The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution is correct

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: 3/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 49422
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I believe that the theory of evolution is true.
Please begin your argument.


I would like to start off by saying that I believe, by no means, whatsoever, evolution is correct. I would like to let me opponent state his reasons why he believes evolution is correct and then I will post my rebuttals. Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe that evolution is correct because of scientific evidence. Let's start for example with horses. If you take a look at their hooves throughout time, there is an obvious but gradual change over time. (Look at picture)
Then you can take a look at some more, simple skeletal evidence. Primates. Once again, there is an obvious, yet gradual change over time. (Look at picture)


The main problem with the horse hooves is that they are illustrations and not bones or fossils. No real evidence is presented. Those illustrations could have been completely made up. In addition with the lack of resources, it adds no support to your belief that evolution is correct.

I see no transitions in the primate skulls. Throughout the millions of years it's showing, the skulls go from somewhat normal, to more deformed. It does this a few times. I do no know why, but this still presents no hard evidence. It simply shows skulls of species no longer, almost extinct, or well abundant primates or some other mammal.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to provide any evidence of evolution in his first round of this debate. Another thing to consider is in regards to the skulls. There is no transition from an obvious primate skull to an obvious human skull.

I look forward to the next round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


I agree, the illustrations could be considered invalid. Here are images of actual fossils.
If that does not suit you, you can also look at this powerpoint, slides 6-8.

We can also take a look at DNA. The gene pool has changed over time (because of natural selection), and eventually created a humanoid, then primate, neanderthal etc. As proof, chimps and humans have a whopping 98.8% similarity in the DNA strand.


The horse hoof "fossils" are not even fossils at all. It says that it is an "educational set showing the Evolution of the Horse Hoof has 6 sets of fore and hind foot casts." No fossils, just casts. Thus no more proof has supported that claim.

As far as the PowerPoint goes, it will not let me see it do to the fact it may have a virus. Since I do not trust a complete stranger off the internet, I am not willing to turn off my anti-virus programs and take the risk of messing up my computer. Due to this, no more proof has been presented. I apologize but there is nothing I can do.

Your DNA article is false. Something I may mention is that ape and human chromosomes are NOT 98% identical.

I strongly suggest visiting this link. To read specifically abut contradicting Darwin's idea of ape to human evolution, scroll towards the bottom. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


A cast: Although it does not contain any material of the original fossil (because it has decayed away), it retains the SHAPE of the organism that was laying there. Therefore, it is valid evidence.

There is also scientific research suggesting that land mammals have evolved into what we now know as whales. (Looking at fossils of skulls, teeth etc.)

Another kind of proof for evolution is the existence of endogenous retroviruses. (Read atleast first 2 paragraphs. The 3 little paragraphs above "references" at the bottom are good too).

Viruses are possibly the best proof of evolution. Especially considering that the evolution of viruses can be observed in one's lifetime, not millions of years.
Viruses are ever-changing as a result of evolution. Why do people need to be vaccinated regularly? Shouldn't one shot be enough? That is because the virus evolves, changes and the vaccination is no longer effective. Take the swine flu for example. "New strains" of swine flu are simply the evolved version of the virus.
Viruses evolve quickly (in comparison to other beings) because they reproduce very rapidly. More units being produced increases the possibility of a genetic mutation, which, if superior to previous "version", will thrive and be the newly evolved form of the virus.
Antibiotic resistance is also the evolution of a virus. In simple terms, here is the process. 1) There are three viruses units. (Viruses are not cells). A, B and C. 2) These three units infect a person. 3) Person uses antibiotics. 4) A and B both die, but C has a gene allowing it to resist and survive. 5) C reproduces, creating more virus units with the same, antibiotic resisting capability.
Through evolution, a new strain of virus has been formed.

If my opponent is going to argue that there is no way bacteria or viruses could have evolved into humans, that is not my point. It does not matter. I believe that viruses are proof of evolution, and if so, then they are not the only beings involved in this process.

Thank you for the good debate.


Mr.sarcastic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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