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


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 948 times Debate No: 52555
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I don't understand how you believe People evolved from apes! First off it does not say it in the bible! If all the apes evolved into humans were would they be!? God sent his son Gesus to earth and he was human and Adam and Eve were the first humans and Adam was made from the dust! So I don't understand how you could think that!


I accept this debate topic. I suppose that I should begin my argument in this round because con made this debate only two rounds. Since my opponent posted a short argument, I will refute it first, then post my arguments. I see you are in sixth grade. You don't learn about Evolution until seventh grade (where I'm at) so I understand if you do not get the concept. Let's begin!

==Rebuttal I==

My opponent states that he does not understand how people evolved from apes. It's simple, really. Evolution is a process of genetic mutations and adaptions that can change a species over millions of years. Humans evolved through genetic mutations from apes. The whole process took 4 million years, more than enough time for this to logically happen. The Bible is unproven and likely false, as it contains well over 60,000 contradictions [1]. An all-perfect being would not write that. If my opponent states that the Bible is not from God, he refutes his own argument. He shows no evidence that God sent Jesus to Earth, and shows no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed.

==Argument I==

My first argument is the fossil record. The fossil record clearly shows transitions between species, relations between older extinct animals and newer animals, and shows that the theory of Evolution looks sound [2][3]. The fossil record shows more and more complex animals evolving over time, as fossilized rocks over 1 billion years old only contain simple, single-celled organisms while more recent fossils show complex, multicelluar life [4].

Scientists predict that over time, deceased animals leave fossils. The oldest fossils should be the deepest in a sedimentary rock, as more and more sediment covers it over time. The newest fossil should be at the top, as little sediment could cover it compared to the older fossil. This is exactly the case [5]. Upon closer review of the process of fossilization, scientists have come to a conclusion that very little animals fossilize. For fossilization to happen, there needs to be perfect circumstances (i.e no animal eats the remains, the deceased animal is quickly covered by sediment, nothing happens to disturb order of the animal, etc.), so scientists believe that there will be gaps in the fossil record because some animals just don't fossilize.

Had the fossil record happened in any other way besides evolution (say, creationism) the fossil record would not be in a neat order that suggests the Earth is old and species evolved over time. Instead, it would be a random mess of fossils everywhere. There would be significantly less fossils because the animals would have such a short time to fossilize [6]. A common rebuttal to this is that the Great Flood fossilized the immense amount of animals. However, this would leave the fossils in random places around the world and would not show any evidence of evolution whatsoever. Needless to say, that isn't the case.

There are many more smaller pieces of evidence that support evolution, such as human skin color. It is widely believed that the first species of man came to be in Africa, where you technically get a lot of sunlight. Thus, your skin turns darker (or tan) due to all of the sunlight. We clearly see that more dark-skinned people are towards the bottom of the globe (Africa, India, etc.) where people get a lot of sunlight over time. Higher up in the globe, such as North America, people are more light-skinned because they do not get as much sunlight.

Then, we have the different kinds of bird beaks. The beaks of birds evolved over time to better fit their eating habits [10]. This is taught in class as a small piece of evidence for evolution, and is a very easy piece of evidence for youngsters (like you and me) to understand, so this is why I used this argument. This is another example of natural selection, where the best fit animals survive.

==Argument II==

My second argument will consist of observations. It is true that both micro and macroevolution have been observed.

P1. If evolution is true, we should be able to see it.
P2. We have seen it.
C. Evolution is true.

Following this logic, all I need to do is show examples of this. First, macroevolution. We easily see this through the peppered moth. During the Industrial Revolution, parts of forests became dark and polluted, which made the white dotted moths easier to see, and thus more vulnerable. However, the peppered moths started to change. They adapted into their environment by turning from white with black dots to almost completely black [7]. This is solid evidence of Darwin's natural selection, which was almost the basis of evolution. Now, we have more black moths than "peppered moths," which changes the species, which is evolution in the working.

We do not have very many examples of macroevolution fully happening in the present because it normally takes thousands or millions of years to happen. Thus, even with only one example, macroevolution has evidence. Microevolution is a much different story, however. It usually occurs faster, and isn't as observable. For example, bacteria, such as E-Coli, is becoming more fit and more resistant to antibiotics [8]. The resistance to antibiotics can easily be explained in an evolutionary way.

Take something we can understand, such as the flu shot. The flu is injected into you so that you can learn how to fight it off, and thus become almost invulnerable to it. Same happens with bacteria [9]. Bacteria have been exposed to antibiotics over and over again, and are now evolving to become more resistant to it, another example of natural selection. Thus, we clearly see that bacteria is evolving and adapting to make their chances better at survival.

I will wrap my arguments up here, and I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttals! Best of luck!

Note: Source 10 is higher up in the argument because I added the argument at the last second before posting.


Debate Round No. 1


Okay you do have a lot of great points. If you don't believe in god I'm not going to waste my time arguing about that because you will find out the truth when you die. Now I'm going to argue my point. Apes do have a lot of human characteristics however if a species evolves that specific species will go extinct. I'm not saying I do not believe evolution I'm saying Humans did not evolve. Lets take horses for an example. Before they evolved they had toes and after they have hooves. Do you see horses with toes anymore? Same with humans if the Ape evolved into a Human where would all the Apes be if they all evolved?! I do understand this was a short argument.
My sores:


So technically, you opened up this debate, I waste three hours typing up a solid argument, and now you say you aren't going to argue with me? After you called me out in the forums to post my arguments?

My opponent has dropped all of my arguments.

To answer my opponent's question about apes, we have apes today because when a species evolves it doesn't neccesarily mean that a species goes extinct. A single offspring could contain a mutation in the chromosomes, then that offspring's has an offspring with another mutation, etc. It goes from 1-2-4-8-16-32 until a whole new species is created with the same parent species. Thousands of other apes did not give birth to an offspring with a mutation, and are thus still normal apes. Many species become extinct after they give their offsprings mutations because they are not fit to survive anymore (natural selection.) In the apes case, they were still able to survive and there was no neccesary means to adapt any further.

We don't see horses with toes anymore because they did not need toes, and they may have produced a negative advantage to their environment, so they adapted and got rid of toes. The toe horses you talk about were millions and millions of years ago, which gives the species a lot of time to evolve.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
Oh wyatttt7, you're a real gem.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty obvious win for Pro... He destroyed all of Con's contentions and out forth several of his own that never even got mentioned by Con. And Con's sources were Wikipedia and Biblestudy...

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