The Instigator
frankfurter-50
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GuitarSlinger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution Is Real.

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: 11/29/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,641 times Debate No: 119229
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

frankfurter-50

Pro

This is an oldie but goodie. You post your argument first, Then we'll go back and forth until the end. 10, 000 character max and a three month voting period. Good luck.
GuitarSlinger

Con

What is your definition of evolution?

The most basic definition is "change over time". Do things change over time? Yes indeed. So in this sense of the word evolution is very real.

However, If you are taking it to mean that life, In particular human life as we know it, First started out as simple organisms, And then this simple organism over time developed (changed) into the Homo Sapien we now know and love. . . . Well then, That's just a theory and not fact. I would say that sense of "evolution" is not real. Still plenty of gaps.

Spender's idea of "survival of the fittest" (No, It wasn't Darwin who coined the term) assumes the arrival of the "fit". First question that comes to mind is, How did the organism that is more "fit" come into being?
Debate Round No. 1
frankfurter-50

Pro

Hmm. I was hoping for a Religious standpoint, But your take will do.

Human beings as we know them did indeed evolve from the tree of life. We did not evolve directly from a microbe- rather, Several microbes in the archaic primordial soup became the various species we all know. Evolution is not a theory. Rather, It can be proven. It is a verifiable fact. We can see its presence throughout the fossil record. There are no large gaps in the theory of Evolution, And the few small ones that do exist are insignificant. We can see that humans evolved from smaller primates- which evolved from earlier Mammalians, Which evolved, In turn, From pre-extinction lifeforms. Those pre-extinction lifeforms evolved from fish, Which evolved from small microbes. Not only one microbe- microbial life can vary quite a bit.

There is no one organism that is more "fit". Rather, The arena of life has many losers and winners. The fitter species, Of course, To answer your question, Grew from a species which had previously won. If you wonder where life came from to begin with, All living things are assembled from various amino acids and deoxyribonucleic acid. We're all chemicals. Survival of the fittest is a theory which states that species who have a greater advantage over an inferior species live on, While the inferior species dies out. This is a simple idea, And applies to the march of microbial transformation in a sensible way.

Evolution is no myth. I await round 2.
GuitarSlinger

Con

Perhaps you can provide, Dare I say it, Scientific proof that we evolved from the tree of life.

Sorry, Evolution has not been proven. It has not been proven that man evolved from apes, Etc. At best, It shows there is a close relationship. I'll admit these facts:

Primates and Humans resemble each other
There have been "human" remains have been found from many years ago that show Humans may have changed in form.

But in no one way does this prove, Without a doubt, That human life progress from lower life forms. Sorry, I'll have to say science disagrees with you. This has not been proven beyond a doubt.

But again, I ask. How do you know, Beyond a shadow of a doubt, That a fitter species grew from a lesser species? Put 10 lions in a arena with 10 rabbits, And my guess is the lions would be the "fitter" and thus survive. DOes this prove lions evolved from rabbits? Of course not. What does it prove? Well, It certainly points to the conclusion that the lion is the fitter species, But by names does this "prove" the stronger species evolved from the lesser species.

I never said evolution was a myth. I trust you know the difference between a "myth" and a "theory", Right?
Debate Round No. 2
frankfurter-50

Pro

frankfurter-50 forfeited this round.
GuitarSlinger

Con

GuitarSlinger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
frankfurter-50

Pro

frankfurter-50 forfeited this round.
GuitarSlinger

Con

GuitarSlinger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
frankfurter-50

Pro

frankfurter-50 forfeited this round.
GuitarSlinger

Con

GuitarSlinger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by suspiciousodor 9 months ago
suspiciousodor
If by evolution you mean "Animals or species changing in a drastic manner" then I do indeed agree.
Let us use a pattern in order for to be explain.
Let's take a generation of a mammal that is destined to stay alive for say a 100, 000 years and taken that all the companions were to mate.
Subject 1 (Father) mates with subject 2's mother which results in subject 2, 3 and 4, 3 being the strongest.
In terms of survival of the best only the strongest will survive the longest in order to mate with as much mates as possible resulting into more stronger subjects than weaker ones.
Now we are on Subject 21 (subject 3's distant grandson), He is much much more strongest than subject 1 as subject 3 started a pattern of mating.
Subject 42 of the subject 3 bloodline's habitat has now evolved into a much more varied green space with many dangerous greens taken over making it harder to differentiate what is good and what is bad and so they have decided to instead move on to the a nearby seashore in order to catch fish.
Subject 67, The generation has now evolved to being able to swim and so came a new systematic structure in terms of their biology making them fit for the life of feeding off fish.
Posted by t.le 2 years ago
t.le
doesn't the similarity mean a common designer not a common ancestor

too lazy to say anything else about evolution
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
@GuitarSlinger

The reason I ask is that some of your language makes it a bit ambiguous as to whether you fully understand evolution. And this seems to be a common trait among those who doubt evolution.

For example, In your analogy, I believe you've compared change in an individual's phenotype to change in a population's genotype. This seems like a hideously simplistic comparison to me
Posted by frankfurter-50 3 years ago
frankfurter-50
The bacteria doesn't remain the same sort of bacteria. A new generation is produced every time it encounters a new antibiotic. It REPRODUCES.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@dustyrider

Who are you directing your comment to-- me?

Of course I have a fundamental understanding of evolution. I wouldn't be able to explain scientifically how Bacteria A became Bacteria B in terms of antibiotic resistance. But I would pose a few questions myself:

Question #1 - Did bacteria A did in fact become a new type of bacteria B, Or did it still remain Bacteria A but with a new characteristics (antibiotic resistance)? Let's consider an analogous scenario. A 10 year old boy has a severe allergy to something (say Oak Pollen). But now, Over time, This young boy develops a resistance to Oak Pollen. He simply has a new characteristics. It'd be quite a stretch to 10 year old developed into a new species.

So wow it is entirely possible to creatures to change (evolve), It doesn't necessarily mean they evolve (change) into other types of creatures. Could it happen. Sure, Why not? Does this PROVE that humans evolved from lesser creatures like apes? Absolutely not.
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
Just curious, Do you understand how evolution works? That is to say, If I were to ask you how bacteria A became bacteria B in terms of antibiotic resistance, You would be capable of giving a complete and accurate answer?
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@backwardseden

Yea, That Superbug thing is pretty cool. But to equate a bug developing immunity and equating that this is the same as species changing into another species are two different things.

The bug is the same species, It just developed a new characteristic. I guess we could call this Superbug a new species and make the claim "SEE! This species evolved into another species! ". But would that be accurate? Just because two things look similary, Even extraordinarily similar, That is not proof that the first thing evolved into the second thing.

You are stretching the term evolution. But if you using the term evolution to make mean "change", Then I would agree, Things change. All the time. I evolved. I was once a toddler but I since evolved into an adult male. But that's different than saying one species evolved (changed) into another species. Science hasn't proven that one species changed into another species.

Thanks for playin'.
Posted by frankfurter-50 3 years ago
frankfurter-50
If there is enough proof for something, It must be true. The fossil record is as accurate as any photo. I choose to believe in reality.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Evolution is proven fact
* Antibiotic resistant microbes, Better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.

Superbug 1. A pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, Or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides.
(has developed means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now)

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4iGqgafFhIw - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ubD-wdvgvaQ - Dan Rather Reports Addicted to Antibiotics
Dan Rather "Every year more than 90, 000 Americans die from similar infections that are resistant to antibiotics. That stunning figure is higher from the death toll from AIDS, Car accidents and prostate cancer combined. "
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=zENv5EDElgA&t=481s - Antibiotics Resistance Documentary
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
Ahhhhh. . . Yes, But people often claim science is the source of the ultimate truth. . . . . . One often hears the argument "Well, If there is no evidence or proof, I don't believe it", Which is akin to saying "If science can't prove it or measure it or observe it, I don't believe it. "

So do you agree to the following:

1) Evolution is a theory, And not a FACT?

Some would argue against there being an incredible amount of proof.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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