The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
platoandaristotle
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There is No Evidence in Favor of evo THEORY

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 3 votes the winner is...
platoandaristotle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,567 times Debate No: 103410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

evo THEORY is nothing but a biologically impossible myth
that has never happened, is not happening now,
and shall never happen in the future.
Prove me wrong and win $5,000.00 by watching this short video:
platoandaristotle

Con

I don't plan to watch that video, becuase it is age-restricted by YouTube.
Could you perhaps summarise yout point?
Even creationists agree that there is evidence for evolution (and yes, it's a theory, meaning that it's not a hypothesis and is supported by some evidence). Let's go over some of it.
1. Fossils
There is a clear and documented progression of fossils throughout the fossil record, including hundreds of fossils of transitional species like Ambulocetus natans(pakicetid to whale) and Homo habilis(Gorilla-like ape to human).
2. Microevolutionary experiments
There have been experiments in which new species are created in a lab - in fact, several have been done with flies. New species can develop in small, isolated populations of flies after several years.
Ever wonder why you have to get new flu shots every year? It's because the flu virus is evolving to evade detection by your immune system, and flu shots boost the ability of said system to detect the new virus.
Also, if you watch news regularly, you've heard of a strand of bacteria that cannot be killed by any known antibiotic.
If (as is very likely) life on earth has been aroud for billions of years, it is probable that evolution happened on a larger scale.
3. Imperfection
The human body has several "vestigial" organs - organs with no clear purpose. The wisdom teeth, tailbone, and some ligaments are examples.
Also, there are several examples of "bad design" such as the fact that images are reflected on the retina upside-down and that the brain is more emotion-driven than reason-driven.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Because you're underage, here's the rated "G" version:
platoandaristotle

Con

Alright, so you want me to refute that video! Fine.
First, read my previous statement in full for evidence of evolution.
Inter-species propogation is not required for evolution unless you don't understand it. Evolution is about the development of new species through a series of beneficial mutations leading to genetic isolation.
As for two species which have successfully propogated - it depends on what you mean by successful.
Housecats and wildcats (different species) have been bred to create fertile children, though with varying degrees of success - Savannah cats are an example.
Lions and tigers have bred to create infertile "tigons" in captivity.
But let me remind you - those have little to do with evolution.
The link that Ockham gave you is a list of Wikipedia articles detailing these hybrids - take a look at those.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Inter-species propogation is required for evo THEORY to be true unless you don't understand it.

"Savannah cats are an example."

You mentioned housecoats and Savannah cats.

Are you alleging that housecoats and Savannah cats have ever produced genetically viable offspring? If so, then please provide evidence for that claim.

Lions and tigers have bred to create infertile "tigons" in captivity.

Yes, and infertile tigons are not a genetically viable species.

You lost the debate.
platoandaristotle

Con

https://en.wikipedia.org... - Savannahs are bred between servals and domestic cats. They can then breed with other domestic cats to produce less wild Savannahs.
Looks like you still have failed to refute my opening. Fossilization works when empty areas in an organism are filled with minerals. That is not exactly complex.
Speciation happened in a lab - did God intervene? I don't see the need for a God in order for random mutations to genetically isolate a species. http://darwinwasright.org...
"You lost the debate"
I'll let the judges decide that. I ask them to look at the comments as well.
Now that I have shown you the Savannah cat, where's my 2 bitcoins($5000)?
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 21 through 30 records.
Posted by Ockham 3 years ago
Ockham
I can't vote on this debate, but I have some advice to help both of you improve.

1. You both need to do more research on this and learn more arguments for your side. Pro only had one argument which did not really provide evidence for creationism. Con provided several arguments (which Pro dropped), but the arguments were not fleshed out and the logical connections between the arguments and the conclusion that evolution is true were not clear.

2. Sources! You both need to provide more sources for your arguments. It took dozens if not hundreds of studies to establish that the theory of evolution is true (in my opinion). You don't have to cite all of them, but there should be a lot of links in a scientific debate like this.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
If new species produced as hybrids are not required for evo THEORY to be true, then the alleged new species produced as a hybrid that you posted would not have been evidence for evo THEORY anyway, even if your attempt had succeeded, so you lost.

Also, that means that your attempt was irrelevant to the subject of the debate, so you lost doubly.

In addition to that, your alleged new species is not a genetically viable new species anyway, so you lost triply.

Thanks for your time!
Posted by platoandaristotle 3 years ago
platoandaristotle
Puru: Well, as I said, new species produced as hybrids are not necessary to evolution anyway. If you deny that the Savannah is viable, then no wonder you're willing to give out the 2 bitcoins you don't have.
Your chances of winning this debate, by the way, are equal to the chances that your salary is paid in bitcoins.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
"Savannahs are bred between servals and domestic cats. They can then breed with other domestic cats to produce less wild Savannahs."

Savannash are not, therefore, a genetically viable "new species," so you lost.

Fossilization works when empty areas in an organism are filled with minerals. That is not exactly complex.

Yes, it is complex, and it requires input from an intelligent designer, so you lost.

Speciation has never happened anywhere, so you lost.

Now that I have shown you the Savannah cat, where's my 2 bitcoins($5000)?

As far as the $5,000.00 is concerned, you failed to provide any evidence of the two species you mentioned producing a genetically viable "new species," so you lost and you're not getting jack squat. Actually, there is no example in the history of the world of inter-species propagation ever having produced a genetically viable "new species:"

That fantasy scenario of yours is merely your faith-based religion -- not observable science.

you need to re-watch the video because you lost both the debate and the challenge by your ignorance of the rules. Thanks for your time!
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
I don't need a new flu shot every year, actually. I am a Physician, kiddo.

Fossilization contains specified complexity, and therefore it requires the input of an intelligent designer.

Speciation is a myth that has never happened, but if it had, then it would also require ID for same reason as above.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Also, I debate persons, not links.
Posted by platoandaristotle 3 years ago
platoandaristotle
Puru: How about the fact that you need a new flu shot every year? Seriously, just ask your doctor.
And why is an intelligent designer needed for fossilization or speciation? If you want an explanation I can provide it for how fossilization and speciation occur.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
You have not posted any evidence of any supposed "evolving flu virus." All of the activities that you mentioned necessarily require the input of an intelligent designer, and none of it could possibly happen without one. Therefore all of the data that you supplied is evidence for Intelligent Design Science and is against the belief in evo THEORY, so you lost.
Posted by platoandaristotle 3 years ago
platoandaristotle
Purushadasa: Explain how this evidence supports intelligent design. How exactly does an evolving flu virus support intelligent design?
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Also, all of the evidence you posted is in favor of Intelligent Design Science, not in favor of evo THEORY, so you lose.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaplatoandaristotleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.
Vote Placed by QueenDaisy 3 years ago
QueenDaisy
PurushadasaplatoandaristotleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not provide any actual arguments, as external links may only be used as sources, not arguments. Pro provided evidence for evolution, and hence wins arguments. Neither side had any conduct or SP&G issues. Both sides provided sources, but neither stood out as more reliable than the other.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
PurushadasaplatoandaristotleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro placed the burden of proof on Con in the first round by saying, 'prove me wrong.' Con gave three lines of evidence in his opening to show that there is evidence for evolutionary theory. pro never offered a rebuttal to those lines of evidence, so Con wins the debate. links do not count as arguments. Con had no obligation to respond to the video.

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