The Instigator
factandevidence1234
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PavelFedotov
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Darwinism is the most Reasonable Theory for Life on Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 7/15/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 116579
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

factandevidence1234

Pro

Con may start.
First round is for acceptance only.
PavelFedotov

Con

Following the structure of the debate, I will argue against that Darwinism is the most reasonable theory for life on Earth.
I want to disclose my plan for the debate to argue on definitions and semantics. Besides, in arguing against the statement I will introduce genuine evidence and develop alternative theories.
Debate Round No. 1
factandevidence1234

Pro

"Dar"win"ism
/G2;d"rwəG6;nizəm/
noun
1. The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin."
We should all have learned about natural selection a long time ago. Almost every species of animals has something that could be related to it but completely different. Butterflies for example, have similar patterns in their wings. But over time you can look at one species that bred with another species, and produced something in between that carries both the parents traits. Because of that now the butterfly could be smarter, or more adapted because it has a wider range of knowledge.
PavelFedotov

Con

Charles Darwin is the major actor behind the theory Darwinism which has advanced scientific method. His work challenged Christian Orthodoxy and enhanced scientific field by providing grounds for epistemological claims. However, the theories for life on Earth have substantially advanced from his famous book on the Origin of Species in 1859 to Modern and post-modern synthesises of 21st century.

"Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth" (1). The formulation was provided in On the origins of species in 1859 by Charles Darwin. This great man has provided the core set of concepts, principles and methodological maxims adding as a ‘research tradition’ (Laudan, 1976) or a ‘scientific practice’ (Kitcher 1993). However, the Darwin's Darwinism, which my opponent defends by her definition, is an outdated and extremely simplistic set of family of theories related by a shared ontology, methodology and goals; and through time, it consists of a lineage of such theories (3).



In fact, the theory of evolution that I am arguing against has largely diminished in its influence on the current state of research in biology, evolution, genetics and other modern scientific fields. "The Darwin-Darwinism relation is in certain respects a causal relation, in the sense that Darwin influenced the debates that followed him. But there is also something more: a kind of isomorphism between Darwin's Darwinism and historical Darwinism. It is as though Darwin's own contribution has constrained the conceptual and empirical development of evolutionary biology ever after" (Gayon 2003, 241). In other words, Gayon states that Darwinism has serious limitations and lost its relevance to become the only main theory of evolution. Besides, even though the historical Darwinism has imitated original Darwinism, it is different from the Darwin's Darwinism. It has brought down constraining limitations and has further evolved, suggested better perspective and basis for synthesis of ideas .

To further advance the debate, genetic variation, natural selection and Mendelian inheritance have come together in the early 20th century in the form of population genetics. That has ended the eclipse of Darwinism and brought into perspective non-Darwinian theories of evolution (4). Modern and post-modern synthesises have reconciled fields of studies into plural integrative shapes, forms and patterns. In particular, molecular biology, the study of prokaryotes and the resulting tree of life, and genomics will play a more crucial role to explain evolution and a more reasonable theory for life.



Yes, indeed, we have learnt the core principles that Darwin has brought into perspective. In fact, the scientific research has tremendously advanced from 19th century. The sets of concept provided by Darwin are not sufficient to advance our understanding of life on Earth. More refined and progressive theories and methods of scientific research are better suited for the detailed and comprehensive explanation of life on Earth.
Debate Round No. 2
factandevidence1234

Pro

Let me clear a few things up.
"Darwinism, concept of evolution developed in the mid-19th cent. by Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin's meticulously documented observations led him to question the then current belief in special creation of each species. After years of studying and correlating the voluminous notes he had made as naturalist on H.M.S. Beagle, he was prompted by the submission (1858) of an almost identical theory by A. R. Wallace to present his evidence for the descent of all life from a common ancestral origin; his monumental Origin of Species was published in 1859. Darwin observed (as had Malthus) that although all organisms tend to reproduce in a geometrically increasing ratio, the numbers of a given species remain more or less constant. From this he deduced that there is a continuing struggle for existence, for survival. He pointed out the existence of variations"differences among members of the same species"and suggested that the variations that prove helpful to a plant or an animal in its struggle for existence better enable it to survive and reproduce. These favorable variations are thus transmitted to the offspring of the survivors and spread to the entire species over successive generations. This process he called the principle of natural selection (the expression "survival of the fittest" was later coined by Herbert Spencer). In the same way, sexual selection (factors influencing the choice of mates among animals) also plays a part. In developing his theory that the origin and diversification of species results from gradual accumulation of individual modifications, Darwin was greatly influenced by Sir Charles Lyell's treatment of the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Darwin's evidence for evolution rested on the data of comparative anatomy, especially the study of homologous structures in different species and of rudimentary (vestigial) organs; of the recapitulation of past racial history in individual embryonic development; of geographical distribution, extensively documented by Wallace; of the immense variety in forms of plants and animals (to the degree that often one species is not distinct from another); and, to a lesser degree, of paleontology. As originally formulated, Darwinism did not distinguish between acquired characteristics, which are not transmissible by heredity, and genetic variations, which are inheritable. Modern knowledge of heredity"especially the concept of mutation, which provides an explanation of how variations may arise"(has supplemented and modified the theory, but in its basic outline Darwinism is now universally accepted by scientists)."
PavelFedotov

Con

This is the last argument of the last round. I am arguing against the proposition that Darwinism is the most Reasonable Theory for Life on Earth because Darwinism in its original form, which my opponent advocates, is not the most reasonable and, indeed, pretty outdated "research tradition".

To make things clear, in the technically first round I have explained what is meant by Darwinism. I have provided evidence and successfully argued against the limited nature of Darwin's Darwinism as a "scientific tradition" described by Laudan (1973). Besides, have further advanced the debate by referencing modern and post-modern synthesises that have developed from alternative theories to Darwin's and, of course, Darwin's original one.

In fact, my opponent in both rounds supports such definition of Darwinism. She clearly draws a line with Darwinism to Charles Darwin. Even though the second round of my opponent was not original but entirely copied, bringing down authenticity of the content and position of my opponent, it focuses only on the minor part of the modern theory of life on Earth. Whereas, my position reconciles modern advances in fields of genetics, molecular biology and studies of genomics and other significant progresses in 21st century science, as well as medieval perspective on life (Aristotelianism) and 19 th century Darwinism (*for more details (7)).

As you can see on the intuitive graph below(taken from Wikipedia (7)), Modern synthesis of early 20th century, which has taken place around 100 years ago, only partly resembles Darwin's work. The left side of the picture leads to the Natural Selection advanced by Charles Darwin. Whereas, the right side has a separate distinctive from Darwin's work beginning in Non-Darwinian theory of Evolution. According to Wikipedia(6), "Where the fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained."
s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" />
(if the picture does not work : https://en.wikipedia.org...(20th_century)#/media/File:Modern_Synthesis.svg )
Modern synthesis of early 20th century has embraced Darwinians and Non-Darwinian theories of evolution. Therefore, it is fair to say that it only partly consists of Darwinian work and partly from Non-Darwinian one. Therefore, Darwin's work is an artifact from history, showing significance of human work, industriousness and effort. Yes, it developed our research practices, however, only partly and to a small extent viable to current scientists.

To advance the debate even further, I want to introduce and elaborate the Developmental systems theory as "an overarching theoretical perspective on biological development, heredity, and evolution"(8). This theory shows the inadequacy of developed in 20th century biology on the role of genes and natural selection as the principle explanation of living structures. In short, this perspective argues that adaptation shapes passively as opposed to view of active organisms actively defining and selecting. The modern synthesis has extensively reduced the world to a "selfish gene" and forgot about environment . As a result, it falsely justifies only simplistic perspective focused on distribution of genes. Actually, a natural system is more than simply genes, it is also consist of living organisms building,shaping its environment and continual inheritance of its material properties. To provide refined and intuitive analogy "once termites have begun to build their monumental nests, it is the demands of living in those very nests to which future generations of termite must adapt."(8).

To conclude, I have successfully argued against the Darwinism as the most relevant and reasonable theory of living organisms. modern synthesis of 20th century has advanced further through the research practices advocated by 19th century scientists. Non-Darwinian theories made a significant contribution to the current developments in biology and genetics. Finally, the Development systems theory provides a fresh perspective on evolution and brings hope that we will be able to advance further our current state of scientific research.






(5) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org...(20th_century)
(8) https://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 1 month ago
mosc
mosc
A Goy denies the holocaust or declares that Jews control governments and the banks - that's classic Alt Reich. An uneducated Goy who assumes that White people have high IQs - that's Alt Reich. A Psycho who fears for white survival and hates all religions other than Xtianity -- that's Alt Reich.

White supremacists have a victimhood psychosis - that's Alt Reich. Males who despise the equality of women - that's Alt Reich. White male dominated folks who hold prejudicial feelings and see the world as a conflict of races - that's Alt Reich.

This pathetic group of arrogant buffoons favor violence and view other "inferior races" as lower on the evolutionary scale. Supremacists hate groups - that's Alt Reich.
Posted by factandevidence1234 2 months ago
factandevidence1234
Ok. But I'm not ignorant.
Posted by PavelFedotov 3 months ago
PavelFedotov
No need to point fingers. We seem to have a pretty civilized debate.
Posted by PavelFedotov 3 months ago
PavelFedotov
Oh, jeez, calm down.
Posted by factandevidence1234 3 months ago
factandevidence1234
That's actually YOU being ignorant, but I'm sorry if you think in that way.
Posted by factandevidence1234 3 months ago
factandevidence1234
Is it ignorant to have my own beliefs, @PavelFedotov?
Posted by PavelFedotov 3 months ago
PavelFedotov
*opponent
Posted by PavelFedotov 3 months ago
PavelFedotov
@Im_Intelligent
pls, let me use the ignorance of my oponent
Posted by factandevidence1234 3 months ago
factandevidence1234
Ok then evolution.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 months ago
Im_Intelligent
@factandevidence1234
The only people who call it "Darwinism" tend to be creationists.
Its called Evolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.