The Instigator
myrrh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Darwinian Evolution is a Weak Theory

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,185 times Debate No: 120918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (0)

 

myrrh

Pro

Darwinian evolution is a weak theory because it lacks a mechanism for actual evolution, Meaning an increase in complexity or information. Natural Selection works fine to filter out the best genes that exist, But it doesn't explain how new genes come about.

Neo-Darwinian evolution theory claims that mutation is responsible for the appearance of new genes / proteins / traits, But there is a lack of evidence to support this. Without evidence to support a hypothesis, It remains weak.

To clarify, Evolution as an historical event evidently happened when looking at the fossil record. However the mechanism that drove it upwards is largely a mystery, Which Darwinists are unwilling to admit.

If Con uses scientific articles in their arguments, Then I request that they limit them to one per round, To allow for enough time to accurately read and assess the contents thereof.
WrickItRalph

Con

I don't really think that Evolution is weak at all. Natural selection is described in detail and so are mutations. You even said yourself that Evolution happens, But you simply think it doesn't account for the complexity of life. Well the thing is that the complexity of life doesn't disprove evolution. The only two claims of evolution are Natural Selection and Gene Mutation. Those two things are very strong theories so I'm not seeing the weak point. If you're talking about theories that people wrote using evolution as a basis, Then I reject those theories as being germane to this argument.

I don't know what is so mysterious about evolution. Zooming in on any part in history will show that evolution and only evolution is slowly changing these organisms. It logically entails that if one makes enough small changes to something, That it will add up to a bigger change. This is just simple mathematics. What you're doing is begging the question. You're saying "This doesn't make sense to me, So it's a mystery, And since it's a mystery, You have to solve it. " You're creating a problem that isn't there.

Since you already admit that evolution happens on a small scale and haven't shown a weakness in either Natural Selection or Gene Mutation, I'd say you lost the debate on your first round by giving me the whole cake.

Your Floor.
Debate Round No. 1
myrrh

Pro

The Darwinian explanation for evolution is weak because it has no mechanism for actual evolution, Meaning an increase in complexity or information. Natural selection doesn't do this. Darwinists claim that mutation does, But there is a lack of evidence, Therefore it is weak. Your response to this was no more than "mutation isn't a weak theory, It's strong". However you provided no evidence. The burden of proof is on you. It is impossible for me to prove there is a lack of evidence for something. You have to present some, And only then can I respond to it.
WrickItRalph

Con

Couple things. I want to point out that nobody here is a "Darwinist" whatever that means and nobody here believes in "Darwinian evolution" I don't know where you're getting these words from. Second, Gene mutation is an established theory and you're the one claiming it to be weak, Therefore, You have taken on a burden of proof in doing this topic.

With all that said, I want to talk about complexity. You seem to have the standard creationist view that evolution necessarily has to increase the complexity of things. This shows that you lack an understanding of evolution. Life forms become more complex on there own through gene mutation. These mutations can add proteins to an organism's genetic make up and that's all the proof I need for any type of complexity. Natural selection doesn't increase complexity, It increases survivability. Complex doesn't always equal survival.

Judging by your last statement, I'm not sure if you intend to present evidence of your claim, But I suggest you do so. Since evolution is a well established scientific theory, You don't get to come in here and finger wag without evidence. Lets look over the evidence you provided so far for your claim.

"Darwinian evolution is a weak theory because it lacks a mechanism for actual evolution, Meaning an increase in complexity or information. Natural Selection works fine to filter out the best genes that exist, But it doesn't explain how new genes come about. "

So this is just a bold assertion, Can you logically support this claim? This is also begging the question when you talk about new genes. Nobody said new genes had to be made except for you. This is because, Once again, You don't understand evolution. There are only four building blocks for a gene. There is never a "new" gene. That is just a fantasy that you came up with in your head. What really happens is that the same four building blocks that we've used since the dawn of time are the same ones we use now and the "complexity" that you see is just bigger combinations of those same 4 building blocks. So I don't have to show you a "new" gene because such a thing was never claimed to exist.

That was the only evidence that you've provided for your entire debate. The only other thing you've said so fair is that evolution is a "mystery" which isn't evidence, But rather your personal incredulity.

If you don't provide some actual evidence for you claim that genes have to make "new genes" then this whole debate is moot because that's literally your only real critique.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 2
WrickItRalph

Con

Control Group
Debate Round No. 3
myrrh

Pro

"nobody here believes in "Darwinian evolution" I don't know where you're getting these words from. "

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, Stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, Inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, Survive, And reproduce. " - wikipedia

"Neo-Darwinism: relating to the modern version of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Incorporating the findings of genetics. " google dictionary

The reason I use the term Darwinism is to make a distinction. This is between evolution the historical event and Neo-Darwinism, A hypothesis as to why evolution occurred. Again my argument is that Neo-Darwinian theory is weak because it does not explain how genes were formed during evolution, Which was an essential component of the process. I have never argued that evolution didn't happen, Only that Darwinism is a weak explanation.

"You seem to have the standard creationist view that evolution necessarily has to increase the complexity of thing. This shows that you lack an understanding of evolution. "

It's true that increased complexity doesn't always provide better fitness. I never said this always has to occur. However increasing complexity is something that needs to be explained, Because it obviously happened during the course of evolution. Life started out on this planet as unicellular bacteria. We on the other hand are composed of trillions of cells, Each specialized for various functions, The vast majority of which didn't exist when life began. We are obviously more intricate than a bacterium, Therefore during evolution there was a dramatic increase in complexity and information that took place.

"Nobody said new genes had to be made except for you. . . There is never a "new" gene. "

Again when life began it was unicellular. The first true life form almost assuredly did not have functioning eyes. There are numerous genes that code for various specialized proteins involved in eyesight. This includes photoreceptors (see comment section for link on photoreceptor proteins). These specific proteins did not exist when evolution started, Yet at some point they came about. At the point where they were first formed they would have been considered "new" genes. There are innumerable other examples that I could use. Are you saying that all genes that exist today were already around when life started?

"There are only four building blocks for a gene. . . What really happens is that the same four building blocks that we've used since the dawn of time are the same ones that we use now and the "complexity" that you see is just bigger combinations of those same 4 building blocks. So I don't have to show you a "new" gene because such a thing was never claimed to exist. "

During the 1940's Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings. According to your logic it wouldn't have been considered a new story after it was written, Because it's composed of the same 26 letters that all other stories in English have been written in. You say that new genes don't exist because they all use the same 4 nucleotides, Is the gene that codes for hemoglobin not different from the gene for rhodopsin, Even though they both use different combinations of the same 4 nucleotides? I'm sorry but there isn't any sense to your logic here.

"So this is just a bold assertion. Can you logically support this claim? "

My claim is that Neo-Darwinism is weak because it lacks an explanation as to how new genes were formed. The proposed mechanism is mutation, To which I replied that this hypothesis lacks supporting evidence. You then asked if I can logically support this claim. That is a nonsensical request because it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, In this case evidence.

The only way for this debate to move forward would be for you to provide just one article demonstrating how mutation can create new genes. You've stated that mutation in this context is an established theory, So therefore you shouldn't have a hard time finding just one source to support your stance. Do you understand the concept that it is logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist? How could I demonstrate that there isn't such evidence? The only way hypothetically I could do that would be to link every scientific article that's ever been published, And then demonstrate how each one doesn't qualify. Obviously though that is beyond impractical.

It's as if you claimed there was a blender orbiting Alpha Centauri. I say that's a weak hypothesis because there's no evidence for it. You then reply by asking if I can logically support my claim. In other words can I prove that the blender doesn't exist. There's no way for me to demonstrate that, Yet that isn't positive evidence that it is in fact there. This kind of false logic is a well known fallacy. See the comment section for a link discussing this fallacy.

If you look in the comment section you can see backwardseden linked a few videos. You could use one of those if you'd like to support your case. However it's your choice, It's not the responsibility of Pro to select evidence for Con.

"These mutations can add proteins to an organism's genetic make up and that's all the proof I need for any type of complexity. "

You merely making this claim does not count as evidence for it. I am actually Thor the thunder god. I just say that I am and that's all the proof I need.

Now this was intended to be my third round argument. However it glitched out because I tried to include links, Which according to debate. Org's documents should have been possible. Anyone reading this debate to vote can go to the comment section to see how this played out. I offered Con the opportunity to re-input this debate so we could have the originally agreed upon number of rounds, But they declined. Now if they provide any articles to try to support their stance I no longer have an opportunity to respond. This is beyond infuriating and prevents a proper resolution of this debate, But this is how Con wants it played out and I can't force them to do otherwise.
WrickItRalph

Con

Evolution is Natural Selection and Random Gene Mutations. I don't care how many labels you tag on it. It doesn't change what it is or the fact that it's a sound theory.

You're wrong that it doesn't explain it. Scientist have proven that abiogenesis is inevitable in our environment. RNA can reproduce itself when on top of certain minerals and that's all it takes to do the rest. You're begging the question when you say that Evolution has to account for new genes. As I've already stated, There are no such things as "new genes". There are four building block for all genes. G T A C. That's it. Those four building blocks have been around since the dawn of time and the process by which they gain complexity is scientifically proven. There are mutations that add gene strand randomly and these can occur in a number of different ways. Scientists can go into a lab and observe the genes of different generations of organisms, Including humans, And see the complexity being added. This categorically disproves your entire argument.

You said:
"It's true that increased complexity doesn't always provide better fitness. "

Glad we're on the same page.

You said:
"increasing complexity is something that needs to be explained, "

There are three things wrong with this statement. A) Increasing complexity is explained by gene mutations and has been repeatedly observed. B) Even if this wasn't the case, It would not disprove evolution, Because it would not change the fact that gene mutation and natural selection happened, It would just mean the theory is incomplete, Not incorrect. There's a difference. C) Gene mutations do not always increase complexity and not every complex organism has complex gene and visa versa. Some mutations just switch the around the amino acids in the genes while leaving them the same size, While others take away genes. That's why it's called random mutation. Evolution has never made claims that complexity keeps increasing and genes are not becoming increasingly more complex. This is just another case of you begging the question.

Big mistake going to eyes. That's one of the fastest ways to help my case. Once again, They're not "new genes" They're just new combinations of G T A C. All of the materials needed to form the eye existed since the dawn of earth. Richard Dawkins famously demonstrated step by step how easy it is to form the eye with evolution. It starts out as an eye spot which returns a Boolean "light" or "not light". Then a slight cupping occurs to allow for angle which gives them fuzzy vision. Then the cup slowly closes to a iris. Then a piece of gunk starts to form in the hole of the cup and now we have an eyeball. Everything I said is explained by evolution and did not require any new pieces at all. This is why your critiques of evolution are simply false.

Okay, So all this proves is that you created your own personal classification of genes. You can call them new genes and you're justified to say that colloquially. However, It doesn't change facts about anything. That's why you're begging the question. Basically A was solved and you arbitrarily said that this part of A is B and B is not solved, So now we have to solve B. But be was just A and A was already solved, So the problem is a scam.

So you're not going to support your claim then? Interesting. I never said you had to prove the non existence of something. You said that just now. You made a claim that "Evolution is a weak theory" That is not a claim of nonexistence. That's a claim as to the quality of a theory. Therefore asking for proof of said claim in far from nonsensical. Furthermore, Even if your claim was of nonexistence, It's still a claim and still must be proven by showing the absence of something, Which you have not done. All you've done is beg the question even after I asked for proof of your question begging.

"The only way for this debate to move forward would be for you to provide just one article demonstrating how mutation can create new genes. "

I'm sitting in a big of new genes right now and so are you. An article is just somebody else's opinion. No different than my opinion or yours. In order for me to even have to prove this claim, You first have to prove that it needs to be explained. Because science is on my side and not yours. So why do I have to prove something that has already been demonstrated?

First of all, The celestial teapot is not a fallacy. Get your nomenclature right. It's a thought experiment. Second of all. You would be right, If your claim was about nonexistence. But it's not, It's a claim about quality. You already admitted yourself that evolution exists, So you can't just double talk you way out of this by pretending that you have a negative claim. That's just you lying through your teeth and then shifting the burden of proof. Nice try though.

"You merely making this claim does not count as evidence for it. "

You're right, But the huge body of scientific evidence in my favor does. I don't have to cite evidence for people to know that science is on my side. Everyone knows that, Including you.

You complain too much. I willing passed my round after you "glitched" which was really just you being too stubborn to listen when I told you to not put your links in with your argument and to post them in the comments. I've been more than fair to you and you don't get to complain about one lost round when I had the same amount of rounds as you, I was going to go last anyway and would always have had the chance to post articles even if you didn't glitch, And to top it off, You wasted your first two statements repeating the same arguments without supporting them and now all of a sudden you don't care about wasting your statements.

Little piece of advice. If you want to make good arguments. How about you lead with your good ones in the beginning instead of quipping over who gets to do what last.

Bad Debate.
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
i have no idea what you are talking about. What way have i showed inconsideration? In that i didn't address the debate you had? I did address it! Just didn't make a point is all.
Posted by myrrh 3 years ago
myrrh
I'd argue with you but it would only exacerbate the problem that you're too inconsiderate enough to acknowledge.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
oh by no means is it not related, But it has no point. If you feel that its a waste of words simply because it doesn't address what you think it should, Then that is your perspective.
Posted by myrrh 3 years ago
myrrh
Well we're not sitting on a bus, This website is for debating. If you're going to comment then I'd appreciate it if it be related to the topic at hand and have a point. Otherwise you're adding unnecessary filler making it harder for people viewing our debate to get to the actual content.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
just like sitting next to someone doesn't mean you always have to have a conversation, Sometimes just existing together with someone, Being in the presence of someone that's 99% or more genetically like you and has soul and spirit like you can help ease thoughts that trouble people sometimes.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
Not every comment or observation is orchestrated toward a person. Sometimes just observing and thinking can answer questions without involving anyone. No point was made. Reminds me of the matrix scene between neo and the senator in Zion.

https:matrix. Fandom. Com wiki The_Matrix_Reloaded Quotes

Neo: Why don't you tell me what's on your mind, Councillor?
Councillor Hamann: There is so much in this world that I do not understand. See that machine? It has something to do with recycling our water supply. I have absolutely no idea how it works. But I do understand the reason for it to work. I have absolutely no idea how you are able to do some of the things you do, But I believe there's a reason for that as well. I only hope we understand that reason before it's too late.

Neo: So we need machines and they need us, Is that your point, Councilor?
Councillor Hamann: No. No point. Old men like me don't bother with making points. There's no point.
Neo: Is that why there are no young men on the council?
Councillor Hamann: Good point.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
by the way myrrh, Debate. Org doesn't like the slash button. So if you make links without it it should work

https:www. (address)
Posted by myrrh 3 years ago
myrrh
Well I was responding to a critique they made of my core argument, So not sure what point you're making. You have something of substance to say in regards to the topic of this discussion? Or you just popped in to share with us that you like ignoring questions.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
i ignore most peoples questions when it comes to the foundation of the debate. Unless it is specifically geared toward an assertion or a requesting of links/proof.
Posted by myrrh 3 years ago
myrrh
Once again ignored every point I made. Also made up your own fallacy that doesn't exist and makes no sense.

"A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. There can be one or many premises in a single argument. A conclusion is a statement in an argument that indicates of what the arguer is trying to convince the reader/listener. " - http://www. Uky. Edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a. Htm
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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