The Instigator
timmyjames
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bjhqi
Pro (for)
Tied
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: 10/28/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 118749
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

timmyjames

Con

Hey, Can we start over. I was constructing an argument but ran out of time
bjhqi

Pro

Yes. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
timmyjames

Con

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 it, The affirmative has the burden of proof. That being said let me begin by providing some definitions.

Evolution: 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.

ARGUMENT 1: MUTATIONS RARELY ADD INFORMATION.

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/

ARGUMENT 2: A LACK OF INTERMEDIATE LINKS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOW INCONSISTENCY IN EVOLUTION "THEORY"

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!
bjhqi

Pro

I assume that this round is for opening statements, So I'll offer my rebuttal to your main points in the next round.
But first I'd like to address your view of burdens and definitions.
On the burden of proof: The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. It has nothing to do with what your position is. You made a claim that evolution is false, So the burden lies on you to prove that. You did, In fact, Provide an argument for your case, So I suppose it's moot at this point, So I'll move on.

On your definitions: I looked at dictionary. Com and nowhere under "Evolution" is the definition you gave and attributed to them listed. What it does list for its definition of evolution in regards to biology is this:
"Biology " Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such process as mutation, Natural selection, And genetic drift. "
I'm perfectly fine with this definition for the sake of this debate if you are.

Opening Statement:
Now, Regardless of your view on the Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection, Evolution itself (which is what your title of this debate suggested we were to discuss) is a fact. It is observable simply by analyzing genetic code down a family line from one generation to the next in any species of plant or animal. Simple logic with no science involved leads one to understand that many small changes over time will eventually lead to larger differences, Which some try to break into macro and micro evolution. In the scientific world, There is no distinction. The terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not used in science. Ever. This is the basic foundation behind the theory, Which also has more scientific evidence than I care to research for an opening statement.
Regardless, My main argument is that evolution, As defined by dictionary. Com, Is an observable fact. If you would like to debate the scientific Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, Please invite me to a debate with the proper title and well defined parameters.
Debate Round No. 2
timmyjames

Con

timmyjames forfeited this round.
bjhqi

Pro

Since my opponent has not bothered to respond, And since this is the second debate in a row he has done this to me on, I don't see a need to continue or accept any further debates from him.
Debate Round No. 3
timmyjames

Con

Small changes lead to different forms of that species, But as I have proved that cannot change it to a completely different animal.
bjhqi

Pro

You have not proven anything. You've only made assertions. Science, On the other hand, Has demonstrated that speciation through evolution, Has happened.
Debate Round No. 4
timmyjames

Con

So, If I haven't proven anything on those grounds, Then despite all the evidence I have provided, Mutations can add information?

"Science, On the other hand, Has demonstrated that speciation through evolution, Has happened. " If it was really that cut and dry there wouldn't be so much debate over it.

You are the one making the claim of evolution, The burden of proof is on you. If we had a debate about God, Is it your job to dis-prove it, Or for me to prove it?
bjhqi

Pro

You haven't provided anything except a demonstration of you misunderstanding of science. Every fossil is transitory.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If the debate is on "a god exists", The burden is on the one saying a god exists. If the debate is on "a god does not exist", The burden lies on the one saying there is no god.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bjhqi 3 years ago
bjhqi
Your argument was against the theory of evolution by natural selection, Which is distinctly different from evolution. Read my arguments to understand this point better. I'm not going to respond to an argument posted within a parameter that is different from the original debate. That's called bait and switch.
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
nonetheless, I have still provided unaddressed arguments against evolution
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
I couldn't find a direct link to the information though
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
Yes, We are currently reading it.
Posted by dustryder 3 years ago
dustryder
Con's second argument is eerily similar to jackgilbert's argument on fossil records. Did you also study from Exploring Creation with Biology by Wile and Durnell?
Posted by bjhqi 3 years ago
bjhqi
I'd have to agree with you kwbc.
Posted by kwbc 3 years ago
kwbc
You still had over 24 hours to post your argument before you made this new debate. I think someone is evading a proper debate. I'm still interested in this debate if you're willing to actually try
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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