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

evolution=survival adaptation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
tahirimanov has forfeited round #2.
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: 8/12/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 103514
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)



like the advanced color patterns on a tigers fur, Tigers have distinctive white circular spots on the backside of their ears, which could make a another predator think its looking its direction, thus leading to its survival


Before I post my argument I always give the definitions, so that there will be no confusion over terms. Pro did not post any definitions, I will do it instead.

Evolution can basically be defined as (natural, biological) changes in organisms over time.

Survival - the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusualcircumstances.

Adaptation - the act of adapting; the state of being adapted; adjustment; something produced by adapting.

If Pro's definition of evolution (evolution=survival+adaptation) is true, then all evolutionary traits in biological organism should be explained in terms of survival and adaptation.

And secondly, as one wise man said, examples are not proof or evidence.

First we need a mechanism which explains the hypothesis of Pro. Secondly, we need observational data. Thirdly, we need falsification test and predictions. If hypothesis survives all of these and adapts to some unexpected observations, then I can consider assigning some truth value to the claim.

Debate Round No. 1


any example of evolution is sufficient to define evolution
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
selection isnt natural
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
any example of survival adaptation
Posted by JediDude 2 years ago
I would like to accept this debate. Though I have to be sure what the resolution is, because it is not entirely sure what it means. Do you mean that evolution is solely through natural selection as a means of survival?
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
machines are specified
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
ok, how is it evidence of intelligent design? ... no simply claiming it this time
Posted by Purushadasa 2 years ago
Different Species Prove Intelligent Design Science, Not evo THEORY
Any and all similarities between any two different species, including similarities in their respective DNA/RNA, their respective organs, and their respective behaviors, are evidence for Intelligent Design Science, not for so-called evo THEORY. In fact, scientific evidence for intelligent design is everywhere: Even if there were any "transitional forms" (which there have never been), such an imaginative scenario still would necessarily require an immense amount of planning, imagination, and implementation by an immensely powerful intelligent designer, with his own individual consciousness, as well as a personal desire to create such a scenario. Just as the similarities among different vehicles indicate the same intelligent designer, and the similarities among different telephones indicate the same intelligent designer, so the similarities among any two different species also indicate the same intelligent designer. Related short video:
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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