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

A Discourse on Evolution (Pro) Vs Creationism (Con)

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
RR-5L8S has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 101296
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




A Discourse on Evolution (Pro) Vs Creationism (Con):

I will be assuming the stance of Pro on this topic, and my opponent will be delegated as Con. I also encourage my opponent to take this argument from a more objective stance rather than a religious one [To the extent that may be achieved]. [Note] This debate should be impossible to accept. Consequently, If you manage to do so, you automatically forfeit this discussion.

Structure and Rules:
[1] There will be five rounds.
- Within round 2 both sides present opening arguments.
- Round 3 presents the opportunity for rebuttals.
- Round 4 is the time allotted for final arguments.
- Round 5 is specified for brief rebuttals and closing statements.
[2] Equitable Conduct.
[3] No profanity.
[4] Empirical Evidence.

[1] Evolution - [Noun] The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
[2] Creationism - The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


Please apply in the comments section.


I accept, and look forward to a good debate.

Micro-evolution: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level

Macro-evolution: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
Debate Round No. 1


I would first off like to thank Con for providing necessary content to this discussion in the form of respective definitions for ‘macroevolution’ and ‘microevolution’. This adds a certain degree of complexity that makes it easier to organize my later arguments.

Ever since the conception of the modern principle of evolution nearly 158 years ago at the hands of Charles Darwin, it has come up against considerable opposition from both a religious and scientific basis. The notion was first conceived through the concept of natural selection:

Natural Selection - [Noun] The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

This is essentially a circular approach. Only the fittest survive, and those that survive are the fittest.

However, it is of increasing occurrence that individuals come out and challenge the factually supported idea of evolution on a faulty or misinformed basis, managing to persuade officials and citizens alike to to take up a similar stance. I will be providing the factual basis that evolution is rooted in as well of a refutation of the creationist establishment.

Structure [Arguments]:
[1] Genetics Support Evolution
[2] Morphology
[3] Fossil Record
[4] Similarities of Embryos
[5] Induced in Labs
[6] Observed in Nature

[1] Genetics


Genetics - [Noun] The study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.

Darwin had absolutely no concept of genetics when he formed his original theories, so it opens up a whole new realm of potential refutations for evolution. However, most of genetic research provides a meticulous support for this notion. Evolution never invents anything from scratch, it simply improves upon pre-existing substructures. So in this sense we should not only see this trend in morphology, but also in the genome of organisms. DNA [Deoxyribonucleic Acid] is the basic information storage structure for all organisms currently known in science, from the complex to the the singular cell. Translation into RNA sequences results in the overall construction of proteins on the cellular level, proteins used to perform a variety of functions and build tissues. This brings me to my first point on ubiquitous proteins. Cytochrome C is a oxidase:

Oxidase - [Noun] An enzyme that promotes the transfer of a hydrogen atom from a particular substrate to an oxygen molecule, forming water or hydrogen peroxide.

: that is found in bacteria and the mitochondrion of eukaryotes, and is responsible for the above. There are nearly 10 to the 93rd power EQUALLY functional variants of this protein, yet all organisms share the same essential types. If life arose individually as creationism suggests, there is no reason for these to be even remotely the same, unless the idea of common descent is embraced.

Today the average genetic difference between humans is about 0.1%. In comparison, the difference between humans and Chimpanzees and Bonobos is a equitable 1.2%. However, this only accounts for substitutions in nitrogenous bases between shared genetic sequences in humans, bonobos, and chimps. When the entire code is taken into account, the total difference is still a meager 4 - 5%, still a much smaller gap than that shared between chimps and gorillas, or bonobos or gorillas. To this extent, not only are humans closely related to great apes, we are one. This moves to support common descent through more genetic evidence.

[2] Morphology

Morphology - [Noun] The study of the forms of things, in particular.

Genetic traits express themselves in the form of phenotypes, which are determined by genotypes. If common descent is to be held as true, it is a logical outcome that creatures with a common ancestor will express the same adapted substructure [Skeletal, vascular, etc.]. This raises the question: If creationism is true, why do we see the same bone structure in very different appendages, such as the fins of aquatic mammals, felines, birds, and apes, especially when they are unsuited for some of these functions? Darwin and numerous scientists have concluded that the only reason for shared morphology is homologous characters in genetics, which in turn supports common descent, given traits are passed down through reproduction. Evolution adapts pre-existing structures [Non optimal ones in certain cases] to suit new needs given the environment.

Please see the image below:

s://; alt="Image result for mammalian forelimbs homologous structures" />

[3] Fossil Record

There is a wealth of evidence towards evolution in the fossil record. We can observe very simplistic forms of life fossilized in very very old rocks [>3.5 Billion years ago], and both simplistic and related more complex organisms in younger rocks. Modern mammals alone can be traced back in the fossil record about 200 million years, while gradually growing different in form and size. Fossils that predate these have been found through genetics and morphology to be the closest relatives. This is repetitive, as we can work our way down the line.

[4] Similarities Among Embryos:

Embryology - [Noun] The branch of biology and medicine concerned with the study of embryos and their development.

The study into evolutionary change has recently been propelled into the above field, focusing on the passing of genetic traits and embryonic formation. Many animals look nearly identical in many phases of embryonic development, such as the relation between humans and fish, both having slits for gills. The development eventually diverges in later stages, resulting in distinct species. However, these striking similarities imply common descent, and many studies including morphology and genetics [Previous arguments] tie directly into this field.

[5] Induced in a Lab Setting:

Recent experiments with microbial life in a laboratory setting have yielded concrete evidence of evolution. This is because microbes are well suited for these variants of experiments. They reproduce very quickly, repeat-ability, the ease through which a population can be upheld, and the ability to be stored for later examination. Wild populations have diverse causes for evolution such as environment and isolation. Experiments endeavor to artificially induce situations in which evolution is expected to take place. These studies are referred to as ALE’s, or adaptive laboratory evolution, have yielded a multitude of results.

First and foremost, studies have directly observed entire genomic changes. These changes are found through WGS [Whole genome sequencing]. The typical subject is E. Coli, an organism found in the digestive tract of nearly all warm blooded organisms. In the changes observed, 61% were point nucleotide changes [Swapping of one DNA base], 29% were deletions, 7% were insertions, and 3% were frame-shift. All of these changes resulted in slightly different behavior and traits. Similarly, bacteria grown in higher temperatures and different growth mediums [Most of both were harmful to organisms] yielded a linear acquirement of beneficial mutations. The E. Coli could survive in warmer and chemically potent environments. This supports evolution in the sense that organisms use traits forced upon them by their environment. Beneficial mutations result in a fitter specimen, a specimen that therefore out-competes and survives, passing on the trait.

[6] Observations;

This argument will prove to be brief, but I wish to list instances where evolution has been observed naturally.

[1] HIV
[2] Chemically resistant pests that feed on crops
[3] Mosquitoes
[4] Flu
[5] Numerous other organisms.

In essence I have shown the basics that prove evolution is FACTUAL, not some ill supported fantasy. I also have yet to play my full hand, as I wish to draw out this debate.




Before I start I would like to thank pro for setting up this debate and debating me. I would like to apologize for the delay in writing this. I have some real world obligations so my intro is shorter than planned, but I hope it still gets my point across.

Just to get this out of the way early I know that evolutionists who don't believe in God like to say that I can't prove the existence of God, but at the same time they can't prove that he doesn't exist. The way to "prove" God's existence then would be to see how accurate his book is. If God wrote it, we should expect it to be scientifically accurate. The greatest proof that I see of God is the impossibility of life without him, the lack of evidence for macroevolution, and the evidence of a young earth that supports the Bible.

Evidence of a Young Earth:

1. If our galaxy was as old as evolutionists say it is, we shouldn't have comets. The lifespan of a comet is only a few thousand years, any longer and it melts. How does our solar system have comets if evolutionists claim it's 4.6 million years old? [1]

2. Symbiosis. I've heard the arguments on both sides. Some creationists say that symbiotic relation could not have evolved on their own, and evolutionists counter by saying yes they can. Here's the real question. Is there evidence? I know that evolutionists don't like when I say God could do this and God could do that, but don't actually give any evidence; however, they do the same thing. Yes, if the theory of evolution were true symbiotic relationships could evolve, but I need evidence.

For example is there any evidence of the termites ever lived without their symbiotic protozoa? If evolution were true the earlier forms of termites would have evolved without these Protozoa, but we see no evidence of this. Instead scientists found "100 million year old amber" with termites in them that were still symbiotic. Where's the evidence that these creatures could have evolved without each other?[2]

3. Faint Sun Paradox
Evolutionists claim that the Sun is about 4.54 billion years old. If this is true that means the sun has used up about half of its life and is brighter than it was a couple of million years ago. Evolutionists say that life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. There is something known as the faint young sun paradox, if the sun is 4.45 billion years old the temperature of the earth would be below freezing. Not only does this contradict evolutionist's theories that the earth's temperature was about the same throughout time, but it would also freeze the life-forms on earth. [3]

4. Rock Layers Folded
If layers of strata were millions of years old, how are many layers folded? Rock will crack when pressure is applied when it had hardened. The only way for rock layers to bend is if they are bent while still soft. This indicates that the layers did not take millions or billions of years to form and that they were laid down at the same time. [4]

5. Living Fossils
What are the chances of all these animals going millions of years without being fossilized. Talk about stretching your imagination. I know that it is possible, but it does not seem very likely.

I'm sure that someone will eventually make up theories to counter my arguments as well as other creationists arguments, but they are usually just unproven theories. What I use are facts, things we can observe and test. Evolutionists believe in things that we've never even seen or tested. Creationists don't have to use as much imagination as evolutionists do to fit science into their worldview. Thank you.

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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 years ago
1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by debater12332 2 years ago
Apologies, in Round 1 my definitions were messed up.

Macro evolution: major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
Posted by RR-5L8S 2 years ago
Hmm, it seems the image failed to load. Please search 'mammalian forelimbs homologous structures' to see the intended image.
Posted by debater12332 2 years ago
If you want to debate, I would be happy to.
This debate has 4 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.