The Instigator
BiggsBoonj
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Winning
6 Points

Evolution is Real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Anonymous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 909 times Debate No: 120585
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

BiggsBoonj

Pro

The Theory of Evolution is correct. Humans evolved from apes by accidental mutation and natural selection. If Evolution didn't exist, We would be finding fossils of humans that are tens of millions of years old, But we aren't. If Evolution didn't exist, Dinosaurs would still exist, But they don't. God/Gods didn't create us, We came to be because of Evolution.

Con

Unfortunately, Most of the population today believe in evolution, More specifically macro-evolution. But believe me when I say that it is not because of the evidence. You will understand this concept as you read. But anyway Macro-evolution is the belief that life started as one organism and that organism reproduced and slowly developed into million of species in a process that took millions and millions of years. For example, It is believed that in the space of 2 million years, A dog can develop into a horse. A fish can develop into a bird and so on. In this round, I am going to attack the overall concept of macro-evolution from these Scientific standpoints: The details of the fossil record, Structural homology, Molecular biology, And mutualism.

The Details Of The Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macro-Evolution

If Macro-evolution really happened, The first place you would look for confirmation would be the fossil record. After all, If dogs did eventually give rise to horses, Then we should be able to find fossils of animals somewhere between a dog and a horse. These are called transitional forms because they represent a transition from one species and another. Unfortunately, Very few of these were ever found. And even those were highly questionable. So instead of finding the transitional forms that paleontologists thought they would find, They found mostly gaps. The core of macro-evolution argues that species give rise to species in a slow, Gradual process that takes years on top of years. But the fossil record reveals a very different story. This is the sudden emergence of entirely new species with no apparent immediate ancestors. Consider this for a moment. Macro-evolution attempts to explain the earth's past. But because we don't have anyone who lived 20 million years ago to tell us that macro-evolution happened, We have to look for data that either support or refute the idea. The first place to look for data would be the fossil record. What does it tell us? It says macro-evolution never happened. The transitional forms that would be necessary for one life form to change to another simply do not exist. If the STRONGEST piece of data to tells us that macro-evolution never happened, Scientists simply should not believe in it.

Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution:

Now to my next argument. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, It is important to understand why it was originally believed to support macroevolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, Then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs.
http://itc. Gsw. Edu/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/paleo2/homol1. Htm

In this example, The limbs of humans and cats, And horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, He supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, Give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, This would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this happens because of Mendelian genetics. You see, If structural homology was the result of common ancestry, It would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, The link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, Horse, Cat, Bat, Bird, And whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, They find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, There is absolutely no way that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, Then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. We know that this isn't even remotely close to the truth.

Molecular Biology: Strong evidence against macro-evolution

Aside from DNA, The most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, There would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below.
https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1rN6jYckpQfu3VTflNWTyj2a8g38l6L78_rYlZHHkw3Y/edit

Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, The cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, You are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, That is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, Then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, That should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, Let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo.

Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9. 1% difference

When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, There are 4 differences.

4/11 x 100= 36. 4% difference

This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " Well, If this were true, Than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species.
https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1V_4ApE6bQ7nMZE-hd16NOpJ8QBYIO8nZ2RLwlk02FtE/edit

The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms listed, The yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, Then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, The yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, It is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened.

Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution:

Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible.

Conclusion:

Today there is just too much data that Macro-evolutionists completely ignore. There are a few reasons so many people believe in it today. One, If Macro-evolution is not true than you have to accept that there is a God in the equation. After all, There really isn't any other explanation other than evolution of how life originated. Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. Another reason so many people believe in evolution is because for the most part it is not allowed to be taught in high school classrooms and college classrooms. Thus, Because the idea of evolution is so universal, It is the only thing that students have to base their beliefs on. There aren't many people that believe in God these days so their only option is to put their faith in science. But those people have to understand one thing. Science will fail us, Everything in this life will.

Sources in comments
Debate Round No. 1
BiggsBoonj

Pro

First, I would like to define evolution. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. This doesn't mean that we are debating macro-evolution, We are debating evolution itself. The point of this argument isn't to debate if we all evolved from one organism, It's to decide if organisms evolve.

Fossil Record:
You say that we didn't find many fossils of an organism transitioning between a dog and a horse. But there are. (https://upload. Wikimedia. Org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Horseevolution. Png/800px-Horseevolution. Png) shows the organisms between a horse and a dog. There is plenty of evidence of transitional species, In other species too. The fact that scientists didn't find a lot of transitional fossils for one specific example (which they actually did) doesn't refute evolution. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Structural Homology:
This is the most stupid argument against evolution I've ever heard. "Evolution doesn't exist because cats and horses don't have similar DNA" Of course they don't have similar DNA, They are different species! Similar legs is only a small part of DNA and wouldn't reflect much. Cats are much smaller and are almost completely different from horses, Their DNA shouldn't be similar! But guess what, The DNA of many more similar species (like humans and apes) is similar. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, While chimpanzees, Gorillas, And orangutans have 24. The fact that two very different species don't have similar DNA doesn't refute the theory of evolution. And oh yes, Brilliant Michael Denton, Who is considered by the scientific community to be an idiot.

Mutualism:
The stupidity is never-ending. Ummm. . . It IS possible for life to appear from dead matter, But that's beside the point. No, This instinct would not have to develop at the same time as the sweetlips fish got its teeth. It could appear later. And yes, The blue steak wrasse would have to independently decide to enter the other fish's mouth. None of this disproves evolution in any way!

Now that I've dismantled your arguments, Let's get to mine.

God doesn't exist. Gods don't exist. There is absolutely no evidence of an omnipotent deity existing somewhere up there in the sky or whereever. If you think that God exists, You would have to accept the fact that he created all species at the same time, Which he did not as humans didn't exist 50 million years ago but other species did.
Now, You've made this argument into Evolution vs God. Who do you think is more likely to be true? Millions of scientists, Fossil records, DNA evidence, Or some holy book and priests? I'll let you answer that question.
Nobody 'believes' evolution to be true. You've said that it's either God or evolution, So I choose evolution as it seems more logical. We observe and see which theory makes more sense, Unlike theists who blindly believe.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Trying to refute it is just arguing semantics, Pointing out tiny inconsistincies, Ignoring the bigger picture, Ignoring millions of scientists, Ignoring fossils, And ignoring pretty much everything else.

Con

First off, I would like to point out that in order for my opponent to win this debate, He would have to prove that evolution is true, Not just refute my arguments. I would also like to point out that my position has nothing to do with proving things, It is all about whether or not a belief is justified. I hold the stance that the evolutionist position is unjustified. That being said, Let's look at my opponents arguments.

Fossil Record:
It is hard for me to take your argument here seriously as you used wikipedia as your only source to back it up. Even so, There are still a few major problems with it. For example, The transitional fossils that you presented don't represent a very large transition. The fossils that you said represented the transition are all fundamentally horses. But furthermore, What evolutionist have failed to prove are the larger transitions from species to species that are necessary for evolution to be true. Yes, There are a few minor changes that are represented in the fossil record, But none that represent a legitimate transition from one species to another. The transitions have limits. A dog will always be a fundamentally be a dog even if it undergoes changes within it's species.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " Actually, In this case, That is not true. If evolution really happened, Then it is essential that it would be represented in the fossil record, But the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Quite simply, Evolutionists are using a cherry picking fallacy in that they are taking a field of study, (the fossil record) and picking small parts of it that support evolution and disregarding the large parts that refute it.

Structural Homology:
You begin here by quoting me for something I didn't say. I never said that because horses and cats don't have similar DNA, Evolution isn't true. I said that if certain parts of their body are similar to each other, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be somewhat similar, But they aren't. Although the DNA of a horse and a cat are quite different, There are certain parts of their body that are similar which is where the similarities in their DNA should be found. But when their DNA are closely compared, There are no similarities within the similar structures at all.

Mutualism:
The instinct would in fact have to develop at the same time the sweetlips fish got it's teeth. Otherwise, Their wouldn't be any teeth for the wrasse to clean and the process wouldn't work. It would have to happen within the same generation. My large point is that the motto evolution teaches is contradictory to reality. Evolution teaches, "survival of the fittest, " but then we see all of these other species helping each other. Interesting.

You didn't seem to address my argument for molecular biology.

Your ending is completely irrelevant to my position in the debate. Although I believe God exists, That's not what I'm here to argue. I'm here to argue that evolution is false. There is a statement that you made though that I really must complain about.
"Who do you think is more likely to be true? Millions of scientists, Fossil records, DNA evidence, Or some holy book and priests? " This is a classic case of a straw man fallacy. You take the theist position, And make it something that it's not. I would love to argue more about that but it is beyond the scope of this debate. You said that millions of scientists believe in evolution but that doesn't matter. Millions of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation but it turned out to be wrong. While there have been some fossil records that have supported evolution, Others have not. There isn't any real DNA evidence either, Especially when compared with structural homology.

In the end, Evolution is simply an unconfirmed hypothesis. It would take more than a little evidence here and there for me to believe it.
Debate Round No. 2
BiggsBoonj

Pro

BiggsBoonj forfeited this round.

Con

My opponent has forfeited. All points extended.
Debate Round No. 3
BiggsBoonj

Pro

BiggsBoonj forfeited this round.

Con

My opponent has forfeited
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
TheBoldDebator
@backwardseden Wow. . Just wow. . On anything about God, You will say he's for killing women and children, But what right do you have to speak against that when you yourself is for abortion?
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
Btw, 4 of the 6 questions come from the 10 commandments. So you cannot squeal out of them by stating in any possible way that your sneezerag christ changed them with "the law" whatever crap that was. Regardless, We can get into the NT if you want which is far far far more immoral than the OT. Would you like to? OK here's the 6. . . And remember, All 6 reqy=uire an absolute "no" answer. Any "yes" answer that would be stating you are as immoral as your god.
According to your god you should be put to death if you blaspheme. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Leviticus 24:16, According to your god you should be put to death if you work on the sabbath. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Exodus 31:14, And Numbers 15: 32-36, According to your god you should be put to death if you curse at your parents. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, Mark 7:10, Matthew 15:4, According to your god you should be put to death if you commit adultery. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Leviticus 20:10. That's directly from your 10 commandments. Here are some other things that YOUR god thinks you should be put to death for. . . According to your god you should be put to death if you are a homosexual? Do you think that's a good idea? Y___? N____? Leviticus 20:13, According to your god you should be put to death if you do not worship him. Do you think that's a good idea? Y____? N____? Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5.
Oh there's plenty more such as slavery, Your god truly hating children, Your god being a sexist and hating on women, Your god murdering babies, Children and pregnant women (abortions in which you so-called christians are so against. But alas that would be a supermassive hypocritical contradiction) To prove it right here and now what do you call the deliberate genocide of killing EVERYTHING in the great flood that thankfully never happened? Yeah it only happened in your bible.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
@melcharaz - You are really not very good at this. *yawn*. Why should it be up to an atheist to prove something that's ---never--- in the entire existence of the human race been proven, Namely your god? So WRONG. The B. O. P. To prove YOUR god's existence is ---always---, No exceptions, None, Upon you. Where is this "link"? Actually missing "link" that you say you've provided?
Regardless, Where is your B. O. P. For something that doesn't exist? How do you test, Demonstrate then assert then declare that something that has never been proven does exist? Sorry, Since your god has never been proven to exist, The B. O, P. To prove that this god of YOURS is always upon you and is never upon atheists. Please try harder.
Another way of looking at it is the B. O. P. For the proof of your god has not been met. Its not the job of atheists to prove your god exists. Its up to theists that your god does exist.
"Things that do not exist cannot be the cause of things that do exist. " Tracie Harris

If you want to set up a debate in regards to proving your god exists, Sure, Go for it. But if you do not know your stuff, And you invent excuses as nearly all do here on DDO and thus pretend that you actually know what you are talking about when you really don't and instead cannot say "I don't know", Then I shall insult you with my brand of insults that are dumb, Stupid, Original, Gone from this universe, Hillbilly cartoon barf-o-matic surreal cereal toy surprise inside, Bunny farm slight of missing the runway abusements.

"gross mistranslation of the scripture, " Oh really? Well that shows you just how you don't know your scriptures. So let's show you right now how immoral your god is right now. And along with it let's see how moral and or immoral you are. All 6 questions require a "no" answer. If you say "yes" to any of them, It simply means that you are as immoral as your god. Now if you say "no" to any of the 6 questions, It simply means that you do not follow your god.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
melcharaz
@vi_spex

Bill nye debates ken ham right?

the debate was fairly disappointing on both sides in my opinion, They both lacked knowledge presented in the last youtube link of 25 proofs to a young earth. However it did open my eyes to the concept of historical observation and scientific observation and reaffirms the truth that everyone has biases, But that because we can process the differences of how to interpret past and current observations that religion its self can be defended in schools, Justifying the idealism that an old earth or evolution theory is indeed belief as much as young earth or creationism.

also, I believe your own biases kept you from correct interpreting the debate as to who "ate" who. As ken ham showed more proof for the ideals of creationism than bill nye did to question him on a model he has a problem with because it cannot make "predictions".
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
melcharaz
@ vi_spex

Thank you, Ill look at it tonight.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
melcharaz
The B. O. P is always upon you,

Now its on you as well. If you have no proof ill be on my way and conclude that you have no proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

not that extrodinary but i provided a link.

You have no evidence to support your god because that's extraordinary.

was giving link to young earth. . . If you wanna debate God just debate me any time.

A god according to its bible who hates children, Murdered babies, Children, Pregnant mothers (abortions), Committed deliberate genocides just because other cultures wished to worship other gods. Oh but wait jealousy set in with this evil, Anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury proned god of YOURS in which he freely admitted to which are human baggage emotions in which he passed down to man so man could learn to hate.

gross mistranslation of the scripture, Very common for people forced to go to church or had a family member die and they gave up on God. Again, If you wish to debate God, Feel free.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Bill nye destroying ken ham on young earth:
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=PPLRhVdNp5M

And yet the zombie just keeps trying to bite him!
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
@melcharaz - assertion? The B. O. P is always upon you, No exceptions, None. Why? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. " Matt Dillahunty, You have no evidence to support your god because that's extraordinary. It is up to you to test, Demonstrate your god. Once that's done then it is up to you to assert this god. Once that's done then it is up to you to declare this god. Then once that's done it is up to you to submit this god to scientific communities throughout the world so that they will believe your tests and demonstrations and assertions and declarations. Not one person, Not one in the history of the human race has been able to prove ---any--- god through ---any--- religion in the entire history of the human race. Now with the christian god, What idiot would want to believe? A god according to its bible who hates children, Murdered babies, Children, Pregnant mothers (abortions), Committed deliberate genocides just because other cultures wished to worship other gods. Oh but wait jealousy set in with this evil, Anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury proned god of YOURS in which he freely admitted to which are human baggage emotions in which he passed down to man so man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going you for worshiping him in YOUR bible in which no god would ---ever--- use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible to begin with. So again, Why believe?
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
melcharaz
@backwardseden
mocking doesn't reprove an assertion. If you believe that the theory of a young earth is wrong, Then link a video by a dr who shows prove of an older earth. I ask this without mocking or insulting.

@biggsboonj

Its the idea that the earth is under 10k years in age, Supporting the bible account of genesis. And no, I don't have enough evidence on my own at the moment to debate it.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Jukebox101
How do evolution proponents respond to polystrate fossils?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
BiggsBoonjAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were sound and logical. Pro forfeited as well

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