utter drivel

survival isnt entirely random, it takes an operate to operate through the hole it can fit through unlike the rest of its species... no programming involved, you see you fit the hole they dont.. they die

does a polar bear outrun a volcanic eruption or the heat of a dry desert? no natural selection involved

a computer is designed, it is order not chaos.. speciifed/intended..
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
adaptation
Posted by Samcoder1 6 months ago
Samcoder1
Probably not, hence there are no polar bears in hot deserts.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
most likly
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
a polar bear dosnt esape the dry heat of a desert
Posted by Samcoder1 6 months ago
Samcoder1
Who specified evolution? Well evolution itself has been well known for a long time, but it was Darwin who associated that evolution with natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist

so who specified evolution? ..
Posted by Samcoder1 6 months ago
Samcoder1
who said machine is the opposite of nature?

As for your cure and nature definitions, they seem simply wrong and have nothing at all to do with the words you associate them with.

Plus I am an Atheist, but what has that got to do with this?
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
you are not an atheist.. you have a god son
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
evolution is natural, not mechanical or specified
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
machine is the opposite of nature

cure=feel reverse returning
nature=flow at reverse returning
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.