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

Macro evolution doesn't happen

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
namdorf has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 118054
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




I believe that there is no evidence to support macro evolution and would kindly invite anyone who can disprove my claims.


I have to start off by saying that your belief is absolutely correct. There is no such thing as 'macro evolution'. It, Along with micro evolution and evolutionist, Is a meaningless word invented by Creationists.

There is, However, Plenty of evidence for long term and short term evolution.

I would like to first start by defining evolution. Evolution is the change of heritable characteristics in a population over time. Basically, Over time, A species' phenotypes (alleles), And by extension genotypes (expression of alleles), Will change to suit its environment over time.
This is an incredibly gradual process. Over many, Many generations, Various members will be born. Some may have better suited genes. Some may have less suited genes. This occurs as a rough bell curve. The most suitable members are more likely to survive long enough to procreate, And pass on those favourable genes. Gradually, The less favourable genes will reduce in expression, Become recessive, And even die out or become dormant.

As I said, There is plenty of evidence for evolution.
Take our fingers and arms. We see a similar structure in such animals as birds, Other mammals, Reptiles, Etc. This is known as homogenous structures, And suggests a common ancestor.
We've found fossils that suggest hominids and apes diverged a few million years ago, And that those hominids themselves diverged into various species, Including modern humans.

On a smaller scale, Take insects. In the 20th century, Equipped with a far better understanding of chemistry, We started employing pesticides, To increase crop output. Generally, This worked. But after a few insect generations, The pesticides started losing effectiveness. The more resistant insects were surviving longer, And producing more resistant offspring. We kept stepping up our pesticides, And insects kept getting more resistant.

Need I go on?
Debate Round No. 1


For starters I would like to say that I mean that macro evolution doesn't occur and it's not a word created by creationist it's part of the school curriculum

Yes we do have similar bone structures in that regard but I don't think that it proves anything only a common designer and about the the fossil finding, When you find a fossil the only thing you can prove is that it died you can't prove if it had any children let alone any children different to what it is eg the offspring of Apes will be Apes, The offspring of humans will be humans there are no exceptions.


Again, I have to correct you. Your premise is false. Macro-evolution is not taught in schools. It's not a valid scientific term. Evolutionary theory is taught in schools, Along with its two methods; natural and artificial selection.

(Note: 'theory' means 'scientific theory', I. E. There's substantial supporting empirical evidence)

You are correct in saying that homogenous structures prove nothing, And that we have no way of knowing if the owner of many skeletons (what I assume you mean when you say 'fossil') had children. That's about where your correctness finishes.

As to the former, There's no such thing as 'proof' in anything except mathematics. Homogenous structures in many and most animals SUGGEST a common ancestor (please note that the example I provided is not the only example).

In terms of the latter, Some fossils are found with offspring (eggs or juveniles). Some have signs of birth. Some are juvenile. We 'know' that there's a species, When we find multiple skeletons and other fossils with matching characteristics (coprolites as well).

Imagine, If you will, A colour wheel, Or gradient. If I were to provide you with an individual pixel or selection, You'd most likely know undoubtedly which colour it is. But in the middle, It gets murky. You can't really tell which colour is which. The same with evolution. I'm undeniably a human. But go back far enough, One of my ancestors will undeniably be the common ancestor we share with apes. And then other mammals. Then on and on and on, Until you get to monocellular organisms.

It is undeniable that my children, And their children, Will be homo sapiens. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But eventually, In hundreds of thousands or millions of years, The gradual changes will become significant, And my descendants won't be homo sapiens.
Debate Round No. 2


Well you could say that I was taught that in school and that was the term they used macro evolution is just a branch of evolution its more specific.

So then you have no ground to even argue if there's nothing to support it it almost doesn't make any sense to me, It's like saying the color of the sky changes every 100, 000 years in the short term there's nothing that suggests that even happens so how could it happen in the long term also in my opinion no much changes with every offspring except for appearance the child will inherit the parents facial and ethic features as well as height.

This is all I have to say on the matter


Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, Although I will offer a revision. The terms were not invented by creationists, But are so commonly seized upon by them that many people dismiss them.

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. I really am. One less educated person. There is most certainly evidence for long term and short term evolution. That you refuse to accept it is indicative of nothing.

This is all I have to say on the matter.
Debate Round No. 3


If anecdotal evidence doesn't count as evidence then that completely refutes your statements saying that the subject matter isn't taught in schools.

I refuted your points do you have anything in response to those points also contrary to popular belief I am educated and if I wasn't I have the Internet at my disposal, And I don't refuse to accept I'm just waiting for you to refute my points.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
"When you find a fossil the only thing you can prove is that it died you can't prove if it had any children let alone any children different to what it is eg the offspring"

These individuals were part of populations you Kent Hovind wannabe, Entire populations evolve over time, Not just specific individuals in the middle of nowhere.

This statement "any children different to what it is eg the offspring" proves you don't understand evolution in a slightest, Yet for some reason you think you have the intellectual high ground to say evolutionary theory is wrong and that your justified in doing so.

Maybe if you understood evolution, You would actually have a chance at debating it.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Macro evolution is a short hand term for a lot of small accumulated change over deep time. No life makes a special jump in a single generation. All species only reproduce their own species (albeit with minor modifications). But these minor changes accumulate over deep time to become major changes. All the scientific record is consistent with this perspective.

Think of it this way Macro economic indicators like GDP may make step changes over long time periods, But these are only accumulations of the micro effects of individual trades between humans mirrored through the interplay of free markets (supply and demand). GDP doesn"t jump forwards or backwards by itself.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
There is so much wrong with that comment i just lost a few brain cells reading it.
Posted by pakau11 3 years ago
if everything is made from cells and viruses and evolution happens overtime, Would it be possible that we evolved from soil or land. .
and if pesticides are acted upon plants, Why is it that they don't evolve but insects do? .
and also viruses are look for hosts and pesticides are chemicals which genetically same thing
what if pesticides evolved (that would be a long ride tho)
but the question would be if and without disrespecting the debaters and fellow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idk
" what is evolution and what holds the power to manipulate the pattern"
because we are limited by knowledge and cannot decipher how we get to be dinosaurs again
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago

Now i could go on and on about what speciation is, But there is a question i have that no creationist or christian who thinks evolution is bunk has given me a consistent answer on.

how much would i have to change something like a cat for it to no longer be a cat? Add wings? Remove the tail? At what point is one kind no longer another kind in your opinion, I am interested on your answer to this.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Hmm. . A believer in micro evolution and not macro. . Like saying. "I believe in change over time. . But not big change over long time".
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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