The Instigator
Im_Intelligent
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Molecules to Man Evolution

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...
Im_Intelligent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,125 times Debate No: 115979
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

Im_Intelligent

Pro

Just to clarify the debate topic, I am not stating that evolution ultimately leads up the creation of human beings, but that humanity is one of millions upon millions of temporary outcomes that resulted from a long history of genetic variation and natural selection all the way down to the simplest self replicating molecules on the prebiotic Earth.

I look forward to debating this topic.
Sonofcharl

Con

How did a Bee Orchid make itself look like a Bee?
Debate Round No. 1
Im_Intelligent

Pro

This is similar to how species of animals have developed color shade patterns.

Ophrys apifera at some point in the past underwent a mutation that altered a certain shading in a certain part of the flower, this different shading was beneficial and attracted more bees, after thousands of mutations and natural selection you end up with a shading pattern that looks almost identical to a bumble bee, its inevitable that this pattern will change as new selective pressures are acting upon it in the future.

Although I want to stress that this debate is "Molecules to Man Evolution" and that con is suppose to have an argument for why this cant be the case.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Sonofcharl

Con

You certainly emphasise in your opening proposition, "a long history of genetic variation and natural selection".
I therefore suggest that my reference to the Bee Orchid is pertinent.

How did a plant, know what a Bee looked like?
Why did a plant choose to mimic a Bee and not some other insect pollinator?

Molecules to Man.
Molecules to Bee.
Molecules to Orchid.
I have no problem with this theory. But a plant that decides to make itself look like a bee is another issue, one that defies the logic of evolution.
A plant does not have the sensory capabilities to enable it to visualise or gauge form and colour.
Unless you can prove otherwise, then the molecules to man theory is thrown in to doubt.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_Intelligent

Pro

The flower didn't know to make itself look like a bee, let alone in one generation, the flower isn't conscious -_- You obviously dont understand how mutation and natural selection works.

Lets say i took a species of plant and laid it down on a chess board "just for example" and i let a hypothetical predator feast on the plants, the plant obviously looks nothing like the chess board so the predator finds it easily, now lets say we have a mutation occur in one of the offspring that alters a certain area of shade on the plant, if this new shade makes it look closer to the chess board then it has a better chance of surviving compared to other plants on the chess board that lack this mutation, so over multiple generations the plants that lack this mutation and weeded out by predators while the other plants with this mutation take over the population, you repeat this process for hundreds possibly thousands of generations and you will get a plant that looks almost identical to the area of the chest board it is on, all the other plants that didn't fit as perfect were weeded out leaving only this plant with chess board shade pattern.

Evolution isn't an intelligently guided process, but it isn't random either, the flower doesn't just decide to make itself look like something or know what something looks like, at some point in the past the flower didn't have that bee shading feature on it, but at some point in the past it gained a random mutation that altered its shading ever so slightly, this shading attracted more bees to it rather then the other flowers which lacked this mutation, as a result this flower got pollinated more then the others and it took over the population weeding out the other flowers that lacked this mutation, this is an example of a "Beneficial Mutation" this process repeated after generation after generation of flower, those that had further beneficial mutations that made its shading look more similar to a bee were populated more because the more bee like it looked attracted more bees, and those that fucked up the shading through a series of "non-beneficial mutations" were less likely to be pollinated and were eventually weeded out by those which were more successful, over thousands of generations this flower does indeed have a shading pattern that looks similar to a bumble bee.

But the flower had no control over this, nor was it aware of what a bee even was or what it looked like, a great example of this is the Orange oakleaf butterfly, over thousands of generations of random mutation and natural selection, it had developed a shade pattern on its wings that looks identical to a dead leaf, because those that looked less like it were weeded out by predators and other selective pressures.

i hope my explanation was enough to clarify your misconception, i think it would be in your best interest to do a bit more research from more credible sources before you respond.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Sonofcharl

Con

I understand perfectly well the principles of mutation and natural selection.

So what actually is the purpose of your debate?
Are you simply making a statement of what you consider to be fact.

From the wording of your proposition it would seem to be typically, evolution versus creation.
Evolution and creation are both sound theories until conclusively proven otherwise.

I was merely suggesting that sometimes things appear to be, to perfect or purposeful to be regarded as "temporary outcomes".

So let's go off on a different tack, one that might elicit less derision and more thought.

Maybe there is an initial creation event which instigates a purposeful process of material evolution.
Based on this possibility, I would propose that intelligent life is an essential link in this purposeful process and cannot be simply regarded as a "temporary outcome".

The infinite possibilities of time, might suggest that this is a recurrent process.

Ultimate purpose may or may not be beyond the limits of human comprehension, it would appear that intelligence is now transferring to a post-biotic phase of material evolution and that intelligent life is likely to become a redundant player.

Knowledge and information may be all and the spreading of knowledge and information across the infinite possibilities of space and matter is probably beyond the capabilities of intelligent life.

I am therefore proposing a repetitive process of creation to annihilation, where all evolutionary stages in between are inevitable and purposeful.
Debate Round No. 3
Im_Intelligent

Pro

Well you obviously didn't know how natural selection and mutation work if you were asking how did a flower know what a bee looked like, and that it not knowing put doubt on the process.

Secondly creation "in the biblical sense" is by no means a sound theory, and has long been disproven.

Also you need to understand what i mean by temporary outcome, we have found fossils of early homo-sapiens dating back to around 255,000 years, so we know that are species was at least around for this long, humans are just one of the current forms that life has, like the long evolutionary history that lead Australopithecus to Homo-Sapiens, humans along with all other living things are still evolving, so unless we go extinct, its inevitable that we will ultimately continue change in both appearance and genetics until such a point comes were it would be impossible for this future human to bread with a homo-sapien from the 21'st century and this will continue so on and so on, life will become more complex and diversified then it is today, this is what i mean by temporary outcome.

Also how could intelligent life be essential if said intelligent life needs to come into existence in the first place, that doesn't solve anything, i would also go against that every evolutionary step is for a purpose, by definition, every generation is transitional since every generation brings genetic changes.

http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Sonofcharl

Con

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the general purpose of a debate was for a proposition to be opposed.

Natural selection and mutation are sound theories. But theoretical nonetheless.
The purposeful creation and evolution of matter is simply another, opposing and perfectly logical point of view.

Biblical creation was never mentioned. Mythology is a worldwide phenomenon, but the basis of biblical creation cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Once again let me stress that I understand your proposition perfectly well and I understand quite clearly what you refer to as temporary outcomes.

Do you subscribe to the notion of chance or the notion of purpose?
That is to ask, do you think that temporary outcomes are indiscriminate or that they are inevitable and purposeful.

I personally subscribe to the notion of purpose. That is to say, the sequence of evolutionary events is an inevitable process, with the organic or biotic phase being one of many necessary links in the evolutionary chain of events.
So I suppose which ever way we look at it, the biotic phase and our role within that phase could be regarded as temporary.
Temporary but inevitable.

I am suggesting that intelligent life is an essential link in an evolutionary chain of events, a chain of events that started long before the biotic and one that will continue for a long time after. Maybe to an inevitable conclusion, at which point the cycle of events will start again.

Do we need to solve anything?
At a base human/organic level, we need to gain understanding in order to facilitate evolvement, but I would suggest that gaining understanding is progressional rather than just problem solving. At a higher/universal level I would suggest that the acquisition of knowledge is part of the inevitable process.
Debate Round No. 4
Im_Intelligent

Pro

Well first of all I think you need to understand the difference between a general theory and a scientific theory, theory has a different meaning in science then in a normal conversation use, a scientific theory is 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, for example, the theory of General relativity.

Mutation and natural selection are not just concepts, we have observed mutations happen in both nature and in a labatory setting, if they didn't happen, we would need to keep making new vaccines and we wouldn't have things like cancer or sickle cell disease, and when ever you have a self replicating system prone to change and modification, natural selection inevitably follows, we have been studying this for a long time, we know the mutation rates of everything viroids to humans.

As for what you have said on the regards of inevitability and purpose

It may be possible that the way everything reacts with each other from the beginning of time to the end of time may be set in stone thanks to how the forth dimension works "time" but as for it being purposeful, I wouldn't really see it like that, I would also argue that intelligence is not an inevitable outcome of life but rather a trait that was benefiting to most notably the Family Hominid "great apes" and other animal family's in the same way other traits were benifial to other living organisms, so no, I would not subscribe to the notion of objective purpose.

I don't really understand what you meant with the last part of the debate, but I assume it has something to do with evolving into a higher state or something metaphysical? in that case I would say we have no evidence that biological or chemical systems can change let alone evolve into metaphysical systems through natural processes "if metaphysical even exists", I would agree that life will become more complex and diverse as it always has throughout time, but that's about it until something proves otherwise.


http://humanorigins.si.edu...

https://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Sonofcharl

Con

Once again Pro doubts my ability to understand evolutionary and theoretical information.
And once again my response is, I understand perfectly well, thank you.

The be all and end all of Pro's debate concerns species evolution and their presentation comes across simply as a proclamation of their own ability to understand specific, undeniable, theoretical facts. No matter at what academic level we regard theory, theory is nonetheless theory and therefore as such theoretical facts in themselves are undeniable and therefore impossible to actually argue against.

Alternative theory therefore seems a sensible way to take the debate forward.

1) Ophrys Apifera. The Bee Orcid. Sometimes things appear to be to perfect or purposeful to be regarded as temporary outcomes. Hinting at the possibility of some manner of divine intervention in the evolutionary sequence. A less erudite theory perhaps, but theory nonetheless.

2) Purposeful creation. Certainly not specifically put forward in a biblical or divine sense.
At some point matter was created, a something from nothing event that occurred long before biotic interactions started.
That is to say, the evolutionary sequence started at the beginning and will go on until such times, when the purpose of everything has been achieved. The recurring inevitability of time and space and all matter, if you like.
My suggestion is that life and subsequent intelligent life is an inevitable and vital phase in the evolutionary process of matter. I would also suggest that eventually intelligent organic life will have to hand over the responsibility of furthering the process to a more universally efficient inorganic form of intelligence.

A temporary outcome maybe, though not in the Darwinian sense, but temporary in terms of universal efficiency and usefulness.

Pro, dwells on life and a probable sequence of events that lead us to this moment in time. They do not wish to consider the certainty of before life or the probability of after life. They really only wish to proclaim their personal ability to understand this one area of scientific theory.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
@Sonofcharl

You say im more interested in proclaiming my understanding?

All you have given me as evidence is a flower that is perfectly explainable through random mutation and natural selection, and philosophy about higher states and such, but you provide no evidence.

As i said before i would be more then happy to find out that an afterlife exists, or even if somehow life on earth was intelligently guided, however claims require evidence, and if the claim is true, then the evidence you present should be able to stand up to debate, if it does not, then the claim is not proven until you can present conclusive evidence.

And i am aware that there was a point in history where life didn't exist on Earth, to think otherwise doesn't make sense when you look at the evidence.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
@Sonofcharl
i didn't say a scientific theory is impossible to argue against, i was pointing out the difference between the conventional use, and the scientific meaning.

I would be more then happy to find out an after life exists, however the evidence for such is insufficient.

If you understand how natural selection and mutation works then you wouldn't have said how did the flower know what a bee was, and why did it make itself look like a bee and not something else, and if i cant prove otherwise evolution is in doubt, these two claims dont go together, unless you dont understand how natural selection and mutation works, sorry.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
So because the Higgs boson also has the nick name "god partical" that proves god -_-

that would be like me saying Jesus from the bible is real is real because someone named there kid Jesus.

and its interesting you state control the masses since thats what religion seems to do, you obviously dont believe the same thing as Islam right? yet it controls the way 1.8 billion people think and act.

In fact Islam is expected to become bigger then Christianity, so tell me, if Islam grew larger then Christianity, would it automatically be right? if you disagree, then your special pleading to suit your own preferred beliefs.

Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it right 2far4u2CharlesDarwin
may i remind you that just 500 years ago the church was burning people on the steak for saying earth was not the center of the universe? so tell me, who were the ignorant ones there?
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
Then tell me why call the Higgs Boson the God Particle? as to say an act of god then tell me, why not call it an act of the one and only existence creator. As it all must be an act within an illusion as to be deluded with allusion. So pick your own personal allusion and don't be eluded with illusion as to live in a delusion.

So why do you still fall back on human ignorance that only have the bias recording of scripture that is and was created to control the masses?
Is that all you have?
I suppose we are all wrong and you with your arrogant, ignorance is right? Wrong.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
@Sonofcharl

I meant to say we "wouldn't" need to do those things for the mutations and natural selection part.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
Im not going to start on the whole "True Atheist" thing again, the point he was trying to make in that video is that we cant say for 100% that there isn't some all powerful being out there, in the same way we cant say unicorns dont exist, but what we can say is that the god the of the bible and all other religions all fables written by the hands of people from hundreds to thousands of years ago who knew little to nothing about life and cosmology because thats what the evidence shows.

50% of America believes the universe is under 10,000 years old and that god made everything with evolution somehow being bull despite the overwhelming amount of evidence, so no we have no backed down, were just more intellectually honest then most religious people who would never even conceive of the possibility that their belief could be wrong in any shape or form.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
Tried that he is no more then a gargoyle of the gothic Catholic of the old testament.
Live by the sword die by the sword.

But it is good to see you. But I still ask why are you still trying to justify your individual intelligence, when your scientific atheist leaders have backed down.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
@2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Go hang out with Followerofchrist1955, im sure you guys would really kick it off.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
and now I'm underscore Intelligent has not even an Atheist belief good for you did you accidentally kick your second brain and it is now lost in the dark with not saying.

Felix the cats brainiac poindexter might find it for you in the next exciting adventure of the bumble bee that scientifically shouldn't fly but somehow the flower that morphed into your narrow minded street that you forgot to water that flower that someone made a friend with instead of you.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
and people like you with bias opinionated self glorifying attributes wrote all of this dribble just like your dribble that continue to forget that science cannot rule out an existence creator
So let us call it the nature of our own nature is not in tune with nature as we in nature fails the rules of nature the unlike one and only existence creator of nature.

Still at it I'm so stupidly Intelligent and still going hard with your full blown narcissistic nature of a sociopath at heart. Good for you as you still haven't tripped over the second brain of yours as no one could be as stupid does stupid exists apart from Christens isn't that right LM underscored Intelligent. Science without religion is lame as the E=MC2 bomb cracked the code of stupidity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
Im_IntelligentSonofcharlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Son ofCharl saying 'theory is theory' is not sufficient doubt for Pro. In a debate where neither side is saying their side is objective fact, it becomes a battle of who has the more convincing theory (or can make the other's theory seem the least convincing of the two). SonofCharl concedes left, right and centre a ton of things about evolution saying for some irrational reason that the intermediary evolved stages do not mean anything significant? I don't know what Con was trying here and it did not at all translate to me as a successful trolling if that's what it was. Pro proved, to a decent enough degree for me, that there is evidence that leads us to conclude the resolution to be true and Con conceded much of Pro's theory as truth anyway. Con didn't use sources and Pro used VERY RELIABLE sources, I therefore give sources vote to Pro.

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