The Instigator
FEARTHEGHUS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Russian
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

is evolution real? pretty simple question so don't ask me to clarify the meaning of life plz

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Russian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,485 times Debate No: 44684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

FEARTHEGHUS

Pro

I am debating for evolution, the debate will go as this format states:


round 1: acceptance and a opening speach

round 2: arguments

round 3: arguments

4: MORE arguments

5: victory and final speaches


I believe in evolution because i see the facts, i do not believe that there is no god, though i admit there may be a mistake incoming since we still know so little, and since time starting/ending is a constant illusion (Einsteine) so there may be no nothing before the start, and since space is infinite (off-topic now) ok done with that i can show many facts and even if it comes to that i can debate whether god has any proof even though i believe in him. I know as a fact that you can't believe in this or not, just because some told gallileo the world was flat doesn't mean it was (the church for christans in power actually did that anyway) this is a debate on the facts i do not want excuses aginst simple found things, and i do not want insults saying that nothing i say is true, i want an actual argument agaisnt it (hopefully the wesite about DEBATES can get me the first and hopefuly not final person that i can have a real argument with
Russian

Con

Answer: Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled "unscientific" or "backwards" by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it"s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between "punctuated equilibrium" and "gradualism." Second is the problem in projecting "microevolution" into "macroevolution." Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between "punctuated equilibrium" and "gradualism." There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat "smooth" transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, "punctuated" by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting "survival of the fittest" cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending "microevolution" into "macroevolution." Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called "microevolution." Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires "macroevolution," which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don"t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.

Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com...

http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FEARTHEGHUS

Pro


i can debate 3 others but ran out of space.

"Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution."

none of this is true whatsoever! mutations do make NEW genes by changing it, the theory of evolution does have a formula, and biological science does not have formula, only physics and such do. Every helpess baby born proves darwin more RIGHT THAN WRONG! you clearly have no true idea what evolution even is do you? Yes there is a genetic mechanism for darwinistic evolution.

"Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw."

this is not true, i will give my whole study that i did for class from 3 days ago - now, it will fight for me against all your arguments:

Evolution has been speculated on and criticized. However, it has also been complimented as a very informative and logical fact. In sample debates, basic votes went 57% for and 43% against evolution being real, the question is whether the person’s religious beliefs affected it, sometimes people agreed with both, that evolution was god’s way of creation.


There are two major theories that go into the successful construction of evolution, and for evolution to work these very important theories should have to occur. First is how genetics change, mutation and, for dependant reproduction only, genetic shuffle or genetic swap. Mutation happens when something reproduces, it is when a mistake is made changing the DNA composition of the offspring, in A sexual organisms, this is the only known way of DNA change and is harder to have happen for them. When an A-sexual organism reproduces, it simply makes another and almost completely cuts itself in half, then grows back by ingesting the required resources and nutrients. This happens with single-cell and low cell-count organisms. This has far less area for error and therefore is harder to have evolution. Meaning A-sexual animals are less able to adapt physically to a situation. Secondly in genetic change, comes dependant reproducers and genetic shuffle/swap. With dependant reproducers, like us for example, there are two parents. Having two parents causes much more room for mistakes., most of all because of genetic shuffle. Genetic shuffle is what happens when the DNA carriers/strains from both parents reach each other to form the offspring’s DNA composition. They disconnect with the separate chromosomes, and smaller strains for some other animals, then remix into a randomly set composition only given any limit by the two DNA strains that came from the parents.most of the time this makes recognizable traits of young-parents, with almost random status of familiarities. This not only includes looks, but attributes. Since it is random, and complex, mutation can happen far more, either by a break-off of a chromosome or the insufficient placement of the connected chromosomes, causing one to completely lift from the equation, or causing random mistakes where incorrect genes fit in a way that they should not have. This creates traits in the offspring that may be seen as a: deformity, which normally is bad, a damage or failure of a part or trait of humans that is not good in the coming problem or present. There is miscarriage, that sometimes comes from a deadly failure by mistake, causing the offspring’s mistake to no longer be in the gene pool. However, this also creates the good sides, traits that might not even be known or noticed before the coming problem, in which it either harms or helps the survival chances of the life-form, in this case we are going for the “helps” side. There can also be traits that help them in the present to fight-off their death or harm. The idea of natural selection, a major part of the theory of evolution, “comes in to play” here. Natural selection is when nature fixes the gene pool, it is where an ecosystem with other life-forms and conditions is placed in with the life-form observed. the ones with traits that were harmful normally died or were unable to reproduce, if they did not, then it was not truly that harmful. The traits that are successful for this area survive, and therefore have genes that they bring with them, while the failures simply get taken out of the gene pool since they cannot reproduce. With the survivors being or creating the new gene pool, the new population from when they breed has those traits and can therefore improve their situation in that ecosystem. That completes what natural selection has, mutation allows for it and it allows for improvement of survival chances, while also causing change being evolution.


In a simple informative set-up the facts (though thought controversial for some) will be placed within this paragraph. There is fossil evidence that evolution is real, however some connections are not shown, and some people dislike carbon dating, which is used for the fossil’s date of fossilization. There is also video footage of evolution of small life-span animals, for instance, insects or bacteria. They have been found to change in certain areas for certain climates or other enemies against them. The idea of natural selection, a major part of the theory of evolution, “comes in to play” here. Upon the start of evolution’s theory, the belief is that all life on Earth came from gel-like chemical substances which formed the first cells. These cells majorly changed by reproduction, as life-forms now do even more so. Since they simply split into two, or even more, by A-sexual reproduction, it would be harder to mutate since there is far less room for error, without a gene error in the creation of the offspring, there is far less evolution that can happen. Fortunately, reproducing long enough made it so that single-cell organisms and even low-cell-count organisms have such high population being the only predator other versions of them, and a long enough time with each cell being able to quickly reproduce. This allows for mutation to become more effective for them. Having a large amount of quickly spawning cells leaves much room for error in each individual cell, since even though it does not have much error with only one set of DNA, having so many of them allows effective deformities, and also good mistakes, to occur. This having happened over a huge period of time, was able to make mutations that either killed, harmed, helped, or even saved the new cells. Many formed into branches of protozoa, and plankton, or other amoebas, and after long enough the cells almost all completely different from each other started to survive better when they specialized. After having better species keep coming in the mistakes and deformities, some became species of dependant reproducers. This allows even more species all from the different ecosystems.

Lastly, the arguments against evolution, and ways to defeat them. Some will try to change the people’s mind with the stereo types by simply leaving out how and trying to say that we are insane because we think humans came from monkeys, and that all life on Earth was once single-celled organisms. THey use this without adding the other information to try to make people think about how “seriously? we came from monkeys?” and immediately sets people off from evolution, imply explain what evolution is in detail before they say that. The second is that they will speak of the fossil holes in tranverinary creatures, yet we have them too, it is just that they refuse to see the connection. Show the website for science.org/evolution/fossil_records.com

to give a full record of the fossils. Lastly, they will try to speak of how since you can’t observe it you can’t say it’s fact. That is true, but we also have video of small life-span animals like insects or single-celled bacterium. So there are many ways to combat accusations, though many are out there too, and there are real questions on it that may not be completely answered yet.


Evolution’s theory is greatly complex and can be controversial. The debate still rages on, but evolution has seemed to hold grasp on some of the more religious and almost all the scientists, though openly insulting those who do not believe it because of their religion is not right, nor the other way around. This concludes the theory of evolution, at least on Earth, and the theory of how it works.


sources for polls: debate.org

and evolution vs. creationism

sources for information include: wikipedia evolution, evolution is science.com

evolution is DEAD WRONG.com, and ways to PROVE evolution is scientifically wrong

debate.org has other links of their own for when they debated evolution.


(sorry for grammar i did well on it but the font got messed up here so i had to rep TAB and find mistakes so many spaces look wierd or like they are not there at all.)

Russian

Con

If evolution were real, there wouldn't be any apes, there are no living specimens of evolution, apes would still be evolving, thus, there wouldn't be any. And lots of evolutionists say we have a common ancestor, well, we do, it's Noah.
Debate Round No. 2
FEARTHEGHUS

Pro

FEARTHEGHUS forfeited this round.
Russian

Con

well, I have nothing to argue against. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 3
FEARTHEGHUS

Pro

FEARTHEGHUS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
FEARTHEGHUS

Pro

FEARTHEGHUS forfeited this round.
Russian

Con

Russian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Russian 3 years ago
Russian
No, you could mean it as what do we do with our lives, or why we were put here, and many others.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
What do I "mean" by "meaning?" Isn't that circular?
Posted by Russian 3 years ago
Russian
Depends on what you mean by life and meaning.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
What is the meaning of life?

--Sorry, I couldn't help it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
FEARTHEGHUSRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses a point in conduct for forfeiting. The arguments were relatively close, but Pro did not refute Con's statement in round 2, losing him points in convincing arguments. The sources Pro provided was unreliable because it was a poll and another debate on this site.