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

Scientific evidence does not support Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: Select Winner
Started: 8/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,249 times Debate No: 78323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that that evolution has not been proven scientifically and any evidence used to support it could be reasonably explained from a creation viewpoint. Since the theory of evolution is taught in schools as science, and creation is presented as religious, the burden of proof is on con to show that evolution can and did happen.

Science - Knowledge gained from observation, experimentation, and demonstration (Can be proven).
Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Can't be proven).

Round 1 - Acceptance, Con explains position and provides evidence for evolution.
Rounds 2 and 3 - Pro attempts to refute or explain evidence, Con attempts to defend evidence.

If Con has any problems or questions about the definitions or debate structure, he can say so in the comments.


I accept this challenge.

My goal in this debate shall be to not only show that Evolution is supported by science, but to also enlighten a bit of the inner workings of science via definitions, examples, and any credible evidence I find for my position. And although I see this as a "Evolution vs Creation" argument (which in of itself isn't a good selection of things to fight each other), I shall refrain from mentioning Creationism as well as I humanly can.


Now first, I would like to explain that "Evolution" and the "Theory of Evolution" are two different things. "Evolution" is the natural process that has been found in the wild. "The Theory of Evolution" is science's way of explaining how this occurs. Thus far it's explanation in simplest form is this:

Evolution happens as species adapt to their environments via mutations, and carry their genes down to their children, which is then passed further down, and further down. Along the way other mutations are added to the mix which is garnered from birth via taking on both parents' DNA and mutations that are collected throughout life (with what you eat, diseases/viruses you encountered, solar radiation, etc). And through the process of "survival of the fittest" those with inferior mutations die off while successful ones survive, reproduce, and have their mutations more likely to carry to the next generation. And over the course of time, after a species undergoes various mutations selected by natural forces, the species will branch off into different species while the parent species sadly goes extinct.

One of the first proposers, and arguably the most famous and accredited, of Evolution and major contributor to the theory, Charles Darwin, was a man of God when he took a naval trip to see the world for furthering his interests in botany. Granted, before he still found it more sensible that God shaped creatures overtime rather than just snapping his fingers and them being the way they are and will always be, but that's irrelevant.

The most important moment of this voyage in the history of science was when he and the ship had arrived to the Gal"pagos Islands. Now I won't go into too much detail due to character limits, so I'll just get straight to the juicy stuff.

The most iconic mentions about his trip to the islands would be his observation of the finches. Where these finches would stay in a certain part of the islands and never go to any other parts or mingle with the other variety of finches away from these spots. Due to this, their beaks had noticeable differences...such as some having longer and sharper beaks for reaching and then eating insects, while others having shorter and blunter beaks for cracking open and then eating nuts. After these observations, he began to question further into the nature of life forming to mold its environment, rather than the environment molding to life.

This would eventually lead into the concept and theory as we know it today. Now, I explain this because it is important to know the origin of how Evolution was discovered primarily, and how the theory itself was birthed.

It is also important to know another definition. And this definition is what a "theory" really is within the scientific community. And the definition is as follows:

A theory is a scientific explanation that is used to describe a natural occurrence. Scientific theories are the best of the best of explanations science has to offer with describing what happens in the natural world, and is always under constant scrutiny.

The Theory of Evolution has been around for nearly two hundred years and has been tested thousands of times throughout this time. Not once has any scientist have been able to find anything to suggest that the Theory of Evolution nor survival of the fittest to be in any way or shape "inaccurate" or "incompetent" in its goal to explanation Evolution. In fact, if anything, the tests and attempts to disprove it has only resulted in more evidences to support it and fill in the holes that Charles Darwin and others had due to simple lack of understanding and lack of modern technology.

And before you ask: No, Evolution does not account for the origin of life itself. That is a separate matter involving "Abiogenesis". And no, it also doesn't account for the beginning of the universe, that would be "Big Bang Theory".

Now, I think that that is enough of the history and dictionary lessons for now. Another part of my opening argument I shall be providing proofs that science has accumulated over the years to support Evolution and why the Theory of Evolution is necessary to teach in schools. But before I do, I have a series of questions I wish for Pro, and those reading, to ponder on as I do.

1) If you were to describe Evolution in your own words, what would you say?
2) Does it match anywhere close to what I have provided?
3) If not, then why is it different?
4) If yes, then is Evolution nonsensical?
5) What is your ulterior explanation?
6) Why do you prefer your ulterior explanation?
7) Where does your ulterior explanation come from?
8) Is your ulterior explanation backed up with facts and tests, or untestable assertions you just have to take for granted?
9) Which do you prefer: backed up facts or taking someone's word?
10) Do you want your children learning proven facts or untestable assertions?

Now, we have gained many ways of showing the works of evolution throughout time, and are still finding them today. This comes from things like the fossil record, finding the incredibly rare evidences of creatures long dead and extinct and able to see how they were in life. The recent cracking of various genomes, including our own, to show how we all (creatures and plants of the earth) are related at a genetic level.

A prime example of all creatures being related in some way can be found in our medical practices. When diabetes started to become a problem and both Fredrick Banting and John Macleod received the Nobel prize in 1923 for the discovery of insulin, thanks to the help of Charles Best creating a pancreatic extract which was made from the pancreas of pigs. A majority of insulin today is still made by taking the pancreas from pig carcasses and use the cells within them to make insulin to help human diabetics process sugar. If we didn"t share any similarities or genetic relations to pigs, this would be impossible to do...the first pancreas to make insulin would be a human pancreas, and around this time it would be illegal to desecrate human corpses in such a way.

Another example would be the cracking of the human genome in 2003. The project had shown that we shared significant genetic relations with various creatures. Most shocking was that we shared the same gene range as mice, 20,500, and that we shared over 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees, a type of ape. This led us to start cementing our findings that we shared a common, ancient ancestor with other primates. And, through its sequencing of the DNA, it helped us understand diseases including: genotyping of specific viruses to direct appropriate treatment, identification of mutations linked to different forms of cancer; the design of medication and more accurate prediction of their effects; advancement in forensic applied sciences; biofuels and other energy applications, agriculture, animal husbandry, bioprocessing, risk assessment, bioarcheology, anthropology and evolution. Another proposed benefit is the commercial development of genomics research related to DNA based products, a multi-billion dollar industry.

A third example would be our earth shattering findings of different species of humans. We are Homo Sapiens, yet we find different, extinct cousins of our species. One example would be the Neanderthal...the cave dwelling humans with the proud eyebrows that lived during and before the Ice Age. And we also have the 3'6' "Hobbits" of Indonesia, although much about them still remains a mystery to this date. And let us not forge the common human ancestor, Homo Erectus, of which there has been traces found in the savannas of Africa.

And my fourth, final example shall be that of vaccines and the adaptations of bacteria and viruses. A vaccine is merely a virus with its lethality and effectively greatly diminished and then is introduced into the human system to build up immunity. However, some viruses like the Flu read immunities and change to make vaccine efforts useless. This is why every year we have to have another Flu shot, because the Flu is always evolving. Bacteria on the other hand are organic and alive, while viruses are not. And the only way to stop bacteria is with antibiotics, which uses fungi and weaker bacteria. However, like viruses, once met with a challenge they'll change to overcome it and become effective again. This is also the reason why we have so many different types of antibiotics, because there is a large spectrum of bacteria that is always constantly changing.

Now for me to ask something more from Pro. I would like some examples of credible scientists that claim that Evolution has no scientific evidence for support. And I would also like to see actual evidence to any other ulterior explanations of how life is the way that it is today and will be in the future that are credible.


Credible References for Evolution for Your Reading Pleasure:
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. My contention is that evolution can’t happen and that there is no evidence supporting the idea that it ever happened in the past.

First, I would like to separate evolution into two stages or categories. The first is microevolution, change within the kind of animal. Microevolution is observable and scientific. The argument is on macroevolution, change across kinds of animals. For example, there are hundreds of varieties of dogs. They all probably had a common ancestor that was a dog. The amount of variation allowed in a dog’s gene pool can be immense, but no new information is ever added to that. That is why variations have limits and no dog will ever produce a non-dog over however many generations.

Next, due to the character limit, the answers to Con’s 10 questions can be found in the comments.

Evolution Can’t Happen

Con starts by summarizing what evolution is and how it is suppose to happen. The idea is that hereditary mutations alter the gene codes of animals, giving them different traits and characteristics. Then natural selection “weeds” out the bad mutations, leaving only the better mutated animals to reproduce. It sounds simple, but all this is based on the assumption that there are beneficial mutations in the first place.

Mutations are random mistakes or “typos” that occur during DNA replication. Mutations can cause diseases, deformities, and even death. No one has ever observed a mutation add new, useful information to the genome. Genes and traits are carefully interlocked with each other, and they work together like one complex machine. Mutations, which are random, confused errors are always harmful or lethal if they have any effect.

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]

Saying that mutations could cause beneficial evolutionary change is like saying throwing a rock into the complex, interlocked gears of a machine would improve the machine. The rock would clog the machine and either destroy it or make it worse off.

In the 1900’s, many scientists spent years, some even their entire lives, irradiating fruit flies, simulating mutations that would only be seen from many millions of years of mammalian generations. They observed hundreds of different mutations with hundreds of different effects on the poor flies. Not one mutation was beneficial. Flies that didn’t die from the mutations had all kinds of abnormal deformities and impairments. Here is a partial list of the mutations:

“Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations.”—Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

Similar experiments have been done with roses, other plants, and animals all showing that no mutations could be helpful.

As we have seen, a mutation will never improve an organism. Yet Con wants to suggest that billions upon billions of beneficial mutations, all working together, could “evolve” a macromolecule into a human. I would like for Con, in the next round, to give an example of a beneficial mutation that has been observed to add new, useful genetic complexity.

Evolution Hasn’t Happened in the Past

Con argues that since insulin that works in pigs also works in human bodies, we have genetic and anatomical similarities with pigs. This is correct, but it in no way proves that humans are related to pigs. Similarities could be a sign of a common creator. A Honda Accord and a Honda Civic are different cars but have many interchangeable parts. This is because they both have a common creator. It is a fact that humans and pigs use similar hormones. The evolutionist’s interpretation of the fact is “Wow, this is because the pig and the human both share a common ancestor.” The Creationist, on the other hand, will say “Wow, this is because both humans and pigs share a common intelligent designer.” The problem is that only the evolutionist’s interpretation is presented as science. Similarities could be a sign of either a common designer or common ancestry, but don’t point directly to either one.

“The most important kind of evidence is that based on a comparative study of the structure and development of various groups. The use of such evidence is based on the assumption that the more closely the body plans of two phyla resemble each other, the closer their relationship and the more recent their common ancestor.”Ralph Buchsbaum, Animals without Backbones (1948), p. 335.

Con’s second proof is again derived from the presumption that similarity proves relatedness. Con argues that there are genetic similarities between humans and apes. He is right, but this does not prove that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Two Microsoft programs would share thousands similarities in their code, and this is because of a common designer. It is a fact that genetic similarities exist amongst living things. Different people can have different interpretations of that fact. Con’s job is to provide strong evidence that could not be explained from a Creation viewpoint.

Con has stated that there are “earth shattering findings of different species of humans”, implying that they are intermediates between us and our supposed ape-like ancestors. If there were any, they would indeed support evolution, but there aren’t any. Con has listed the Neanderthal, Hobbits, and Homo Erectus, so those are the ones I shall explain.

Neanderthals are humans with primitive-like features. Although it may seem like it, Neanderthal men are not a different species of humans. They are regular humans afflicted with arthritis and rickets. Con mentioned the Ice Age, and from a Creation perspective, the Ice Age was caused by worldwide dust pollution from the flood, blocking out the sun. The lack of sunlight would cause rickets in the Neanderthal, curving the pelvis and giving them bowed legs. Additionally, the lack of Vitamin D would induce facial changes including enlargement of the eye cavity. Their arthritis would make larger brow ridges more prominent as well.

(“Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” in Nature, August 1970.)

“Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D.”—
“Neanderthals had Rickets,” in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Another idea is that the Bible indicates that people living shortly after the flood had increased lifespans. This would cause Neanderthaloid features such as the elongated cranial vault, heavy eyebrow ridges, etc. People living up to a hundred today start to develop these characteristics.

As for the Indonesian Hobbits, they weren’t a new species of human, but were probably microcephalic pygmies.

For his last “new species of human” Con has only said Homo Erectus, which is a broad term that could include multiple findings, such as Java Man, Peking Man, etc. I would like for Con to give a specific example of what he means his next argument.

Lastly, Con argues that bacteria and viruses can become resistant to antibiotics and antibodies over time. He is right, but this doesn’t prove that macroevolution can or has occurred. Resistant strains emerge due to mutation, but these mutations are not beneficial. The way antibiotics kill bacteria is that they latch onto and destroy a crucial protein needed for the bacteria to live or reproduce. However, if a mutation causes that specific protein to be deformed or developed improperly, the antibiotic won’t be effective on that bacteria. But in a non-restricted condition where antibiotics aren’t present, the mutant bacteria will be worse off compared to the rest of the population. The situation is similar with viruses with mutated capsids becoming resistant to antibodies.

Con’s Request

Con has asked for me to name credible scientists who claim evolution is not scientifically supported.

“The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution.”Richard Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Former director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France.]

All this is unrelated to the topic though. Whether or not a credible scientist questions evolution is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is scientific.Even if all scientists did believe in evolution, that still wouldn’t prove anything. Science is what we know based on observation and experimentation, not what the majority believes. And the majority of scientists have been wrong many times before throughout history. There was a time when the majority of scientists believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. For many years the majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation.

As for an alternative to evolution, I believe in a young-earth Creation as in the Bible, and no I can not prove it to be true. But remember the burden of proof is on the evolutionist.

Sources: Listed throughout argument.


Rebuttals to Pro's points:

1) Micro/Macro Evolution

I see no use in these "micro/macro evolution" categories. This is just over complicating an issue, evolution is simply evolution. If it occurs on a micro level, then it can also occur on a macro level simply from the continual build up of the micro level. They would just pile up into significant changes.

I would also like Pro to explain what constitutes a "kind" within plants and animals. What's the process of identifying "kinds" and how can you tell "kinds" apart. In science we have a diagram referred to as "The Tree of Life", where we start with the unknown original, common ancestor and map up the similarities and differences of life from that ancestor to the species of today. A lot goes into classifying plants, animals, and so on; lots of nuanced knowledge needed that even I don't know (though I wish I had the time to learn).

2) Mutations

Yes, mutations are mistakes. However, mistakes can be beneficial, this is key to many art forms as well as science and anything involving innovation. Yes mutations can form diseases, deformities, and death but that does not mean mutations can't be beneficial. Mutations are classified as thus:

Any changes on a genetic level, whether they be detrimental or beneficial. These changes can be passed onto offspring, while others may not, depending on the mutation and whether or not they are a dominant or submissive trait.

Hell, even getting a tan is a form of mutation, as your skin pigments are forced to change as they are exposed to UV radiation from the sun. This results in darker skin tones. Is it temporary? Yes, but given enough time the tanning can stay within your makeup and end up a dominate trait which can be inherited. As skin pigmentation is a trait passed down (evidence shown by white couples giving birth to white children and black couples given birth to black children, so on and so on).

I'm also gonna disregard the Theodosius quote because equating biological functions and mechanical functions just does not work. Find me a steel building or a copper-gear watch that can be injured, healed, replicated, and can adapt like an organism and then we can talk. But at this point, organisms and machines do not work the same, therefore any comparisons are null.

And with that study Pro provided: I am not surprised at the results. I mean, radiation is some scary stuff. All irradiation does is fill up our junk DNA structures with junk info and waste material and that eats it away fast, causing more possible chances of harmful mutations to occur within the readable DNA structures. That's just bad science.

Now, as for beneficial mutation examples. To mention my previous, opening argument about bacteria. Given enough exposure to antibiotics, bacteria can build up resistances and immunities to said anti-biotics that are being used. Thus, the bacteria gains a beneficial mutation at a genetic level.

Also, just a heads up, complexity rarely means anything good in biology.

3) No Evolution in the Past

I find it funny how we share genetic and anatomical "similarities" with pigs, but we are in no way related. That makes no sense. We have to have genetic relations with pigs, otherwise we can't use their cells to develop medication. We would of had to use human pancreases to make insulin and no other animal's. To have genetic "similarities" is to have genetic relations, and to have genetic relations is to be related.

And once again, comparing organisms to machines is pointless and holds no water.

And what Pro seems to fail to realize is where Evolution and Creation comes from. Evolution was discovered and is studied by scientists through observations and empirical, forensic evidence. Creation, on the other hand, was proposed and asserted as a claim by nomadic people living in tents and caves who have no knowledge of nature and is believed by people who don't want to bother learning and rather have blind faith. This is not how science operates, we just don't accept things blindly, we have to test and proof or disproof. Sadly, the concept of a deity is untestable, so science just won't bother with it.

For example, think of the Loch Ness monster. It was proposed to have exist by the account of two men walking around Loch Ness and a picture of the beast. Sure, we all believed because what was stopping us? We had no way to disprove it. So for years we believed it was true or tried to disprove its existence. Then, come to find out, the original picture that proposed the assertion that Nessy existed was doctored. And if the original assertion was falsified, then it's logical to conclude that Loch Ness monster, is a lie.

We have proven many fallacies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies within the many translations of various religious texts. Though I suppose for this debate the focus on Christianity shall be paramount. Within my list of sources, I'll provide an example of an inconsistency within The New Testament. And since the Holy Bible asserts Creationism, yet has historical inaccuracies and is inconsistent with itself, it is not a credible text for scientific knowledge, therefore Creationism as proposed by Christianity (and Judaism and Islam by extension) is not a valid scientific study, hypothesis, or theory.

The Theory of Evolution is built upon observations and facts and was set up as an explanation to a natural phenomenon that has been noticed within nature. It has not been disproven and has in fact been built upon and improved. It is not set up to worship deities, explain the beginning/end of time and the universe, or hold up any doctrines. It's not set up to be a religion.

Once again, organisms and machines do not operate the same. This point is invalid. And again, we cannot be genetically similar to things and not be related to them on a genetic level. To be similar on a genetic level is to be related. That's how genetics work.

And now we move onto the weak passing off of different human species that Pro purports. I will give him credit on one thing: I never heard of Neanderthals being humans plagued by rickets
and arthritis. That part is new to me, however this is highly illogical. If such a large group of people were so horribly afflicted with rickets and arthritis, then why not everyone? I mean, it had to be very progressive and aggressive if it were to create such a vast difference between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens in physical capabilities and appearance as well as mental capacity.

I also love how Pro waves off Homo Floresiensis as "microcephalic pygmies", when no bones have ever been found with Homo Floresiensis to suggest that it was strange to be really short and have a really small head. Almost as if it was normal for them because, probably through environmental suggestions and biological processes, they became something slightly different from us and became their own thing.

And onto Homo Erectus. Sadly Homo Erectus is so far back, that it is rather hard to keep accurate information them, it being the earliest known species of creatures to have human-like qualities and features. Also the fact that Homo Erectus is pretty wide spread, and we only manage to find subspecies that relate to Homo Erectus but not purely it. I mean, consider the fact that Homo Erectus fossils are spread over two continents (Africa and Asia, Europe is an iffy still) and has succeeded in thriving nearly nine times longer than our own species' existence; that's a lot of getting around and changing.

And just to say, Java Man is named "Homo Erectus Erectus" as it might be the purest form of Homo Erectus that we know of, and Peking man is named "Homo Erectus Pekinensis". They are a part of the Homo Erectus species, yes, but they are also different since the course of Homo Erectus' existence is spread far out and lasted long which provided plenty of genetic change to cause various subspecies to occur. We have various subspecies of animals today, it's not uncommon to happen.

Finally, on one thing to rebut the bacteria statement. If such a protein was so crucial to life and reproduction, I doubt mutations that would harm said protein would be effective, as the bacteria with said mutation would be dead or sterile. Now, if a mutation were to have formed in which it just made it resistant or immune to the antibiotics (as mutations typically occur from overcoming environmental obstacles) then it could thrive and be more successful. If antibiotics were not introduced, then there was no challenge to overcome, nothing in its environment it had to best. Therefore, no change and it'll carry on about its day making yours miserable. gaining resistance and immunities against things that'll kill, cripple, harm, or sterilize you are beneficial mutations.

4) Credibility

I would first like to respond to the last paragraph Pro had typed up. Whether you believe it or not, this is incredibly relevant to the topic at hand. The Theory of Evolution is a science, it was proposed by scientists, tested by scientists, approved by scientists, and improved by scientists. Whether credible scientists who devote their lives to the field can outright say evolution is not scientific is crucial. If anything, it just gives more credibility to your argument.

Now, I don't know much about the men that are quoted above, though Goldschmidt's name is familiar. At any rate, after a quick search I was impressed with their backgrounds. My only complaint about Goldschmidt is his view. I mean, to say all changes lead in dead ends? Many changes can occur, it's ludicrous to say all changes just stop and don't carry on and improve or continue on its own.

And the second quote. All laughable in essence. Source below will explain.

Tree of Life

Contradiction Human Species Benefits

Debate Round No. 2


Evolution Can’t Happen

Con’s position is that evolution can happen and given enough beneficial mutations, a single cell could turn into a whale, pterodactyl, or potato.

I have argued that there is no such thing as a truly beneficial mutation, and that all mutations are random, chaotic typos in the genetic code. In Round 2, I said “Saying that mutations could cause beneficial evolutionary change is like saying throwing a rock into the complex, interlocked gears of a machine would improve the machine.” Con has attacked this idea, saying “Find me a steel building or a copper-gear watch that can be injured, healed, replicated, and can adapt like an organism and then we can talk.” He has completely missed the point of the analogy. The idea being conveyed was that genes and traits are delicately interweaved, that is, one gene could code for many traits, and one trait could be coded for by many genes. They all work together in the same way gears of a watch would, in a way such that changing a single detail in one component would affect many other parts. Now insert an aimless error into this careful coordination of genetic information, and what will you get? Will you improve anything? No, and that is why we’ve never observed a beneficial mutation.


“We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1958).

Con also mentions the idea of skin colors arising due to mutation that were passed down through generations. This is completely false, as somatic mutations aren’t transferred to offspring. Con believes in what is called Lamarckism, which was proven wrong. The different skin colors were probably already in the gene pools of humans when they were first created.


In Round 2, I discussed the fruit fly experiments done in hopes of proving that evolution can happen. During the experiments, fruit flies were exposed to x-rays which caused translocations, deletions, inversions, and more (what would normally be seen from regular, naturally occurring mutations) in the DNA code. Due to the short life spans of the flies and x-rays expediting mutation rates, mutations that would only be seen in millions of years of larger animals reproducing could be studied. No beneficial mutations were observed.

Con has denied that the results of these experiments prove anything, saying “All irradiation does is fill up our junk DNA structures with junk info and waste material and that eats it away fast, causing more possible chances of harmful mutations to occur within the readable DNA structures.” Con argues that mutations produced by radiation are much more likely to be harmful than naturally arising mutations. This is simply not true. All mutations, no matter how they are induced are harmful. And even if the results of these experiments were invalid, that still wouldn’t help Con, whom the burden of proof is on, show that beneficial mutations exist.

Evolution Hasn’t Happened

In Round 2, I rebutted the human-pig and human-ape similarity arguments by explaining that similarities could indicate a common creator. Con, however has refused to accept this and believes that two animals having genetic similarities undeniably proves that they both “evolved” from a common ancestor. He has not explained why the fact that there are similarities could not possibly be interpreted in other non-evolutionistic ways. Again, my analogies are misunderstood by Con, as the purpose of my comparisons are to show that similarities might be the results of a common designer. If a common designer made two different computer programs, they would be expected to have similarities in their code. Just as if a common designer created two different animals, they would be expected to have similarities in their genetic code.

Is Con suggesting that if Creation were true, humans, pigs, and any other animals would absolutely have to have completely different amino acids (in which case we wouldn’t be able to eat other animals), cells, tissues, organs, fluids, and structures? That would be pointless and wasteful. Similarities would be expected from a common designer. Similarities would also be expected from common ancestry. Thus similarities can’t be proof of either one.

“If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins.”—Thomas Hunt Morgan, “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species,” in Scientific Monthly (1923).

And the reason why humans have a higher percentage of DNA similarity with apes than with other animals is because humans’ bodies are more similar to apes than other animals. It has nothing to do with ancestral relatedness.

Con devotes four paragraphs basically saying Creation is religious, the Lochness monster does not exist, the New Testament supposedly has inaccuracies, and evolution isn’t supposed to be a religion. This completely irrelevant to the topic of whether or not evolution is supported with scientific evidence.

In Round 2, I explained that Neanderthal Men were probably men living during the Ice Age that had rickets and arthritis. Con, in response to this, has asked “If such a large group of people were so horribly afflicted with rickets and arthritis, then why not everyone?” The reason why some people had Neanderthaloid features was due to their location and lifestyles. Rickets was caused by lack of vitamin D due to dust and ash blocking sunlight (which is what caused the Ice Age from a Creation perspective). So people who were in areas with greater dust pollution and who stayed in caves for most of their lives would be more prone to developing Neanderthal characteristics than others. Additionally, Neanderthal would point to Creation more so than evolution because Creation teaches that earlier humans lived longer, and I have described how this would cause Neanderthaloid features in Round 2.

(“Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” in Nature, August 1970.)

In Round 2, I suggested that Indonesian Hobbits were most likely microcephalic humans, not a new species. The microcephaly would be due to deficiency in nutrition (which would occur because of where the Hobbits lived). The microcephaly would explain unusually small heads, deformed bone structures in many areas, and a lack of iodine would result in the Hobbits’ dwarfism. Con criticizes my explanation, saying “No bones have ever been found with Homo Floresiensis [the hobbits] to suggest that it was strange to be really short and have a really small head.” This is silly; of course microcephaly was normal amongst those people because it was being passed down through the gene code. If two of the Hobbits reproduced, the offspring would be microcephalic because the two parents, whom the baby’s genetic information came from, were.


Con has mentioned Java Man and Peking Man, so I shall rebut them.

Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois is complete imagination. Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. Dubois announced that all these came from the same creature and that he had discovered Java Man! That’s not science.

As for Peking Man, all that were found were bashed monkey skulls, teeth, and some tools. It was assumed that the monkeys were learning to use those tools and that they were evolving. In actuality, humans were using the tools on the monkeys to eat their brains. Many natives of Southeast Asia chop off monkey heads and scoop out the brains for dinner, and this is all that Peking Man was.

(Hank Hanegraaff, “The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution” (2001).)

I have argued in Round 2 that bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not evolution. A mutation would cause one of the bacteria’s crucial proteins to develop improperly. Most bacteria with said mutations would die, I agree. But sometimes, the bacteria would still live, but would struggle to survive and be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the population. However, the antibiotic wouldn’t be able to bind with the bacteria’s deformed protein structure, so the bacteria would live. Con says “If antibiotics were not introduced, then there was no challenge to overcome...” This is false, the bacterium would have challenges to overcome because of its mutilated cell structure. Other parts of the bacteria would have to work harder to keep it alive. Con needs to understand that when antibiotics are present, the bacteria population is in a restricted environment. You can’t say “This mutation is harmful in the bacteria’s normal environment, but if we put the bacteria in a certain condition, the mutation would result in beneficial outcomes, and that’s evolution.” The mutation isn’t truly beneficial. And when the bacteria acquired the mutation for its deformed organ, no new information, which evolution desperately needs, was added.


Con still uses the logic: A lot of scientists believe in it, and that proves that it’s true. I will not waste characters explaining why this is illogical, but I want to remind Con that the topic is whether or not evolution is supported with evidence, not whether or not the majority believes it.

Sources: Listed throughout argument.


It is stated by Pro that I have not been satisfactory in my duty to show scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. Though, I on the other hand think that I have done this and then some. For I have also shown how the discovery of Evolution improved science itself in many fields and opened us to many possibilities to think about the future, as well as show that we truly are creatures connected with nature itself. That we are all related and with thus, we should care for our environment, least we destroy what makes us what we are.

But, environmentalism isn't the subject of this debate. I shall end my closing argument with rebutting my opponent's attempts of dismissing and dismantling my arguments.


It seems Pro is still fixated on comparing malleable organisms with strict operation machines. Yes, it might SEEM that we have delicate, fragile coding to operate in a specific way. but this is an illusion, as we organism are made to be malleable down to the genetic level. If we operated one way, for one purpose, and one way only, we would have a faulty design and die out quicker than you could say five hundred years. We design machines to not be malleable so they can effectively do their tasks in a simplistic fashion for consistent and dependable outcomes. Comparing organisms and machines is a terrible, horrible analogy.

Think organic DNA coding more like writing a poem. Sure, you developed a writing style, got your own niche. But as your writing a new piece, you tripped up somewhere and added a new syllable or changed the structure of the phrase around. This in turn changes your scheme and makes you do a double back. But, come to find out, you prefer this way and alter your writing style. This happens with various artists with their writing, drawing, music making, and so forth. The evolution of art styles.

That's a much more relatable and accurate analogy, rather than organisms and machines. You may disagree in the comments if you wish.

Also, the idea of skin colors not being a passable mutation is hilarious. I must have forgotten the one time a white couple gave birth to a black baby while the wife wasn't sleeping around. In all seriousness, there is genetic coding traceable within Human DNA that decides skin tone which can be weaken or strengthened (look at albinos). The same is for plants, as we selectively bred bananas from their ugly brown coloring to a more appetizing yellow.

And I still stand by what I said that just irradiating random things is a bad thing to do that will offer only bad results. Beneficial mutations come from various trials by fire spread out over the course of time from multiple creatures with the trait surviving and reproducing. Just zapping some poor creatures with radiation to see how they horribly mutate isn't going to get the same result. You can't force things to change at a genetic level and expect good results, that's not how nature works. Change has to take its own time. Much like politics, nothing good will come from a blood-shedding revolution, you have to shape the government from within to produce good results with more happy results.


I never mention "Creator" or anything relating because I am arguing from the evolutionary stand point, from science's stand point. Science could care less about deities because nothing ever suggests a designer or a creator. We find out the natural processes in which things occur, and we figure out how it occurs. Nothing ever has ever suggested, without context, to there being a designer/creator. The only people that insert God into the equations are the ones that want to do so.

And again, we can't have genetic similarities without being related. To be genetically similar is to be genetically related. Genetics is what ties life together. I mean, sure you can have enough genetic diversity to be non-compatible. Like how we are to toxins being deadly, or how lions and tigers produce infertile offspring. But we still have some sort of similarity to a genetic level to make us relate to some degree.

And once more, from a scientific standpoint, deities are irrelevant. Because nothing ever points to a designer/creator. Nothing pushes this notion other than those that want to push this notion.

And I dedicated those four paragraphs to prove a point that apparently went over my opponent's head. He has, multiple times, said that we would propose Young Earth Creationism. So, for that, I waived my "no mention of Creationism" stance temporarily to show who Creationism is just a predetermined ideology asserted by primitive people who had no idea what was going on in the world around them. This is the twenty-first century, it's time we put our trust in scientists as they move our progression forward and we abandon frightful fairy tails of old. Science is learning and explaining how things came to be without having a Creator filling in the gaps of knowledge.

It is still ridiculous to have a whole species worth of people to be hugely affected with rickets and arthritis in such a way and not have a larger impact. Such as other creatures getting this massive outbreak of disabilities, nor any significant imprinting of such within our own gene pool. As, with them being unlucky Homo Sapiens, surely being a part of social species such as us would allow them to still mate and have offspring. Despite the fact that we have very little evidence of such cross-breeding occurring.

To rebut the dismissal of Peking and Java as simple mistakes. Do you really think we don't have means to check these sort of things to make sure that they're accurate? Comparisons to other bone structures? Scales? Various dating methods beyond just Carbon Dating? I believe my source last round will provide enough information as to how they came about identifying the subspecies of Homo Erectus.

I'm not going to go into anymore detail about bacteria being a prime example of evolution we can see in a lab. Fine, whatever, agree to disagree and let your perspective to be judge. But realistically speaking, a bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is a beneficial mutation for the organism overcame the challenge presented to them and survived while others of its kind died. This is survival of the fittest, doing what you can to survive. This day and age, a bacteria's greatest threat is antibiotics, if anything it's insulting that they can just get use to it and we have to up our game to get rid of such a small, single-celled organism.


Believe has no place within science, only testing results. Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many scientists have tried since the concept of Evolution and its theory was proposed to disprove it, or at least satisfy some curiosities. And guess what happened?

They came up with nothing but things to further support it, improve upon it, and integrate it into the fields of science (namely biology). To name any credible scientists to disregard Evolution as a natural phenomena and the theory as bupkis would be crucial in this argument as Evolution is set on a high pedestal within the scientific community. Pro seems to not understand how the workings of science itself works no matter how much I try to explain it.

Evolution itself has many things to prove itself as a natural occurrence. Single celled organisms adapting to their environments, whale vestigial hip bones, snake limbs, and the genome projects all show this fact. And the Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time and was attacked by many tests and studies and never once got proven, without a doubt, that it was inadequate or wrong.

All Pro managed to bring forward was someone asserting the "micro/macro evolution" nonsense and another one that claims evolution is useless to the field of science. Personal biases or lack of information/willful ignorance clouded their judgement or simply could not comprehend the concept at the time.


In conclusion, while Pro says that I have failed to show Evolution to be a scientific theory as well as a natural occurrence, I say he has failed in disproving my arguments showing that it was. I find that I don't need to list anymore sources and am confident my sources in previous arguments will carry what I have defended here.

Whether I win or lose, it does not matter. So long as I do the scientific community justice and have at least enlightened or piqued the interest of one mind out there reading this, then I am satisfied with my efforts.

Hope you have learned plenty, readers. And thank you Pro for a mentally stimulating debate.

Vote well.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago

I think the one vote we got was a bit biased, but whatever. It was still an interesting and fun first debate for me. Thanks for debating and good luck in your next debate.
Posted by NumingDisasterAnon 3 years ago
Fair game, Cook123, hope you have better luck in your next debate. Have a good one.
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago

I didn't mean that bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotic always harms them. A lot of times bacterial resistance can come due to natural variation and selection of pre-existing information in the gene pool. If the bacteria becomes resistant due to mutation however, the mutation would harm the bacteria in it's normal environment.
Posted by Greg4586 3 years ago
I'd like to ask ya a question. Do you have evidence about the adaptions to antibiotics being harmful to bacteria? If so I'd actually be really interested in reading about it, because I haven't really heard anything like that until now.
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago

Your bunny microevolution example is a bit misleading. The rabbits in Alaska didn't gain white fur as new information in the gene pool. All that happened was natural selection on natural variations, not mutations. Again, a better analogy to bacterial resistance would be the one I have mentioned before:

If someone is coming around, handcuffing people, and hauling them off to kill them, you'll live if you have deformed or no arms in such a way that the handcuffs can't get on you properly. That doesn't mean that the mutation that mutilated your arms was beneficial or that you're "evolving", it's just that the mutation resulted in beneficial outcomes in a certain condition. It is the same with bacteria having deformed proteins so that antibiotics can't bind with them correctly.

Remember: it's not that the mutation is harmful to the bacteria in a different environment, it's that the mutation is harmful to the bacteria in it's normal environment. The bacteria with a damaged structure would be at a disadvantage in any environment other than with the input of man-made antibiotics that can't bind to deformed structures. Just like having deformed arms would be considered a detrimental mutation in any environment other than the one described in my analogy.
Posted by Greg4586 3 years ago
"yes, the mutation allows the bacterium to survive in the presence of antibiotics, but in its normal environment, the mutation is detrimental."

We use the saying survival to the fittest while talking about evolution for a reason. Mutations are meant to make an organism survive better in the environment it lives in. For example let's take a bunny. Let's throw a few thousand in the US, now let's throw another few thousand in Alaska. While the rabbit's in the US are likely to remain having brown fur you will see that the Alaskan rabbit populations will develop lighter fur and eventually snow white fur overtime. White bunnies will be better fit to survive in Alaska, for they camouflage better and hide from predators.

Now this is an example of micro evolution and the rabbits did, in fact, evolve to better survive in Alaska. Now if we take Alaskan bunnies and ship them to Australia, the rabbits with white fur will die rapidly. This is because their evolution made them unfit to survive in an Australian environment, however the change is still evolution.

Do you see where I am going? It's still evolution even if the change makes said organism less fit to survive in another environment.
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago
Besides, vestigial organs are losses of information, not gains.
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago
Lol if you think hair is so useless and annoying why isn't everyone bald?
Posted by Cook123 3 years ago

I agree, an intelligent designer wouldn't create humans with useless structures. However, there weren't any when we were created.

I'm glad you corrected yourself with the vestigial whale bones argument, as many evolutionists still use it.

Hair is used for insulation and cooling, as well as protection.
Nails are used for protection and enhancing our finger sensitivity and movement.
Wisdom teeth exist because humans' jaws used to be larger, which is expected from Creation (because of longer lifespans). It is your interpretation that it is due to us being apes, but it isn't scientifically proven.

There are no vestigial organs that can't be explained by Creationists.
Posted by NumingDisasterAnon 3 years ago

I had mentioned vestigial organs in my closing post because there really is no way for a Creationist to argue against vestigial organs. Granted, I jumped the gun with naming whale hipbones, as there are thoughts that it might help them control their genitals during coitus.

Would it have been more fair to allow Pro some time to refute vestigial body parts? Maybe, but I saw it more as a side note than an actual argument. For instant, some clear vestigial parts of the human body are these:

Wisdom Teeth

From an Evolutionist stand point, we could see the hair being used to keep us warm before clothes, nails for weapons before tools, and wisdom teeth to help eat rough meals when we had a bigger jawbone. Now hair is there for annoyance and is unsanitary as it holds dead skin, houses insects, and traps excrement, nails are just inconvenient, and wisdom teeth detrimental to our health.

What can a Creationist say to refute? That the Creator thought these things were cool and just gave it to us? The God of the Bible gave us men foreskins yet he hated them and must be cut off otherwise we're breaking a sacred law. Don't think we can rely on him for making smart design choices, even he doesn't like his choices.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdventurerExplorer 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD on why Con Won