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

Is evolution real?

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  
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: 10/26/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 118739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




First round is just for acceptance. We will begin the debate next round.


I accept and hope that you bring new arguments to the table rather than just personal incredulity, Special pleading and begging the question
Debate Round No. 1


Ok let's begin on the burdens of this round. As the negative it is not necessarily my job to disprove evolution. Although I will be presenting as much evidence as I can against, The affirmative has the burden of proof. That being said let me begin by providing some definitions.

Evolution: 1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Source: dictionary. Com

Now the thing is there are two forms of evolution, Micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is the belief that a species can change into a different version of that species. For example, A dog overtime can change into a different species of dog, But cannot change into a completely different animal. Macro-evolution is the belief is a little more extended. It is the belief that a species can overtime change into a completely different animal. A fish for example, Could eventually evolve into a cow or a bird. While Micro-evolution cannot be responsible for every species on this earth, Macro-evolution can. Because you said that evolution is the most reliable theory for the origin of all species on earth, And macro-evolution is the one out of the two that can do that, Macro-evolution is the one that we will debating.

Although the majority of the population believes in evolution, They don't believe in it because of the evidence. There are definitely reasons that they believe it, But evidence has little to do with it. I will go over those at the end. But now, Let me go over the reasons that Macro-evolution is false.


Evolutionist are constantly claiming that mutations are the reason that there is so much information in the genetic code. But the thing is, 95% of all mutations delete information from the genetic code. Very rarely do they add new information. If the first life form was as simple as a bacterium, Than how did such a large amount of new information become present in future species. Because mutations rarely add information, It doesn't make sense for it to happen over and over again in sequence to result in such a diverse assortment of species. If the numbers are right, And mutations only add information 5% of the time, The amount of information in the genetic code should go up, Not down. To sum up this section, If evolution really happened, Then most of the mutations that ever occurred would all have to add information to the genetic code. Even though mutations rarely add any information and when they do, There is only a few types of these mutations.

https://www. Newscientist. Com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/


The fossil record is the first and most reliable place to look for data about the earth"s history. If evolution really happened, Then we should find intermediate links that show one species evolving to another. For example, Let"s say a dog did eventually evolve into a horse. We should find fossil evidence to back this claim up. We should find species somewhere between a dog and a horse. We call these intermediate links because they are supposed to represent a link between different species. Even to this day though very few of these were ever found. Even the ones that were found, Their status was highly questionable.

Do you see what I mean when I say people don't believe in evolution because of the evidence. Until further notice, Scientists should not consider it a scientific law. The way I see it, As we are continuing to gather more information about this topic, Evolution will soon be found out to be quite wrong!


I will post sources and links in the comments section.

I hope the later rounds include new arguments. These Kent Hovind arguments are tiresome, But easily answerable.


(1) Since the burden of proof is on me (I saw that coming from a mile away) to provide evidence for evolution, I will try my best to treat this like a lecture for the uninformed. Starting off would be to correct your misrepresentation of evolution. The definition is fine for the most part, But I'd also like to add that evolution is used to explain the diversity of life we see here on earth.

(2) there are more than two forms of evolution and micro/macro evolution are the same thing with their only difference being time frames. The proper definition for micro-evolution is: "Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, Between one generation and the next" [1]. This means that simple phenotypes that determine physical characteristics such as fur, Color and size change from direct offspring. Macro-evolution requires more time, But to be specific it requires substantial change in a populations alleles so much so that it is no longer the same species. My opponent will undoubtedly move the goal post so much that what he will be demanding is a bacteria "give birth to a whale" even though that's not what evolution claims. I will be providing a link detailing simple changes that occur within a species, To speciation and up to kingdom differentiation [2]. This is a common strawman that creationists love because it intentionally misrepresents biology to fit their needs.

(3) Since your brought up dogs let's talk about dogs. To be specific, Let's talk about Caniformia. This word means "dog-like" and they started to appear about 42 million years ago and they gave rise to a multitude of "kinds" such as:

Amphicyonidae - an arboreal "bear-dog" now extinct
Canidae - This includes wolves, Foxes and our familiar dogs.
Hemicyonidae - These are "dog-bears" not to be confused with Amphicyonidae' "bear-dogs". These are also extinct
Ursidae - These are our modern bears.
Ailurdae - The only living member of it's kind is the red panda
Enaliarctidae - The extinct precursor of: otariidae, Phocidae and Odobenidae. (Also known as pinnipeds)
Odobenidae - The only living member is the walrus.
Otariidae - Sea lions which is an eared seal.
Phocidae - these are "true seals".
Mephitidae - Skunks and stink badgers. They have specialized anal glands that secrete lovely smells. They are very similar to Mustelidae, But genetic evidence leads us to believe that they are independently unique.
Mustelidae - This family is the most diverse and being considered to be split up further. They include weasels, Wolverines, Badgers, Otters, Martens and mink.
Procyonidae - These include raccoons, Coatis, Kinkajous, Olingos, Olinguitos, Ringtails and cacomistles.
What do these animals all have in common? For starters they all share a common ancestor called Miacis which was an arboreal, Carnivorous, Forest dwelling, Predator that gave rise to caniformia. Their similarities include having non-retractable claws like felidae do (with a few exceptions that can be explained by convergent biology: the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), Independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches. ), Plantigrade with the exception of canide and tend to be omnivorous. [3] [4] [5] [6]

(4) "Because you said that evolution is the most reliable theory for the origin of all species on earth" I never said that and evolution explains the diversity of life, Not the origins. You also seem to not understand that a scientific theory is "(science) A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, Based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. " [7]. The only way for you to dethrone evolution would be to come up with a more reliable theory which all creationists have failed in doing. Doesn't hurt to try though, So surprise me.


(1) I knew you were full of it, But this arguments comes down to your unwilingness to understand genetics. Here's a good place to start that unfortunately is beyond the scope of this debate [8].

(2) Mutations and their harm/benefits/nuance is entirely dependent on the organism and gene expression[9], [10], [11]. I assume we will not be talking about bactaeria or viruses (which is conveniently in your favor to ignore) and we will be discussing multicellular life.

(3) I'd like to see the article that states that 95% of all mutations are deleterious. Until then I will safely come to the conclusion that you're talking out of your arse and uneducated. Microbes constantly engage in horizontal gene transfer [12]:
  • Transformation: Bacteria take up DNA from their environment
  • Conjugation: Bacteria directly transfer genes to another cell
  • Transduction: Bacteriophages (bacterial viruses) move genes from one cell to another.

And endosymbiosis "a form of symbiosis wherein the symbiont lives within the body of its host and the symbiont in an endosymbiosis is called an endosymbiont". [13]
It doesn't make sense if you didnt get a middle school education or beyond, But in case you didnt, Some bacteria can reproduce in as little as 20min. Do the math and in 7 hours one bacterium can generate 2, 097, 152 daughter bacterias. Now consider that the earth is huge and mostly covered in liquid water. The pieces fall together and the evidence backs it up whether you like it or not.

(4) Your whole rant about mutations should add "information" in order to evolve falls flat when we cross analyze the amount of base pairs among different organisms. Genome size does not determine complexity or superiority either. Unless of course you think that an Amoeba with 670+ billion base pairs is more complex and superior to a human that only has 2. 9 Billion base pairs. P. S. You should probably read your own sources before citing them.


(1) I hate to use wikipedia, But as of right now it's the best all in one source of phylogenetic evidence. If you have an issue with any specific claims inside, Please cite and explain your concern. [14] Even to this day, Idiots ignore the mounting evidence of transitional fossils and move the goal post to invalidate arguments.

(2) Evolution is a theory because it abides by all laws and rules of biology. By calling it a law you're only showing how deluded you are.

Debate Round No. 2


This round's going to be very very simple because your not doing enough to address the real issues I mentioned with evolution.

You start off by saying that creationists will commonly say things like, 'bacteria give birth to a whale. ' I've never claimed this. I've said that although minor changes can overtime lead to a new form of that same species, They cannot change into a completely different animal.

"Since your brought up dogs let's talk about dogs. To be specific, Let's talk about Caniformia. This word means "dog-like" and they started to appear about 42 million years ago and they gave rise to a multitude of kinds"
What your showing if you can prove that is that yes, Small changes overtime can lead to a new form of that species, Such as Amphicynoidae, But it does not prove that it can change into a completely different animal. Mutations are needed for that to occur and it is so rare that they add information. I've provided a link for this source in my first round.

Mutations do occur more frequently in some more than others, But that doesn't negate that they are very uncommon, Or that they can't add a significant amount of information. Other than that, You didn't do much more to address this argument. I agree that the color and size of an animal can change, But you haven't proven that it can evolve into a completely different species. How else would it happen other than mutations?

Transformation, Transduction, And conjugation can give new traits to each other, But there are still two problems. You have to get to that diversity in the first place. This meaning, A bacteria would have to develop new traits before it passed them on. Second, Even over time, That doesn't prove that bacteria can change into a different organism.

For my argument two your only contention against it is that there are transitional fossils. First, The ones we have are highly questionable. Second, We don't have many of them. We have mostly gaps.

You use Wikipedia where anyone can say anything. Even If you can prove that the information on it is indeed correct, There are still issues. Those transitional fossils you mentioned don't represent very big links. There are small ones that link organisms from the same species, But not species that are remarkably different.

I've never said evolution was a law, I said people treat it like a law which is pretty absurd considering the huge holes in it.


kwbc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has forfeited, There is nothing more I can say


kwbc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


timmyjames forfeited this round.


kwbc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by deathtank55555 3 years ago
ooh i want to see this one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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