The Instigator
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Malayvardhan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is a observable reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 214 times Debate No: 122889
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

I will let con make their opening argument, I want to get right to the point and see both what and why they disagree.
Malayvardhan

Con

I would have to agree that Evolution is observable.
On the claim that it is a reality, However, I shall present my argument.
The "last Thursday" theory, One which suggests that the observable universe was put together last Thursday, Is logically impossible to prove incorrect. What if all our memories, All scientific data, All records of history, Were put where they presently are last Thursday?
I thus provide you with an equally valid counter suggestion for evolution.
I agree that it is improbable, But definitely not impossible.
Thus, Evolution is definitely observable, But may not be a reality. It just could be a conception of the creator's imagination.
A very beautiful analogy here would be, The Truman Show. Before Truman figures out that his life is actually being televised, And none of it is real, Him claiming that his life was an observable reality would be false.
Moreover. Evolution, As observed and understood by man might be artificial as well.
We're all familiar with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It is not a very large leap from there to suggest that a more evolved species could be controlling the information we have regarding evolution to study our reactions.
My argument might not be in the direction my opponent would have premeditated, Yet is in no way invalid.
Debate Round No. 1
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

Last Thursday-ism is not a scientific theory, Its not even a hypothesis because there is no way for it to be potentially falsifiable, This is not a equal valid counter for the theory of evolution, Its simply a assertion with no predictive capability, Its like if i were to say prove that unicorns don't exist, I would be making a negative claim which by definition is non-falsifiable and therefor non scientific, I would need to provide evidence that unicorns do exist in order for it to be taken seriously, This is basically the scientific method, You formulate a testable hypothesis that is potentially falsifiable, And proceed cording to the outcome of your experimentation with the hypothesis, Claims that don't fall into this method that cannot be falsified, That have no predictive capability, Are not science or legitimate arguments, But instead pseudoscience and random speculation.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, All you have really done here is suggested some non falsifiable negative claims and provided no evidence for you stance on them.

So i have to disagree with you, I believe your argument is invalid, And not really a argument at all.
Malayvardhan

Con

At the core of this argument, I find 1 question: "What caused the Big Bang? ".
Evolution is an observable reality only if it is conclusive in origin.
Science, However elaborate, Returns to the Unknown Force of Creation to explain how everything began.
How then, Is my explanation less valid than yours, For yours too rests on the theoretical impossibility of evidence existing, Falsifying or otherwise?
You trace out events back upto the big bang, And say that it is impossible to know what happenned before that. Some few hundred years ago, That timeline was much shorter. A few hundred years later, It is bound to grow much larger.
Does this realisation not highlight the futility of your belief?
You mention the scientific method in your argument.
The existence of dark matter is yet to be proven. The idea of Dark Matter finds origin in the fact that if galaxy discs would exceed the observable size, Only then would conventional physics be able to explain their differential rotation. Thus, Dark Matter was accepted as a possible theory, The proving and disproving of which was then undertaken. It is extremeley possible that it is impossible to prove the existence of dark matter. Yet, It is also possible that dark matter can be observed, Only with better tech. Because we did not have any other suitable explanation for the differential rotation, We took up dark matter.
Similarly, It is extremely possible that Last Thursday-ism is impossible to prove. However, If there is a slight chance that it is possible to prove, Then an effort to try and prove it must be undertaken.
In efforts to find inconsistencies in our current explanations, The Big Bang props up as an immediate discrepancy.
Thus, Evolution theory, Though intricate, Has an issue it cannot explain. The Last Thursday-ism theory, However, Can. Does that make evolution false? No. But it does introduce the possibility of it being false.
My argument is not that the evolution theory is false.
I mean to point out that it can be. It can always be.
Thus, Your claim of evolution being an absolute reality is presently false, As a lack of sufficient information restricts us from giving a deterministic answer.
Debate Round No. 2
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

"At the core of this argument, I find 1 question: "What caused the Big Bang? "

This was about biological evolution, Not cosmos related subject matter.

"You trace out events back upto the big bang, And say that it is impossible to know what happened before that. Some few hundred years ago, That timeline was much shorter. A few hundred years later, It is bound to grow much larger.
Does this realisation not highlight the futility of your belief? "

A few hundred years ago people were not using the scientific method to figure out how old the universe was, It was only until the evidence for a older universe became so unmistakable it was just dishonest to assume otherwise based on some religious bias, I also never claimed it was impossible to know what happend before the big bang, And any other intellectually honest person would also not say it is impossible.

"The existence of dark matter is yet to be proven. The idea of Dark Matter finds origin in the fact that if galaxy discs would exceed the observable size, Only then would conventional physics be able to explain their differential rotation. Thus, Dark Matter was accepted as a possible theory, The proving and disproving of which was then undertaken. It is extremeley possible that it is impossible to prove the existence of dark matter. Yet, It is also possible that dark matter can be observed, Only with better tech. Because we did not have any other suitable explanation for the differential rotation, We took up dark matter. "

We can observe the effects of dark matter and conclude data based on that observation, In the same way we know gravity is the bending of space and time even though we cannot directly see gravity, You don't need to see something directly to conclude its existence.

"Similarly, It is extremely possible that Last Thursday-ism is impossible to prove. However, If there is a slight chance that it is possible to prove, Then an effort to try and prove it must be undertaken. "

Not really, That train of logic can be applied to practically anything on any subject matter, Now im not saying you shouldent go look for evidence of last thursdayism, But if you don't end up finding any evidence for it and all you have is empty speculation and negative claims about it, Then there is no reason it should be taken seriously whatsoever.

"In efforts to find inconsistencies in our current explanations, The Big Bang props up as an immediate discrepancy.
Thus, Evolution theory, Though intricate, Has an issue it cannot explain. The Last Thursday-ism theory, However, Can. Does that make evolution false? No. But it does introduce the possibility of it being false. "

While it is true that no scientific model of reality is perfect and is always subject to revision or being overthrown, You can't just throw in some untestable assertion to solve these problems and then refuse to justify it for the reason that the assertion you made is non falsifiable. That is not better then just saying god did when you find something that doesn't make sense, Thats not science, Thats pseudoscience, And again Last Thursday-ism is not a scientific theory, Its not even a hypothesis.

"Thus, Your claim of evolution being an absolute reality is presently false, As a lack of sufficient information restricts us from giving a deterministic answer. "

Your using a strawman here, I never ONCE claimed absolution, I simply stated that evolution is a observable reality, Meaning we can observe that evolution does indeed happen in the reality we can observe, Nothing more, Nothing less.
Malayvardhan

Con

1-Biological evolution, In effect, Is not that different from "cosmos related subject matter" if you cannot distinguish between what is alive and what is not. Fire, For example, Displays all characteristics assigned to a living being, Yet is generally considered non-living, As it does not fit into the evolution concept. Fire grows, Reproduces, Consumes food, Respires, Even dies. So, Evolution must also refer to the origin of fire, Which then directly involves the big bang.
2- The remarkable fact is, A hundred years ago, They were using exactly the scientific method we use now. They considered the evidence they had, And based their conclusions on those limited evidence. As more evidence was uncovered, They changed their conclusions.
3-If we can observe the effects of God, And "conclude data based on that", Would that make God a scientific reality. For example, We have no idea what caused the Big Bang. So, The effects of God, I. E the existence of the Universe, Are indeed proof that he exists.
4- What you are saying, Instead of "don't look for evudence of Last Thursday-ism" is that "My theory is true without you even having looked for that evidence. "
If Last Thursday-ism is true, It directly means that Evolution is not. So, You must have conclusive evidence that last thursdayism is not true for you to make your claim.
Debate Round No. 3
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

"Biological evolution, In effect, Is not that different from "cosmos related subject matter" if you cannot distinguish between what is alive and what is not. Fire, For example, Displays all characteristics assigned to a living being, Yet is generally considered non-living, As it does not fit into the evolution concept. Fire grows, Reproduces, Consumes food, Respires, Even dies. So, Evolution must also refer to the origin of fire, Which then directly involves the big"

Almost everything in this statement is simply wrong, We DO understand the difference between something that is alive vs something like a wild fire, Life at its simplest is a self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, Fire does have any form of genetics nor is it subjected to Darwinian evolution which includes mutations and selective pressures, Fire is no more alive then a waterfall that veers off into two streams which make more waterfalls, This is very annoying to me because for someone who claims to accept evolution, You really don't seem to understand it at all, And you seem even less knowledgeable on what a living thing really is, Maybe if you actually understood what you were talking about, Maybe you would have a remote chance at arguing against it.

"The remarkable fact is, A hundred years ago, They were using exactly the scientific method we use now. They considered the evidence they had, And based their conclusions on those limited evidence. As more evidence was uncovered, They changed their conclusions. "

I was not questioning the scientific method, Just explaining the fact that people hundreds of years ago were more prone to religious bias and were often dishonest to suit there own pre determined conclusions rather then what the evidence really suggested.

"If we can observe the effects of God, And "conclude data based on that", Would that make God a scientific reality. For example, We have no idea what caused the Big Bang. So, The effects of God, I. E the existence of the Universe, Are indeed proof that he exists"

You started off with a reasonable argument to take into consideration, And then shat all over it. If there was a way we could determine that the effects of something we were observing were indeed being caused by a supernatural entity which was in some way potentially falsifiable, You know like evidence, Then yes it would be reasonable to conclude this, But instead you offer up a argument from ignorance fallacy and make a completely unjustified and extraordinary conclusion as a example which had nothing whatsoever to do with my point and frankly just misrepresents it.

"What you are saying, Instead of "don't look for evudence of Last Thursday-ism" is that "My theory is true without you even having looked for that evidence. "

I never implied that your unsupported speculation was true even without looking for evidence, I think i have made it quite clear that positive claims require evidence, And that negative claims are unjustifiable and therefore useless.

"If Last Thursday-ism is true, It directly means that Evolution is not. So, You must have conclusive evidence that last thursdayism is not true for you to make your claim. "

No, You don't have to prove a negative claim in order to prove a positive claim, Science does not operate with negative claims for the simple reason that negative claims are non falsifiable, Cannot be tested and are therefore useless, Also you don't have to disprove something that was never evidenced in the first place, Like last thursdayism or creationism, So no again you statement here is completely wrong and just pseudoscience. This would be like if you saw your dog run away last week, Completely ignored it, And then propose you need have conclusive evidence that last thursdayism is not true in order to conclude your dog ran away.

I was hoping for more of a intelligent and honest debate, However you have blatantly lied about me claiming absolution which is a strawman, You have made a number of logical and reasoning fallacy's to try and prove you point which i believe may stem more from your ignorance of such matters rather then you being completely intentionally dishonest, And your knowledge on scientific methodology and specifically biology are apparently quite poor.

For me this debate is starting to seem more like im wasting my time arguing with someone who should be doing less debating and more research.
Malayvardhan

Con

1- Darwinian evolution is not a primary criteria for the classification of objects as living. Asexual reproduction is a relevant example. Asexual fungi that have not evolved over millenia would be deemed non-living under your criteria.
2- My purpose was to point out how "less knowledgeable" we collectively are about what qualifies as living. That purpose was well attained through your statement that "Life at its simplest form is a self sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution. "
3- By defining life as a consequence of Darwinian evolution, You disregard the slight possibility that it is not, Which is the centre of my entire stance.
4- At the beginning, What seemed like an absolute and utter truth, Now seems very open to interpretation. Evolution sounds like a neat pattern, Into which all the evidence fits in, Rather beautifully. The slight discrepancy of non-cellular life forms disrupts its very existence.
Only after the proposal of the existence of non-cellular life forms was the definition of "living" tweaked to institute only cellular organisms.
5- A theory that requires ALL living things to have the same structural constitution, And in its defence, Changes the definition of living to suit itself, Is a seemingly null argument.
6- We, People of the 21st century, Are still very prone to biases. The data regarding most climate change observation is tweaked to suit predetermined conclusions. John Ioannidis points out with great eloquence how most published scientific research is, In fact, False, And that the percebtage is growing with time.
7- The existance of a supernatural entity is extremely falsifyable. Just provide an alternate explanation for creation. (What caused the Big Bang? ) As long as you stay unable to do that, Only the exact point in time for supernatural interference is at question.
8- I have not lied about you claiming absolution. The topic is "Evolution is an observable reality. " What this, In effect, Means is that Evolution is the did occur, And we have observed it. The argument that there is a possibility of evolution not having occurred at all, And your observations are mere inducted memories, Contradicts your claim. If you are to support your claim, You must provide evidence that it is not possible for evolution to not have been a reality.
I agree that this demand is irrational, And non falsifyable. However, It is in no way invalid, As I do not claim for it to be an absolute reality. Your claim implies otherwise.
(Assume have no knowledge of scientific methodology, And biology. Does that not grant me a perspective that you, In your education, Have been stripped of? )
Debate Round No. 4
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

Pro

"Darwinian evolution is not a primary criteria for the classification of objects as living. Asexual reproduction is a relevant example. Asexual fungi that have not evolved over millenia would be deemed non-living under your criteria. "

Wow, Not true whatsoever, Just because something doesn't change much in appearance does not mean it is not evolving, Asexual organisms are subject to mutation rates, Selective pressures and etc, The reason sexuality evolved in the first place was to speed up genetic diversity, You are aware that there was a point in lifes history where everything was mostly asexual right? Can you please actually understand what you are trying to argue.

"My purpose was to point out how "less knowledgeable" we collectively are about what qualifies as living. That purpose was well attained through your statement that"

And my point was that we are NOT "less knowledgeable" as a whole and that you were wrong from the start, We have layed out both definitions for what we define life on this planet as, And what we would classify life as elsewhere, Again can you please actually understand what you are trying to argue?

"By defining life as a consequence of Darwinian evolution, You disregard the slight possibility that it is not, Which is the centre of my entire stance"

If it is not subjected to Darwinian evolution or something of equivalence, Then it is not life, That is how we define life, Therefore your stance is fundamentally flawed and based not on actual research, But on your own personal opinion, So again you please actually understand what you are trying to argue?

"At the beginning, What seemed like an absolute and utter truth, Now seems very open to interpretation. Evolution sounds like a neat pattern, Into which all the evidence fits in, Rather beautifully. The slight discrepancy of non-cellular life forms disrupts its very existence.
Only after the proposal of the existence of non-cellular life forms was the definition of "living" tweaked to institute only cellular organisms. "

I never claimed absolution, And neither did any of the scientists who did this research, To claim absolution would be dishonest, Also nobody claims it is perfect, Neat, Organized, So can you stop with your own personal opinions and bias please? Also the possible existence of non cellular life forms never disrupted anything, It was predicted way back in 1960 that free living strands of RNA or something similar could have predated cellier life "selfish genes" also what you basically explained was that they found something new, And modified there conclusions to account for this new evidence, Which is what science does because it is a self correcting process, So again you please actually understand what you are trying to argue?

"A theory that requires ALL living things to have the same structural constitution, And in its defence, Changes the definition of living to suit itself, Is a seemingly null argument"

I explained this in the previous argument, Also no a theory does not require any of that, Again can you please actually understand what you are trying to argue?

"We, People of the 21st century, Are still very prone to biases. The data regarding most climate change observation is tweaked to suit predetermined conclusions. John Ioannidis points out with great eloquence how most published scientific research is, In fact, False, And that the percebtage is growing with time. "

I never claimed we were no longer prone to bias, The rest of your statement however is a argument from authority and just blatantly wrong, This statement shows that you have no understanding of scientific methodology or peer review, Whatsoever, Can you please actually understand what you are trying to argue?

"The existance of a supernatural entity is extremely falsifyable. Just provide an alternate explanation for creation. (What caused the Big Bang? ) As long as you stay unable to do that, Only the exact point in time for supernatural interference is at question"

I stated from the beginning that it was falsifiable, And no, You don't have to prove a negative, This also isn't a "Win by default" either, You don't just get to throw in your choice of some random unsupported assertion to fill the blanks of what we don't understand, Can you please actually understand what you are trying to argue?

"I have not lied about you claiming absolution. The topic is "Evolution is an observable reality. " What this, In effect, Means is that Evolution is the did occur, And we have observed it. The argument that there is a possibility of evolution not having occurred at all, And your observations are mere inducted memories, Contradicts your claim. If you are to support your claim, You must provide evidence that it is not possible for evolution to not have been a reality.
I agree that this demand is irrational, And non falsifyable. However, It is in no way invalid, As I do not claim for it to be an absolute reality. Your claim implies otherwise.
(Assume have no knowledge of scientific methodology, And biology. Does that not grant me a perspective that you, In your education, Have been stripped of? )"

Again, I never applied absolution, You don't have to prove a negative
"I agree that this demand is irrational, And non falsifyable. However, It is in no way invalid"
You litterly just explained in the same sentence why this IS invalid.

"(Assume have no knowledge of scientific methodology, And biology. Does that not grant me a perspective that you, In your education, Have been stripped of? )"

Im not really assuming here, Your ignorance of these subject matters shows through what you type, For example

*Claiming asexual organisms do not evolve <- which they do
*Misrepresentation and demonstrating ignorance of how science operates <- evident in all your posts
*Comparing fire to living things as an example of how fire supposedly fits all criteria <- which is does not
*Trying to use negative claims as arguments even though you have admitted they are non-falsifiable <- pseudoscience
*Trying to claim that me and scientists are claiming absolution <- we are not and never have

These are to list a few observations i have listed that support your ignorance on these subject matters.

Although i have to emit, You are a very unique opponent, I have never met someone who was not a creationist but yet had equal ignorance in scientific methodology and specifically the theory of evolution.

This debate in my opinion has been a utter waste, And frankly im getting kinda tired of having to either explain why negative claims are invalid over and over, Or having to re-educate you on your misunderstandings or plain ignorance of the before mentioned criteria, So if your next argument is just you flooding me with the same stuff i have put to rest about three times at this point, Or is just full of more crap you clearly don't understand, I think im just going to conclude this debate and leave it up the voters "if anyone even votes to be honest"
Malayvardhan

Con

To conclude this debate, I am going to summarize my arguments in their entirety.
I reject the claim that "Evolution is an observable reality" because I believe there is a possibility that it is not.
I find a theory to be a convincing explanation for an observe phenomenon only if the theory traces the phenomenon's origin back to a point that does not conflict with the premise that the theory addresses. The theory of evolution traces the phenomenon of life back to a primeval Earth, Which then finds its origin in the Big Bang. As the theory of evolution, In a way, Addresses the possibility of supernatural intervention, It must suitably trace the origin of life to a point that is clearly free of that possibility. I pointed out that the Big Bang Theory is hilariously silent about the cause of creation, And thus does not meaningfully answer the question of supernatural intervention. Thus, I find reason to suspect the validity of the claim that Evolution, As commonly presented, Is the natural and scientific answer to the origin of life.
Secondly, I object to the evolutionary definition of life that you presented. Your theory claims that all life finds its origin in earlier life forms, And that all living things evolve. Then, You claim that evolution is central to something being defined as alive. That invalidates the entire premise of evolution being central to life. This is equivalent to saying that only the things that drink water are alive, And then saying that all living things drink water. It's going in circles.
I offered an example of a life form that may not have anything to do with evolution. I pointed to a point where evolution fails. You countered by saying that only the things that evolve are living.
So, Along the course of this debate that you called meaningless, I have found a possible contender to cellular life, Which denounces evolution as an absolute truth. I have also pointed out the fact that the "scientific method" does not eventually lead to an answer. Yet, You remain adamant on ignoring the slightest possibility of the truth being different from global perception.
It's understandable. Your constant complains are not.
Sincerely,
MVP.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
Also how does abiogenesis denouce evolution?

Free living self replicating polymers predated cells and eventually evolved into cellier structures. . .

I don't follow on this one
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
So if you could stop with this strawman that would be much appreciated
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
I'm more then open to the possibility that things can be wrong, I stated this multiple times that I never claimed absolution, The point I was stressing is that claims require evidence, Where negitive claims avoid this through empty speculation and unfalsifiability.

This is why negitive claims are not valid arguments and should not be taken seriously.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 1 week ago
WhoPutYouOnThePlanet
"You remain adamant on ignoring the slightest possibility of the truth being different from global perception. "

No, All I have been saying is negitive claims are non falsifiable and can't be used to prove anything.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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