The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Midnight1131
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

selection isnt natural

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Midnight1131
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,981 times Debate No: 77727
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (105)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

natural selection is false
Midnight1131

Con

I accept.

I am thrilled to be able to debate the famed vi_spez after all this time.

I will be arguing that natural selection is true.

I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

selection isnt natural, is the argument, natural is random
Midnight1131

Con

I thank my opponent for his brilliant insight into this issue, now I will move onto my own arguments.

Since my opponent didn't specify definitions, I will do so here. [All definitions are from Oxford Dictionaries]

Natural Selection - the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

False - not according with truth or fact; incorrect:

Random - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision:

The best way to prove natural selection exists is by looking at the example of peppered moths.
These moths exists in a forest, and they were light coloured, and they were white.

s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" width="320" height="212" />

This colour helped them to blend in with the trees. Bernard Kettlewell, a British geneticist, found that the light coloured body was a good camouflage in a clean environment. However in polluted areas, the black coloured moth [of the same species,] had an advantage over the other ones.

s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" width="319" height="211" />

These black skinned moths were undiscovered until 1811, so we can assume that they came through a random mutation.

Now, this is one example of natural selection, as the light skinned moths outnumbered the black skinned in a clean environment, however after the industrial revolution, the black skinned moths were able to blend in better to the poluted environment, and outnumbered the light skinned ones. After environmental regulations, the light skinned moths started to outnumber the black skinned moths again.

Sources - https://en.wikipedia.org...

This is one example of natural selection. I now toss the ball back to my opponent and await their response.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

you cant choose if you are not aware..

random=not intended

random is the opposite of specified, intent is specified

im arguing that there is no intent behind it, that natural selection is random therfore not selection
Midnight1131

Con

My opponent has ignored the peppered moth example, so that argument still stands.

My opponent also says random = not intended, this is false. The definition of random, as provided before, is - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision:

My opponent argues that you can't have selection without intent. However my opponent is arguing about natural selection which is a term in biology, so we will use the definition of selection in biology, which is -

a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others

This definition of selection [biological term] does not state anywhere that selection can't be random.

Also, my opponent has started to argue that natural selection isn't selection, they still haven't made a single argument towards the actual resolution of the debate, which is "selection isnt natural," and at the beginning of the round where they said "natural selection is false," a statement that I've already disproved. My opponent also says that natural is random, which is false. The definition of natural is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:" This has nothing to do with "random."

There isn't much else for me to say.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

im saying their colour blending in better with the trees isnt intended.

random is the opposite of specified, intent is specified

you cant make a choice if you are not aware..

yes, i am saying the invironmental influences are not intended, Thus the outcome is not intended

selection is intended, not random

selection isnt natural, is the proof that natural selection is false, its something else

nature is Chaos, Chaos is random
Midnight1131

Con

My opponent's entire argument is using the wrong definition of "selection," which in biology, the subject we're discussing, is the following - a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others

Since my opponent didn't give any definitions throughout this debate, the ones I gave here and in the previous rounds are the ones that we will use. My opponent keeps saying that natural selection isn't selection because it's not intended, however they never specified what version of the word selection they were going to use, and since we're talking about biology, I thought it fit to use the biological definition, since my opponent provided none. And the definition of the word selection in biology has nothing to do with intent or randomness. Also, my opponent makes the claim that nature is random, however this is not true, nature is bound by it's own laws. The following is a definition of nature -

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:

So my opponent still hasn't refuted the proper term of selection which we are using [and we are using it because my opponent in the previous 3 rounds never gave their definition of selection.] They also have completely dropped their statement from the first round "natural selection is false," by refusing to refute my example of the peppered moths.

That's all for this round.


Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

so why use the Word if its not selection..

science believer argue the latter.. that natural selection is selection..

no its science dosnt have a definition of natural selection.. you can find 10 different so what is the point..

according to what they call it they are utterly wrong, its as simple as that
Midnight1131

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I'll simply add some rebuttals and then finish off the debate.

First off, my opponent still hasn't addressed my argument concerning the peppered moths, so we can assume that's been dropped, and so has the assertion by my opponent made in the first round, that "natural selection is false." Moving on, my opponent says "why use the word if it's not selection." But he still hasn't understood that there are 2 different meaning of selection, which I detailed earlier. My opponent then says that I'm arguing that natural selection is selection. That is true, but selection in this context is the word that uses the biological definition of selection. And science does in fact have a definition of natural selection and a seperate definition of selection in biology, both of which I gave in earlier rounds. My opponent says that "you can find 10 different definitions," but he fails to provide any, and I think we can assume that the definition by Oxford Dictionaries is pretty accurate.

That's all for this debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
105 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
men getting bald, ai?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
true in that case, but there is no invironmental pressure for the kid unless he trains, and in other cases like with bears fur, where as there is invironmental pressure
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
Muscle growth as a result of environmental interaction does not change your genetic code. The proof: bodybuilders offspring are not born with huge muscles.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
how about mucle Growth? :)

right there.. game over genetics
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i just need a legitimate example of physical traits evolving while a being is alive
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i would say physical traits reveal the genetic code
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
So is commenting nonsense non<x>stop the way that Vi_Spex gets his debates to the front page so often?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
genetic code?

if the code changes according to the Cold
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Discipulus_Didicit
The reason I say it is not a genetic change is that the bears genetic code is the same before and after the adaptation.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
im talking about all life forms
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
vi_spexMidnight1131Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the only one to provide sources. Pro didn't capitalize, so spelling goes to Con. Pro never rebutted Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
vi_spexMidnight1131Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the only one to provide sources, so those points go to Con. Pro didn't capitalize, so those points go to Con. Pro never really addressed Con's arguments, so since Con's arguments were dropped I'd have to give those points to Con as well. All in all Con wins this debate.