Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

RFD - Khaz (Pro) *VS* Jerry 947 (Con)

MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:03:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
This is an RFD, brought to you by the voter's union, for the debate:
http://www.debate.org...

Khaz (Pro) *VS* Jerry 947 (Con)
Evolution is the best theory for the diversity of life.

*Preface*

While I've made a career on this very topic, I've debated this very topic with one of the debaters, and one could conclude that I'm inherently biased with regards to this topic, I assure you that my voting duties to be "tabula rasa," or completely absent of preconceived ideas, will not be compromised and I will only asses debater performance and facts there within...I'm removing my obvious bias here.

*Burden*

The burden is most certainly on Pro here, having to establish that the biodiversity of life is best explained by the theory of evolution. Con simply has to show a better explanation OR that the theory of evolution does not merit the title of "best" theory due to its flaws.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:10:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
*Pro's Case*

1. Evolution makes predictions that can be verified like vestiges such as the whale's pelvis, the dog's dew claw, and the wings of emus which are defined as having a diminished function from its *original* purpose.

*Con concedes *original* function diminishing = vestigial, but claims that ostrich wings have other functions...this ignores the agreed definition of *original* function gone = vestigial so it's a weak refute. It also ignores the other examples.

2. Since evolution acts only on what traits animals already have, there are very small natural variations within the population over generations, so the difference from older-->newer animal is minuscule and not drastic, and anatomical vestiges are bound to be left over, and evolution predicts vestiges.

*Con doesn't address the predictive power of evolution in this case, because Con is so stuck on negating his conceded definition of vestigial.
Wings = some function does not mean that wings = *original* function and this most certainly doesn't address how the predictions were correct/incorrect, so another weak refute.

3. These vestigial predictions can be applied to any animal, for example Apterocyclus honolulensis's wings are fused together and will not open.

*Dropped by Con

4. a transitional species between tetrapods and earlier fish was discovered only because researchers used evolution to find the otherwise unknown location.

*Dropped by Con

5. Same with Tiktaalik roseae in a rock layer that they had predicted would be there.

*Con says he can't imagine this being evidence...but that's all he says about it. Predictive power ignored again.

6. Darwin predicted an unknown type of insect whose proboscis would be long enough to extract from a very long distance to the nectary of a certain flower.

*Dropped by Con

7. Nested heirarchy = those with true feathers are all birds, no exceptions.

*Con provides an example of nested hierarchy by saying automobiles have a nested hierarchy and they're designed...while I don't find this particularly convincing, if Pro doesn't address this later, Con can run with it...Pro does, but I'll save that for later.

8. Mammary glands are only found in mammals.

*Dropped by Con

9. Flight evolves in different animals distinctly...bird wings are morphologically very distinct from those of bats/insects.

*Dropped by Con

10. When an ERV is inserted into the DNA of a particular species, all descendants of that species will contain that ERV in that particular spot in their DNA without exception.

*Dropped by Con

11. Once two interfertile populations become no longer interfertile thanks to pressures, this is macroevolution, which is really the same mechanism as microevolution.

*Con only mentions the difference between macro and micro, and ignores that this seems like an example of macroevolution, and from Con's own definition, it seems to satisfy macroevolution.

---

*Con's Case*

1. a vestige is a structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its *original* function.

*This is huge here.
Con has provided a definition that underscores this idea of *original* function which Pro had already provided and which speaks to the predictive power of evolution with respects to vestiges. Con's vestige negation is mitigated by Con's own provided definition.

2. functions for 186 claimed to be vestigial human structures were found, because humans arbitrarily assign vestigiality to things due to their ignorance of possible functions.

*Con conceded the original function aspect of this, and Pro's now functional source clearly indicates the agreed definition of vestigial applies to ostrich wings. Pro is winning the vestiges point.

3. Ostrich wings are used for balance in running, courtship displays, and etc...So the wings do not actually count as vestigial.

*Again, the conceded definition of vestigial would mean that if the wings aren't used for flying, as is the case in the predecessors of ostrich demonstrated by Pro and his source, then the original function is diminished, and this wins Pro the vestige point.

4. we assume that the bird used to be able to fly. It is possible that the creature was always that way OR the bird used to be able to fly but lost the ability due to whatever reason =/= macroevolution.

*Not a bad refute from Con here, but Con clearly ignored the source that Pro provided, Con also didn't give me any reason to doubt the source, and the source indicated that in fact flight was part of the history of the ostrich given the specific structure of the wing and its direct morphological relationship to wings of flight that preceded them.

5. there is no way that transitional forms would have ever survived...how would a creature with no scales and not quite having functional feathers survive?

*Pro indicates that the two traits coexisted and an animal dominated by scales gradually evolved into an animal with mostly feathers. This seems to match with what evolution predicts, given Pro's evidence, and negates the survival problem of "no scales" indicated by Con.

6. For Tiktaalik roseae, I don't see how some fossil discovery helps prove that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life.

*Pro pointed out that this fossil fulfilled a prediction of evolution, so the fact that Con can't see how it's the case isn't compelling and again ignores the predictive power which is highly impacting to the resolution of a best theory of biodiversity.

7. nested hierarchies = evidence for both evolution and common design. man-made vehicles = intelligently designed = can be organized into a tree structure, with groups inside groups.

*Pro points out that this ignores the "no exceptions" of nested hierarchy, because one can put jet engines on a bike violating nested hierarchy that could not be found in evolution sans designer, which was sourced and had an awesome video.

8. birds and the other animal would have been created very different which doesn't allow for a horse with wings.

*But Pro pointed out this is Con's opinion, and that like a jet engine could be placed on a bike, wings could just as easily be placed on a horse...Con's analogy supports this possibility.

9. Creationsim = God created all beings, and naturally, new breeds of animals formed due to adaption and due to mating =/= common ancestor.

*Pro points out that the small changes occur from the same mechanisms of big changes, which would point to a common ancestor.

10. Evolution doesn't offer an explanation for how life began and it can't explain the existence of morality, but creationism can.

*Pro points out that biodiversity =/= origin of life which indicates this point's irrelevancy, but Pro, instead of showing morality to be irrelevant, claims that evolution can explain some morality because of the survival = reproduction aspect of what is right and wrong.
While I find that compelling, Pro should have just shown that morality is irrelevant to biodiversity and left this one alone...no ground really gained for either side, since it speaks not to biodiversity.

11. microevolution = small changes, macroevolution = big changes

*Pro points out that they're the same process, except for more time, and species-->new species hangs on reproductive viability between populations, a definition for species, two once reproductive populations no longer able to reproduce = macroevolution.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 4:30:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
*Con's Response*

1. the structure is vestigial if it has no function or if it basically has lost all of its function, but the ostrich wings serve many other purposes, negating vestigiality.

*Pro points out that Con is ignoring his own definition of *original* function. Seriously, it seemed like Con was purposefully ignoring that agreed portion of the definition of vestigial to help his point, and Pro called him out on it...this definitively swings the vote in Pro's favor.

2. humans just couldn't figure out what the functions were. Pro dropped this.

*Pro didn't drop this, because Pro pointed out that the *original* functions were diminished, regardless if humans could determine some other function of a structure.

3. all we know is that ostriches can't fly yet their wings serve other purposes.

*Pro repeats that the lack of flight speaks to the original functioning diminishing indicating accurate predictions, sourced adequately by Pro, and since I'm given no reason to doubt Pro's source...this point is dead for Con now.

4. A reptile evolving into a bird would have to slowly lose most of its scales and then slowly gain feathers.

*Pro mentions that Con never showed why scales and wings can't coexist, and just asserted it, and from what I can tell, Pro's correct.

5. the prediction of proto-tetrapod was not sourced properly.

*Pro does end up sourcing it, and upon inspection of the source, it's credible, relevant, and severely boosts Pro's case...excellent source to provide here.

6. my opponent losses the point as soon as they admit that something is intelligently designed, even if it's a vehicle.

*Pro indicates that Pro losing a point for embarking on Con's vehicle analogy doesn't make sense, and I was wondering the same thing here too...sort of unfair for Con to say that since Pro exercised Con's analogy, he should concede a point here...it's somewhat childish, so I'm glad Pro pointed it out.

7. humans created different groups of machines and some of them resemble each other and some of them look more different than each other

*Pro shows again that shared complex structures will never be out of place within the nested hierarchy, but with designed machines, this is perfectly reasonable. This is a violation of nested hierarchy and Con never gets that, even after seeing a bike with a jet engine on it, this equivalence in evolution, as Pro points out, is a violation of nested hierarchy.

8. As for DNA, nested hierarchical trees could indicate design.

*Pro points out that Pro's argument was about the ERVs, which is adequately sourced and I'm given no reason to doubt it from Con, injecting their DNA, not about DNA itself as an indication of nested hierarchy, so this point is a complete drop of the ERV argument. I was surprised that Con dropped this so boldly.

9. evidence for macro evolution indicates common descent OR common design.

*Pro points out that evolution would be falsified with a mammal +wings, but creationism wouldn't be. This adds to that predictive power of evolution over creationism.

*Vote*

Pro did a very good job of establishing his burden early by pointing out that the agreed definition of vestigial has evolution making astoundingly accurate predictions of vestigiality, and all of the encountered examples of such are exactly what evolution has predicted without any violations or falsifications.
Pro boosted his burden successfully by showing predictions of locations AND species otherwise unknown without the predictive power of evolution, and Con never casts the doubt on those evidences.
This predictive power is very compelling and impacts the resolution that evolution is the best explanation for biodiversity.

Pro also refuted Con's ignorance of agreed definitions, showed Con's misconceptions of evolution, pointed out Con's poor analogies of nested hierarchy, showed the lack of Con's doubt on any of Pro's sources, Con's inaccurate micro VS macro argument, Con's inaccurate version of species, Con's rhetorical sources, and Pro indicated all of the arguments either dropped or responded to way to late to consider by Con.

Con just didn't give me enough to doubt what Pro has described and the blatant purposeful ignorance of the *original* function diminishing being a vestige's definition that Con even agreed to warrants a conduct point, but we can't vote on conduct in the voter's union.
Con's vehicle analogy was destroyed by the bike with a jet engine argument, and that this wouldn't violate anything in creationism, and Con never fought back from that.
Con also did much asserting about how things evolve and what's possible/impossible with evolution and Pro indicated it all and how it is inaccurate.

Given the many specific drops by Con, the lack of doubt being cast on any of Pro's sources coupled with Pro's clear indication of Con's source's rhetoric, Pro's well-explained and well-sourced predictive power of evolution with regards to the conceded definition of vestigial, Pro's destruction of the vehicle argument, and all other validated and NOT violated aspects of evolution's predictive accuracy, this is a clear vote for Pro.

I will gladly clarify any of the points I've laid out here, and I'm refraining from voting sources, because both sides used sources that supported their case.
We don't vote on s&g or conduct so:

ARGUMENTS TO PRO
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:16:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
While I've made a career on this very topic, I've debated this very topic with one of the debaters, and one could conclude that I'm inherently biased with regards to this

Your prediction came true.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:41:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:16:29 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
While I've made a career on this very topic, I've debated this very topic with one of the debaters, and one could conclude that I'm inherently biased with regards to this

Your prediction came true.

Jerry, are there any points you would like me to clarify?
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:36:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:41:19 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:16:29 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
While I've made a career on this very topic, I've debated this very topic with one of the debaters, and one could conclude that I'm inherently biased with regards to this

Your prediction came true.

Jerry, are there any points you would like me to clarify?

No.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:40:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:36:19 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:41:19 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:16:29 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
While I've made a career on this very topic, I've debated this very topic with one of the debaters, and one could conclude that I'm inherently biased with regards to this

Your prediction came true.

Jerry, are there any points you would like me to clarify?

No.

Great, then please acknowledge that my RFD is unbiased.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:43:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:40:46 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:36:19 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:41:19 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:16:29 AM, Jerry947 wrote:
While I've made a career on this very topic, I've debated this very topic with one of the debaters, and one could conclude that I'm inherently biased with regards to this

Your prediction came true.

Jerry, are there any points you would like me to clarify?

No.

Great, then please acknowledge that my RFD is unbiased.

No, it was totally biased.

But I will just leave it at that.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:54:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
No, it was totally biased.

But I will just leave it at that.

Um, no.
You can't just take shots at my voter integrity and run away...
How was it biased?
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:05:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:54:42 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
No, it was totally biased.

But I will just leave it at that.

Um, no.
You can't just take shots at my voter integrity and run away...

To be fair, I realize that all people are somewhat biased. You just so happen to be a person who can't even try to be objective when it comes to evolution.

How was it biased?

I really have no desire to tell you all of my problems with your RFD. All I wanted to do was to let you know that you were right about me thinking that you were biased in your vote.

That is all I will say on the matter.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 3:11:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
You just so happen to be a person who can't even try to be objective when it comes to evolution.

How was I not objective with this RFD?

I really have no desire to tell you all of my problems with your RFD.

You mean to say, you have no evidence of it, so you'll accuse me of something AND run away from me...real noble, Jerry.

All I wanted to do was to let you know that you were right about me thinking that you were biased in your vote.

You just say that you think it, but you can't say why?

That is all I will say on the matter.

That's all you can say on the matter...nothing; go ahead and run away from an accusation you can't back up.