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

evolution is not a theory, It is an unconfirmed hypothesis

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous 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: 7/26/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,188 times Debate No: 116865
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)



For the first round please just accept, Arguments will start next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Unfortunately, Most of the population today believe in evolution, More specifically macro-evolution. But believe me when I say that it is not because of the evidence. You will understand this concept as you read. But anyway Macro-evolution is the belief that life started as one organism and that organism reproduced and slowly developed into million of species in a process that took millions and millions of years. For example, It is believed that in the space of 2 million years, A dog can develop into a horse. A fish can develop into a bird and so on. In this round, I am going to attack the overall concept of macro-evolution from these Scientific standpoints: The details of the fossil record, Structural homology, Molecular biology, And mutualism.

The Details Of The Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macro-Evolution

If Macro-evolution really happened, The first place you would look for confirmation would be the fossil record. After all, If dogs did eventually give rise to horses, Then we should be able to find fossils of animals somewhere between a dog and a horse. These are called transitional forms because they represent a transition from one species and another. Unfortunately, Very few of these were ever found. And even those were highly questionable. So instead of finding the transitional forms that paleontologists thought they would find, They found mostly gaps. The core of macro-evolution argues that species give rise to species in a slow, Gradual process that takes years on top of years. But the fossil record reveals a very different story. This is the sudden emergence of entirely new species with no apparent immediate ancestors. Consider this for a moment. Macro-evolution attempts to explain the earth's past. But because we don't have anyone who lived 20 million years ago to tell us that macro-evolution happened, We have to look for data that either support or refute the idea. The first place to look for data would be the fossil record. What does it tell us? It says macro-evolution never happened. The transitional forms that would be necessary for one life form to change to another simply do not exist. If the STRONGEST piece of data to tells us that macro-evolution never happened, Scientists simply should not believe in it.

Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution:

Now to my next argument. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, It is important to understand why it was originally believed to support macroevolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, Then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs.
http://itc. Gsw. Edu. . .

In this example, The limbs of humans and cats, And horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, He supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, Give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, This would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this happens because of Mendelian genetics. You see, If structural homology was the result of common ancestry, It would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, The link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, Horse, Cat, Bat, Bird, And whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, They find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, There is absolutely no way that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, Then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. We know that this isn't even remotely close to the truth.

Molecular Biology: Strong evidence against macro-evolution

Aside from DNA, The most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, There would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below.

https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1rN6jYckpQfu3VTflNWTyj2a8g38l6L78_rYlZHHkw3Y/edit

Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, The cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, You are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, That is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, Then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, That should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, Let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo.

Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9. 1% difference

When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, There are 4 differences.

4/11 x 100= 36. 4% difference

This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " Well, If this were true, Than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species.

https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1V_4ApE6bQ7nMZE-hd16NOpJ8QBYIO8nZ2RLwlk02FtE/edit

The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms listed, The yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, Then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, The yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, It is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened.

Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution:

Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible.


Today there is just too much data that Macro-evolutionists completely ignore. There are a few reasons so many people believe in it today. One, If Macro-evolution is not true than you have to accept that there is a God in the equation. After all, There really isn't any other explanation other than evolution of how life originated. Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. Another reason so many people believe in evolution is because for the most part it is not allowed to be taught in high school classrooms and college classrooms. Thus, Because the idea of evolution is so universal, It is the only thing that students have to base their beliefs on. There aren't many people that believe in God these days so their only option is to put their faith in science. But those people have to understand one thing. Science will fail us, Everything in this life will.

Sources posted in comments


Fossil Record: Obviously, The counter argument is that, Of course, Transitional fossils have been found. They are consistent with what we'd expect if macro-evolution did occur. Take Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik as examples. Archaeopteryx clearly shows an early link between dinosaurs and birds. Tiktaalik has many features of both fish and tetrapods. They are not at all "questionable".

Structural Homology: Needs a better source. None of the sources you have provided are primary peer-reviewed sources. And pending the truth of the statement " the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes", Structural Homology seems like a fairly good argument in favour of macro evolution. Why else would a whale have vestigial bones that are analogous to land-based mammal bones

Molecular Biology: The counter argument here is that simple does not mean similar. The idea that bacteria and yeast are closely related because they are simple is false. This is because even though such organisms are simple, Doesn't mean they don't also evolve over time and differentiate themselves from other species. The most obvious piece of evidence for this is that only bacteria have prokaryotic cells. Other living organisms have eukaryotic cells. This is a fundamental schism between living organisms and explains why yeast and horses, Having eukaryotic cells are more closely related than yeast and bacteria and is represented as such in the data provided.

Mutualism: Apart from this point being a fallacious argument from improbability, It's also a misunderstanding of evolution. Different characteristics do not randomly pop out for no reason. Organism populations are pressured to evolve purely based on what best allows for them to survive better and this process occurs over tremendously long periods of time. In this particular example, It's not a matter of either fish species having to suddenly develop specific behaviours. Only that, Over time, Individuals (of either species) that engaged in either behaviour tended to live longer and hence had a greater chance to pass on characteristics that favoured such behaviours. The same can be applied to the development of the teeth. As an added note, This is an example of micro-evolution, Not macro-evolution, So I'd also question its relevance given the focus of the initial points.
Debate Round No. 2


Before I go into my main argument let me address the issue of biased sources. Creationist sources are not biased and here is why. Evolution does not necessarily refute the idea of a God. Why? Because God could have created life with an evolution effect. It isn't inconsistent with scripture and is very well possible. There is absolutely NO REASON for creationist sources to be biased one way or the other. However, There is a reason for atheistic sources to be biased. If evolution is not true, Than what other explanation is there to the origin of life? If evolution is false, Then they have nothing else to cling on to. They would have to admit that there is a God. BUT GUESS WHAT? They don't want to do it. No matter how much evidence there is against evolution, Atheists will still be self-deceived into believing something that has no real evidence to back it up. That is exactly why I think it is unfortunate that so many people believe it today.

Fossil record: There are a few POSSIBLE transitional forms that could support evolution, But it's just not enough. If evolution is such a slow process that takes millions of years, Than we should be finding thousands, If not millions of transitional forms. After all, If one species evolved to another, Then it really shouldn't be that hard for us to find transitional forms. But that is not the case. Very few were ever found. Mostly gaps were found. And until we find a decent amount of them, Scientists simply should not put all of their faith in evolution.

Structural homology: "Structural Homology seems like a fairly good argument in favour of macro evolution. Why else would a whale have vestigial bones that are analogous to land-based mammal bones" 150 years ago, This would be a very convincing argument. But This doesn't happen because of common ancestry. It happens because of genetics. And if it were common ancestry, Then the corresponding parts of DNA to the homologous features should be similar. But they are not. They aren't even close to be called similar which means there is absolutely no way that they could have been inherited from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology: My entire argument in this section disproves a very common assumption in evolution. "Complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " It logically follows from this that yeast would have to have evolved from a bacterium. Otherwise, The bacterium would have to have made quite a jump to another species. But here's the thing, Molecular biology disproves this very common assumption. If evolution really happened, Then there would have to be several very large jumps from species to species. A bacterium would have to evolve to a much more complex organism in a very short amount of time. Remember, Molecular biology proved that a bacterium simply couldn't have evolved to a yeast because of there very many differences. You take away that transition you are left with some very large gaps. Those gaps are the many questions evolution hasn't answered, And probably never will. To me it doesn't make sense why scientists believe in something that has such little evidence to back it up.

Mutualism: Ok, So traits don't pop out for no reason. They are still dependent on each other though. In other words, Even if the oriental sweetlips had wanted the wrasse to clean it's teeth, The wrasse would still have to be in the right place at the right time. And I mean EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE, And EXACTLY THE RIGHT TIME. If even one of the following didn't happen, This mutualistic relationship would not have happened.

1. If the sweetlips had mistaken the wrasse for a free meal.
2. If the wrasse had a genuine fear of being eaten.
3. If the sweetlips had not known it needed it's teeth clean.
4. If the sweetlips decided to eat the wrasse when it was done with it's work.
5. If the wrasse had not known that the teeth were an actual food source. (I mean come on, Why not go after a fish his own size! )
6. If the wrasse and sweetlips had not made their own set of decisions at exactly the same time.
7. If the sweetlips didn't intuitively know what the wrasse was doing.
8. If the wrasse didn't instinctively know that the sweetlips was indeed a perfectly harmless creature, Despite the fact that it was just about 5 times it's size with big sharp teeth.

I could go on, But the list would be way beyond 10, 000 characters. And get this. There are millions of relationships like these with millions of unanswered questions. In the end, You are right, You do find SOME evidence for evolution. The archaeopteryx could point to a possible transitional form. Some parts of the fossil record could support evolution. But it isn't enough. Molecular biology, Mutualism, The fossil record, And structural homology all say that evolution never happened. So in the end, To believe that evolution happened you are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data, While IGNORING the MOST reliable data. That is not good scientific practice

I look forward to reading your response.


Allow me to also address sources even though it's not really a main focus. Firstly, It's true that creationist sources need not be necessarily biased against evolution. Indeed even the current pope wholly agrees with it (with your proposed interpretation specifically). However, Neither you nor the pope are representative of all creationists and for many of them, Evolution is contradictory to what a typical religious text states, Especially when taken in its most literal sense. Hence, There is a reason for creationist sources to be biased. Indeed, A quick google search reveals many biased sources.

In the case of atheistic sources, The key point here is that evolution and creationism are not equivalent explanations for the development of life. For there to be bias against creationism, I feel that there must be some sort of scientific equivalency. Of course, The best policy overall is to carefully review sources to determine their reliability.

In the case of the sources you have provided, You'll note that :

1. They are biased in favour of creationism
2. They either provide no evidence for their claims or the evidence lacks scientific rigour
3. Lack any sort of peer-review process

In short, They are the equivalent of me creating a website that states that there is a teapot that orbits the earth, And using said website as a source to argue that there is a teapot that orbits the earth.

Fossil Records: Your assertion that we should be finding thousands, If not millions of transitional forms is based on faulty reasoning. While I understand that you've made the connection that if there were lots of animals, There must've also been lots of dead animal bodies, You've failed to take into account the destructive effects of time, The rarity of the fossilization process and the ability for humans to find and identify fossils at all.

Structural Homology: I believe I mentioned this in my last post but I'll expand further. While I don't mind logical arguments, If you're going to base an argument on a specific fact that cannot be readily googled, I need a reliable source that specifically states what you've claimed. This source must provide evidence for it's claim if it's not a primary source, As well as being scientific in nature. This is called the burden of proof. If you assert something, You must provide evidence for it otherwise it can equally be dismissed without evidence.

Molecular Biology: Your reply wasn't very coherent so I'll just comment on what I understood and hopefully clarify things. When you say yeast would've had to have evolved from bacterium, Just to be clear, This isn't a direct relationship from modern bacteria to modern yeast. It would be a relation from some sort of primordial bacteria to a modern day yeast, Meaning an innumerable number of generations have passed between them.

There wouldn't have to be some very large jumps between species, And I don't understand why you think so. Again, Evolution is a gradual process, Not a sudden one.

Finally, When you're talking about molecular biology, You are talking about a study between modern day yeast to modern day bacteria. As previously mentioned, Both the yeast and bacteria would've had an innumerable number of generations until their common ancestors. Hence, They should be very very different. In your previous post you mentioned that yeast was more related to a horse than to a bacteria. This is because on an evolutionary scale, The common ancestor between yeast and horse was closer than the modern day bacteria and yeast ancestor.

Hence the molecular biology is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.

Mutualism: I still feel like you don't quite understand. Evolution doesn't occur to specific individuals. It occurs to populations. Perhaps one of your many reasons did prevent hundreds of such occurrences from happening. Perhaps thousands or millions. The key point of evolution is that in the occurrences that it did happen, Both fish had better survival rates than the ones who didn't. They were more likely to reproduce. And hence over time, The fish with the genes that gave a better survival rate out-competed the fish that didn't.

Regardless, While I understand what you're trying to say here, Improbability is not in and of itself an argument against evolution. This is called a fallacy. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that causes an invalid argument. Specifically, This fallacy is called an appeal to probability. Just because something is unlikely to happen, Doesn't mean it didn't happen

When context is added to your argument, Along with the missing information and explanation of false reasoning, It becomes quite clear that your arguments do not support the resolution that evolution is an unconfirmed hypothesis. What I can see is that your arguments sum up to one point in particular: you feel that there is not enough information to warrant acceptance of evolution

To address this:

Firstly, I would argue that there is enough information, Just that it is not well understood. The prime example of this is in your arguments. I've pointed out multiple flaws in your understanding of evolution, Some extremely basic. How can one justify not having enough information if the information that they currently possess is poorly understood in the first place?

Secondly, Even if someone were to understand evolution well and were to still objectively argue that there wasn't enough information, I would say that evolutionary theory is consistent, Predictive, Well supported and lacks competing explanations. For example in the fossil records, Transitional fossils have been predicted and found. Those fossils are consistent with what is expected in evolutionary theory. We know that this is consistent due to observable supporting information like micro-evolution. The good scientific practice then is not to ignore all this collaborative data and conclude evolution is false, But to accept it until proven otherwise.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 13 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
here we go again
Posted by ArguingPerson123 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm pretty sure an unconfirmed hypothesis hasn't been witnessed. Evolution has been witnessed in bacteria and even some lizards, Look it up if you want to know more. So, Unless you can show me another way life developed besides sky-daddy, I'd say evolution is a strong theory that holds quite a bit of ground.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
You can prove evolution "a million" ways. Not one way to prove anything else.
This debate has 0 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.