The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points

macro evolution a made up belife or truth

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/14/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 1790
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (18)

 

firemonkey6775

Con

simple macro evolution cant be true it has no evidence at all no one can give me a single piece of evidence to this day.
beem0r

Pro

'Macroevolution' does happen, and it has happened. It happens by way of a great deal of microevolution.

Since this debate is four rounds, I suppose I'll do only this for my first round, since I need the answers to these questions in order to form my argument:

I ask my opponent to define what he means by macroevolution (there are many definitions).

Since we both agree that microevolution happens, I ask my opponent why microevolution wouldn't be able to eventually bring about macroevolution. What would stop many gradual changes from eventually bringing about completely new forms of life?

Once these questions are answered, I will make my case.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Con

ok what i mean by macro evolution is my great*800,000 grandpa was a monkey but now i am a human its simple there is yet to be a single piece of evidence i can wrap my mind around all i hear from you evolutionist is there is so much evidence then i say show me and you say its everywhere then i say show me then once again well its everywere. well still not seing it. what i mean by micro evolurion is that im white and there are black people im blonde there are red heads
beem0r

Pro

Sorry about the long wait, I had to deal with a theft and a subsequent towing of my car.

My opponent has clarified that he defines macroevolution as the theory that different species, such as apes and humans, had a common ancestor.
He did not answer my other question, "why can't many stages of microevolution eventually add up to be macro?" However, I will still make my case now.

First, I bring up the fossil record. It shows a multitude of seemingly small changes between different species. Intermediates, you might say. Fossils, such as these, can be dated. It just so happens that when you arrange fossils of a type of animal in chronological order, you see gradual changes that often lead from one animal to another. To some extent, this is true for humans and apes - a vast number of intermediates exist. However, there is a gap for which we have not discovered many fossils yet. This is the time, roughly 6 million years ago, when our common ancestor with other modern apes lived. However, mere extrapolation of the fossils shows that there was in all likelihood a common ancestor between humans and other modern apes. However, there is still room for doubt using only this evidence, so I will bring up more.

Molecular studies of DNA show that there is a fairly predictable rate at which mutations in DNA occur and are passed on. The difference in DNA can be used to approximate the time since the common ancestor lived. Remarkably, this is quite accurate for other species for whom we have a more complete fossil record. Not only does it show the same data as to which species diverged in what order, it is often quite accurate when it comes to specifying how long ago the common ancestor lived. This is huge supporting evidence - a method that has nothing to do with fossils predicts the same order of events as the fossils do.

Lastly, I will bring up retroviral DNA.
Retroviruses often infect DNA. However, most of the time, they don't infect cells that will determine what gets passed on to descendants. These are called exogenous retroviruses, and they don't become part of the genome. However, sometimes a retroviruses will infect DNA in a way in which they will be passed on to future generations of that creature (or have the same chance of being passed on as any ordinary gene), these retroviruses are called endogenous. Remarkably, we share a great deal of endogenous retroviruses with chimps, in the same locations at that! The chances of the same viruses infecting the same spots in human and chimp DNA are close to 0. There are at least millions of spots each retrovirus could affect, and they generally affect a random location. The chances of the same viruses affecting the same locations in both genomes is next to 0 if we don't share a common ancestor.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

Dang just pressed back and lost part of my argument ok well you have circular thinking going for you here first you say theres fossil evidence yet still looking for a link ok next you tell me there is this molecular study of DNA that proves that we are monkeys and your nonexistent fossil evidence then there is this whole virus thing that makes no sense at all
beem0r

Pro

I'll more concisely make my main statements again then. You only have one more round in which to counter, so please do so if you truly believe you're right.

The fossil record: While it is not complete, we have MANY intermediates between humans and the common ancestor we share with apes. Also, many other instances of 'macroevolution' have a more complete fossil record. However, I'm trying to focus on the human/ape thing, since that seemed to be your biggest concern.

Molecular studies of DNA: Our DNA is quite similar to that of apes (chimpanzees and bonobos especially). Based on the average amount of time it takes new genes to emerge and be integrated into a species' genome, we can predict how long it has been since two animals shared a common ancestor. In cases where there is a more complete fossil record, these molecular studies come up with roughly the same age as the fossil record indicates. It's rarely exact, but it's strong supporting evidence that two completely independent methods, the fossil record and molecular studies, would consistently come up with the same answer. If we suppose that evolution is incorrect, this is an astounding coincidence which is impossible to explain.

Retroviral DNA: Retroviruses sometimes infect a host's DNA. They insert data into the DNA at a roughly random location. It's extremely rare that retroviruses infect reproductive cells, so it's quite rare for them to get passed on to the next generation. Also, there are at least millions of places in our DNA where each retrovirus could insert said data.
Take this with the fact that we share data from 7 of the same retroviruses with chimps, and the data's in the same place, and you've got another astounding coincidence on your hands, if you say macroevolution is false. If it is true, it would simply be the case that our common ancestor with the chimp had been infected with the retrovirus (either by being infected himself or inheriting it from his own ancestors).

I believe I've shown that there is an inexplainable ocean of coincidence that exists if we assume macroevolution is false. The only way to avoid drowning is to acknowledge macroevolution as a well-backed theory and the best current explanation for the diversity and similarity of life.
Debate Round No. 3
firemonkey6775

Con

ok here is the problem with all your evidence it is based on the belief that the universe is millions of years old in spite of the fact that there is ample evidence against it such as 6 million years ago the sun would have been past the current orbit of earth. That the eagle(the part of the Apollo ships that landed on the moon) were engineered to with stand 6 ft of moon dust because of how much would there would be in a couple million years but no there was a quarter of an inch guess what that's the amount that is with 6-10 THOUSAND years ok there are many more examples
beem0r

Pro

My opponent has claimed that my evidence is void simply because it relies on the earth being over 6000-1000 years old. However, the Earth IS more than 6000-10000 years old.

Furthermore, my evidence does not rely on the age of the earth given by some other evidence. It just happens that the evidence I spoke of (fossils, molecular DNA analysis) both suggest that it has been 5-6 _million_ years since we split from chimpanzees. It's true that there is a wealth of other evidence pointing to an earth billions of years old.
Modern geologists now believe that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54�109 years).[1] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

If you want to debate the age of the earth, please start another debate about it. Your young earth nonsense is not a valid argument against those I presented, nor is it true.

If you want a refutation of the moon dust argument, read thisin full:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here's a quote from a creationist technical paper about the state of the moon dust argument:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Not only is your young earth argument irrelevant, it is faulty. Feel free to start another debate with me about the age of the earth, I'd love to show you why modern science wholly agrees that it's billions of years old, and why arguments to the contrary are always lacking in information or logic.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
moosewings -

Since you're letting others do your thinking and speaking for you, I'll do the same. The article you referenced by Casey Luskin is rebutted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

His argument about functional intermediates is disproven in the article by the example of the circulatory systems of both invertebrates and vertebrates. Invertebrates like like worms have no circulatory system whatsoever and pass nutrient. Similarly, vertebrates possess a wide variety of complexity in their circulatory systems, going from the simple (like the two-chambered heart of a fish), to the complex (like the four-chambered heart that most mammals possess).

You didn't offend me - when I say that the stuff you're quoting is drivel, I mean it in a clinical sense that it's "childish or idiotic." These people you're relying on to provide the substance of your arguments clearly know little about Evolution, and even less about biology.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
This was a very sad debate...I tend to like them a little more evenly matched. But then again, theists who waste their time trying to bastardize science for their personal goals tend to fall over at the slightest breeze...
Posted by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
Good job, beem0r. You absolutely obliterated his sorry excuse for an argument.
Posted by moosewings 9 years ago
moosewings
Gould Was one Of Many in this as i went To Many sites Too answer My Own Question Only Pertaining too this Debate Evolution's Fundamental Flaw
By Casey Luskin wwwidea.com But Not the Basis For My Question of "functional intermediates" sorry If I offended you as too Bring drivel in As It is Still a Debate On macro evolution a made up beleif or truth
And As i see it its Not
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
moosewings -

That website you gave the link for is full of utter drivel. A great example is the out-of-context Gould quote. Why don't you try posting the WHOLE quote (in which Gould is arguing FOR punctuated equilibrium)?:

"The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight."
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
firemonkey6775 -

You don't understand evolution. Evolution does not postulate that we are monkeys. Evolution postulates that somewhere, millions of years back, primates and humans shared a similar ancestor and that because of various environmental factors, that ancestry diverged which resulted in the two separate species we have today.

I'm curious - if you don't believe in macro evolution - why do you think you have vestigial biology like your appendix?
Posted by moosewings 9 years ago
moosewings
The awesome Understanding and Knowledge Of the younger Generations
Show me that Eyes Are wide Opean To All That Question
As I seek Knowlegde And understanding Maybe I will also Teach A different View or Understand what Is Laid Before Me
Changes In Species Seems Too Me to Be through adaptation "Macro Or Micro" though these changes Are Discrete And so far Never in the Extreme,
so I look At evolution in this Manner so This debate Is with Merit As Facts are Laid Out
the Record Of date Has shown
the one link i see yet is missing" functional intermediate "is Man To Monkey though In time it May be shown Its there
ID Inteligent Design? We all see the evidence through a different pair of eyes, experiences, desires, and knowledge--our glasses. True objectivity is a noble goal, but sometimes objectivity requires that we acknowledge our bias. In acknowledging the glasses through which we see the world, we can learn to understand, respect, and appreciate those who have differing viewpoints, and better reflect upon our own
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Situations in which fossils are actually formed are quite rare. If an animal dies on the ground somewhere, it overwhelmingly unlikely that it will become fossilized. There is no reason to expect a full fossil record.

Also, we have either found or postulated functional intermediates for almost everything. Please bring up something that does not have a functional intermediate and I will explain it to you.

Also, both Charles Darwin and Stephen Gould were evolutionary biologists. In spite of whatever problems they saw, they still believed the evidence was compelling.
Posted by moosewings 9 years ago
moosewings
watching This cause I am Not A monkey I am Human No Link :)
seems There is A variance Even Too Darwins theory
Fossil Evidence in a Nutshell "www.ideacenter.org"
Evolution predicts there were intermediate stages in the evolution of life where one form turned into another. These "transitional forms" however, are not found for the vast majority of the time in the fossil record. Charles Darwin said in The Origin of Species:
...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be any of Darwin's "intermediate links." However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx [a bird], Ambulocetus [a land mammal], and Acanthostega [an amphibian]) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups and are often incomplete. For this reason, famous paleontologist, the late Stephen J. Gould, wrote:
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 9 years ago
JUDGE
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mrjiggums 9 years ago
Mrjiggums
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 Sanchez 9 years ago
Sanchez
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 Grandma 9 years ago
Grandma
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 midgetjoe 9 years ago
midgetjoe
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
firemonkey6775beem0rTied
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