The Instigator
Im_Intelligent
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dukeofpanda
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

is Evolution a real and occurring process?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 114036
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Im_Intelligent

Pro

My argument is simple, evolution is a real process that effects every living entity

Evolution is proven via
*Fossil record
*Natural selection
*Genetics
*Geology
*Chemistry
*Mutation
*Experimentation and observation.

i look forward to debating you if you accept.
dukeofpanda

Con

I will accept your challenge, but I want to clarify a few things.

I am not going to argue that the fossil, genetics, geology, chemistry, mutation, and Experimentation aren't real. I know mutations happen and affect living things.

I am going to argue that these things aren't indicative of evolution, which is the theory used to explain the origin of life. for example, how mankind supposedly originated from apes.

Just want to make sure we're on the same page as to what this debate is about.
Debate Round No. 1
Im_Intelligent

Pro

Hello, thank you for accepting my debate, i also have a few things to clarify before i begin my opening argument.

1: Evolution is not the science behind the origin of life, thats abiogenesis, evolution is the science behind how all life diversified from a universal common ancestor after life formed to everything alive today.

2: You stated that you are aware that mutations happen, thereby you know what DNA is, thereby you know that genomes change, so why you dont think this process evokes change over time seems kinda self defeating? but i will debate it anyway.

-

Homo Sapiens did not evolve from the same apes we see today, rather Homo Sapiens and modern apes share a common ancestor from great ape species that diverged into two separate populations around six to eight million years ago.

However Homo Sapiens didn't directly emerge from that population, rather its related to that diverged population by decent.
From an order of species it looks like this

*Australopithecus > Australopithecus afarensis > Homo Habilis > Homo Erectus > Heidelbergensis > Homo Sapiens*

And this branch itself is full of common ancestors and separated populations, for example Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are diverging populations from Heidelbergensis.

When they say Homo Sapiens appeared 250,000 years ago, they dont mean thats the moment Homo Sapiens showed up, rather they are referring that the oldest known fossilized evidence of anatomically modern humans is dated to 250,000 years from central Africa.

One thing that you need to understand is that evolution isn't this drastic change from one species to another at a given time, as a matter of fact the term transitional form is pretty meaningless because every generation of every living thing is a transitional form, every generation is slightly different from the next, we have measured these mutation rates from everything from viroids to humans, the human mutation rate is 10-100 mutations per generation, most of these mutations are neutral, meaning they either have no function or are yet to have any, of course if a mutation comes along that is beneficial to a species, this will be selected for over those that dont, that is all evolution is mutation+natural_selection.
The human genome is about 3,000,000,000 base-pairs long "this is contently varying because of mutation" we know that only 45,000,000 base-pairs of this genome account for protein coding, the rest is "Junk DNA" which is most likely a collection of neutral mutations and retro-virus buildup, back to the protein coding genes, the genes that actually dictate our species physicality, since we know the average human mutation rate is about 55 mutations per generation, that means it takes about 8,182 Generations, or about 208,641 years for the human genome to change a measly 1%

I also want to point out that we have sequenced the DNA of neanderthals that lived around 40,000 years ago, we were able to figure out that Humans and Neanderthals have a differentiation in DNA of around 0.5% or in other words they are 99.5% similar, Homo sapiens didn't evolve from neanderthals however, they diverged from a common ancestor.

The point is, in large multicellier organisms like ourselves, our genomes are incredibly large and take a very long time for beneficial and selected mutations to make any noticeable differences in our physicality, thousands of generations just for the smallest noticeable differences, we are able to prove that humans and modern apes share a great ape common ancestor because of the following.

*The sequenced genomes clearly show a large similarity between humans and other modern great apes.
*The second half of our fused Chromosome #2 is a match for DNA found in modern chimps.
*Humans and great apes share features other animals dont, for example our ear shape is unique.
*The ancestors of modern great apes and modern humans aligns perfectly on the evolutionary tree and is consistent with
a gain or loss of features according to population divergence.
*The timescale shown in the fossil record is consistent with the average human mutation rate

Humans and modern apes evolving from a great ape common ancestor not only makes perfect sense, it is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests.

This is why we use bacteria and fruit fly's when we test directly observable evolution in a lab, there genomes are smaller, and there life span per generation is also far shorter, this allows for rapid evolution in very little time.

I give you this amazing video from Kishony Lab at Harvard medical school were they introduced bacteria into a environment that had progressively more and more antibiotics in it, throughout the video it shows these bacteria rapidly evolving resistance to these antibiotics and probligating throughout the environment, it is very interesting.
dukeofpanda

Con

Here's what the problem is, there is micro-evolution and there is macro-evolution. Slight deviations in the genome and mutations can be classified as micro-evolution and they can manifest as drug resistant bacteria and deformations. I have no interest in debating micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution on the other hand is the idea that slight changes can, over a large time scale, produce enough changes that a new species can be formed. Macro-evolution allegedly results in the species order you mentioned in regard to homo sapiens. It can also be used to try to explain how life could begin with single cell organisms and change into everything else.

I contend that macro-evolution is not real. Nor does the existence of micro-evolution support macro-evolution.

You try to explain that evolution isn't a drastic change from one species to another, but macro-evolution tries to explain that these drastic changes can occur given enough time; that is the very definition of macro-evolution. As convenient as it would be for you, you cannot simply dismiss macro-evolution or try to stipulate your own exceptions for convenience sake. Therefore, I reject your notion that evolution is not about drastic changes in one species to another because the very idea of macro-evolution is to explain how one vastly different species can originate from another species. No one is saying

You mentioned fruit flies and bacteria because you essentially view a sped up evolutionary process. This is a prime example that macro-evolution is not real. For decades scientists have been messing around with fruit fly mutations and the results have always been more fruit flies. All laboratory tests regarding mutations in the genome have NOT resulted in any entirely new species. The observed mutations in nature have resulted in variants within a species, but no real significant change; we don't have flies and lizards becoming anything else except flies and lizards. We have observed no real rapid evolution, no signs at all of macro-evolution in insects, or even bacteria. They remain flies and bacteria. There is absolutely no observable evidence to suggest that mutations have or ever can result in a drastic change of a species into another.

Just briefly, natural selection may favor certain characteristics and even mutations, but this doesn't result in macro-evolution either since no significantly new species is born out of this process. A Finch may end up different sized beak over a long period of time, but it's still a Finch and they've been Finches ever since Finches started showing up.

How about humans? Even if you could observe the same amount of generations of fruit fly and bacteria mutations with humans you'd find we'd still be as uniquely human as we are now. The same would apply to any other species of primate. Genetic variation included we would be the same.

And the Fossil record? The Cambrian explosion saw the sudden appearance of many different lifeforms on Earth with no fossil record to show that these animals evolved at all. There was no gradual process, they just showed up as if someone put them there. The resulting fossil record afterward does not support the macro-evolution of animals nor the emergence of mankind as we know it today.

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life," says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, "what geologists of Darwin"s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." According to the fossil record species show stability in their form until the day they go extinct. There is no macro-evolution.

What happens instead in regard to the depiction of the fossil record, is a misrepresentation; a lie in order to support a seemingly religious adherence to the idea of macro-evolution and mislead others into accepting it as well. What you often see in publications about the fossil record is a neat little progression of fossils and skeletons all lined up. What isn't being depicted is the actual size of the fossils and skeletons. What is often the case is that one fossil will actually differ so greatly in size that it would be laughable to think there was a link. The other reality is that the amount of time between the fossils is so great that in actuality there is no plausible links within the chain of progression. Biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, "possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times." He further says: "There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other. The representations we often find in books and magazines are fiction; developed to perpetuate the agendas of scientists whose livelihoods depend on the continued funding of their research.

As for humans, there simply isn't enough fossils. Most of what is found are miscellaneous partial skulls, bone fragments, and teeth. Very rarely are complete skeletons found and the amount of hominid fossils on hand is relatively small. Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, E"tv"s Lor"nd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: "The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate." This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: "The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested."
The fossil records DO NOT provide a perfectly aligned tree of progression that links modern man to anything. Apes have existed the way they are for however long there have been apes and humans have always been humans just the way we are now.

About neandethals, In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that "Neandertals may have been a true human race."

Macro-evolution is not supported by the fossil record or genetic mutation. Having DNA sequences match-up 90% or whatever is not a link either since there is no conclusive evidence to show that variations within a species (mutation) can produce a drastically different species. And yes, I would consider the differences between man and ape drastically different. The differences, no matter how small, in the DNA is enough to separate all life from each other without hint of evolution because... Macro-Evolution doesn't exist.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_Intelligent

Pro

i never added my own definition for what you call "macro-evolution" drastic changes do happen, including speciation, but these happen gradually over long periods of time, stating that it happens suddenly is simply a misconception of evolutionary science.

And the only difference between what you define as micro and macro evolution is time, thats litterly it, small changes occur over small periods of time, these changes add up over longer periods of time to bigger changees, thats all it is. the terms are useless, because its simply evolution.

The Cambrian explosion DID NOT happen in the snap of the figures as your are asserting, the massive explosion of the diversity of life shown in the Cambrian explosion took at least six million years, and the reason it happend then could be because the oxygen levels finally rose high enough in both the water and the air to allow for sufficient neurological function, in otherwards you could be more then just a sea sponge.

Fossilization is a very rare, mainly because you require very specific conditions and timing in order to preserve something, we also know that that living things without any sort of support structure tends not to fossilize often, if it even fossilizes at all, this is why we are yet to find more transitions that took place over that six million year time scale, however from the fossilized evidence we have been able to recover, we have been able to reconstruct entire skeletons because certain parts of a fossilized entite of the same given species have been found, we were able to use this to reconstruct an entire family tree of the known homo genus, stating that this evidence is inconclusive is simply ignorant.

Neanderthals were definitely not directly related to homo sapiens, the paper you sited was written a year earlier before we actually sequenced the neanderthal genome and confirmed this, neanderthals had similar DNA to Homo sapiens due to us having a common ancestor, however they dont share nearly enough for them to simply be a different branch of Homo sapiens such as native Americans or Europeans, the structure of a neanderthal is obviously different from even ancient homo sapiens, they were shorter, had thicker bones, bigger more elongated skulls, unnaturally large jaws that are definitely not from homo sapiens, large skeletal brow above the eyes, and there shins are located lower on there legs then homo sapiens.

Humans and neanderthals share a common ancestor, likely two populations of homo heidelbergensis were one population stayed in Africa, and the other ventured out into Europe, neanderthals may have been the first ones to have white skin as it would have been an easily selected for advantage in a colder and dimmer climate.

isolated human populations themselves begin evolving there own separate ways, Europeans and native Americans are great examples of this, and these difference occurred in a mere 10,000-12,000 years, and it wasent micro evolution, these were physical differences in both height and skin structure that cant be accounted for outside of isolated populations, macro-evolution and natural selection.

Also just because speciation can occur, doesn't mean it always occurs, the example you use for this is the fruit fly experiments i mentioned, they were kept in the same environment with only radiation as selective pressure, so there was no selective advantages over not being a fruit fly, as a matter of fact this did begin to happen, some of the fruit flys started developing less or more sensors in there eyes, and some even started loosing there wings, some even had half a wing, but none of this was selected for so it didn't have any bearing, and speciation by definition occurs when two species that diverged from a common ancestor can no longer breed with each other, which also happend in said experiment, in fact it was the first change that occurred.

The fossil record DOES support what you call "macro evolution" and it shows that the further back in time you go, the less complex and diversified life becomes, until we enter a world of complex cells, then simple cells, then nothing.

There were other lineages of species that existed at one point, however these all went extinct at some point in the past.

And we even have the fossil record for our evolutionary cousins, we know for instance that the common ancestor that led to both humans and chimpanzees, diverged from an even earlier common ancestor, which diverged into our common ancestor, and the common ancestor of gorillas.

So no they have no always been the same as you have been asserting.

Furthermore we know for a solid fact we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, we were able to demonstrate this because we only have 23 chromosomes unlike the 24 the other great apes have, we know that our chromosome #2 is infact a merged chromosome, with one of the merged chromosomes definitely belonging to chimps, thus confirming us sharing a common ancestor.

Furthermore there are a special type of virus called retro virus's that integrate there genomes into our genome, so if macro evolution is a real and occurring process, then we should be able to look at our evolutionary cousins and find a irrefutable pattern of retrovirus integration in the EXACT SAME PART OF THE GENOME, it happening any other way, especially in a positive pattern in support of common ancestory makes the lottery look like childs play, yet that is exactly what we have found, in fact as of 2018 we have identified almost 200,000 identical ERV's in humans other great apes with all following the pattern predicted by evolution on the macro scale.

http://jvi.asm.org...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The only suggestion i have for you is to give some sources for your claims that are more up to date and consistent with your argument, and little more research wouldn't hurt, especially on the Cambrian explosion.
dukeofpanda

Con

I'm not saying that macro-evolution entails quick drastic changes. Macroevolution is usually explained just as you say, through gradual changes over a very long period of time. The problem I have stated is that small changes never progress to a point to cause any drastic changes in organisms. I explained that species will go extinct before any observable major change can occur that would indicate macroevolution. There is no evidence supporting macroevolution, especially in the fossil record.

In regard to the Cambrian explosion I never stated it happened in a snap. Relatively speaking, in regard to the entire history of life on Earth, it happened in a short amount of time, to explain it in simple terms: Assuming that estimates of researchers are accurate regarding life on Earth. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field. At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period. During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step! Up until the Cambrian explosion the fossil record shows very simplistic lifeforms and then there was a unprecedented boom of diversity. This is not explained by any current fossil records. THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT MACROEVOLUTION IN THE SLIGHTEST. My sources are still relevant in demonstrating this, despite your claim to the contrary, especially considering there have been no new finds to prove otherwise. Artist recreations of animals based on incomplete fossils are also a joke and are heavily affected by bias in order to push an agenda. Again, there have been no recent significant advancements, or finds in regard to the fossil record to disprove me. You are wrong about the fossil record it does not prove macroevolution. And as I have shown there is still great discord in the scientific community about its use and representation.

Furthermore it is not solid fact that we share any common ancestors with chimpanzees. The existence of retroviruses does nothing to prove otherwise. I've looked up your sources on retroviruses. While interesting, I find they cannot be used to concretely prove macroevolution. The presence of similar retroviruses is not basis enough to prove evolution since there is no observations or studies showing the actual inheritance of these retroviruses from one species of organisms to another. Because MUTATIONS HAVE NEVER RESULTED IN THE DRASTIC CHANGE OF A SPECIES INTO ANOTHER; like say a chimp into a gorilla and then into a human or anything in between. Trying to assert that retroviruses prove otherwise is a logical fallacy (an argument from ignorance). There is no conclusive proof linking the two, especially since the fossil records cannot show macroevolution ever happened and laboratory experiments can't make it happen. A fruit fly born without wings is still a fruit fly! A person born with an extra finger or the inability to see color is still a human. These are mutations, sure, but they are not proof of macroevolution because the mutations never change an organism past a certain boundary; the organism is still what it is. Retroviruses can at best show a similarity between species much like how we say rats and humans have similar DNA.

Speciation does not prove macroevolution because all variants of species classified in this manner are still bound by certain limitations despite any mutations they may undergo. A different type of dog is still a dog. They may not breed together but they are essentially the same.

Macroevolution cannot be proven. Species of animals are shown to be stable throughout the course of existence. There is nothing that conclusively indicates any permanent changes from one species into another "completely different," and I mean beyond the classifications of speciation in regard to slight changes that marginally classifies one group into its own species, over the course of any amount of time.

The bottom line is this: All your evidence thus far cannot conclusively prove macro-evolution. Fossil history and real time observations of genetic mutations cannot corroborate macroevolution and retroviruses in actuality have no bearing on the matter; any inferences that it does is clearly shaped by bias and agenda. Really, bias colors the minds of you and your sources into drawing conclusions that aren't necessarily there and stating that macroevolution is real when such beliefs are no more sound than a child who believes in the tooth fairy.

I've looked up your sources. While interesting, I find they cannot be used to concretely prove macroevolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Im_Intelligent

Pro

Toothfairy and agenda huh?

Well your over simplification of earths time scale and the cambrian explosion was nice and all, but that doesnt change the fact that the cambrian explosion happend over a period of at least six million years, which is the equivlent to that little step you stated, and this is supported by the fossil record.

What i find very interesting however is that you seem to think the cambrian explosion happend, at least to the extent you would try to use it in an argument, you do realize that what we have found in setimate dating to the cambrian is a far diffrent world from today, you never find any rabbits or birds in the cambrian, of course unless you have some adopted notion i would be more then happy to hear it.

You undermined what i was saying regaurding the retrovirus's and called it ignorant, i wasent stating that just because we found simular retrovirus's means were related, was i was saying was more complicated then that, im not only refering to the same retrovirus's but retrovirus's in the exact same part of the genome "litterly down to the last basepair" that are not only there in that spot, but showed up consitant to what we see in the evolutionary tree, the reason this is evidence for common ansestory and not an argument from igorance as you simply asserted, is because the chances of a retrovirus, specificly the same retrovirus, intergraditing itself into the exact same part of the genome down to the last basepair in two diffrent species is laughably improbable, of course, this is easily explained if we had a common ansestor with chimpanzees, and this common ansestor had this retrovirus in its genome before it diverged into two serperate lingeages, and we have tested and varfiyed this.

You constantly assert over and over that there is no evidence for macro evolution, yet you completly ignore

*Fossil Record - including HUNDREDS of transisional fossils from more then just the Homo genus.
*Genetics

you say that genetics are inrelevent, which is not true in the slightest, then you say the fossil record is inconclusive because we dont have certain fossils of certain things, in other words.

Your saying in order for us to be able to confirm that macro evolution happens, we need to find all the transistion fossils, which isnt realistic, and nor is it required.

And there is little to no discord in the scientific community reguarding evolution, the only discord is the result of creationists creating a false equivlence fallacy among the populus.

"A different type of dog is still a dog. They may not breed together but they are essentially the same."

Sorry to debunk this statement, but if two dog populations were to divide, wether it be by natural selection, or artifical selection imposed by humans for breeding purposes, it doesnt matter if they look alike or not, if they can no longer breed with each other, there two seperate species, they are no longer dogs in the sence of how there common ansestor was a dog.

If you trace back the evolutionary decent of a chihuahua, it will merge with that of a ancient wolf species that existed at some point in the past, however your claim is that it doesnt matter if there is a drastic change in shape and size, or if they can or cant breed, in the end there still dogs right? well i can apply the exact same logic to humans and other great apes, humans are anthromorphicly shaped apes with bigger craniums and less body hair and smaller jaws, it doesnt matter if they cant breed anymore and look diffrent, in the end they are essentially the same.

so that arugment is pretty poor.

You also have not addressed

Human Chromosome#2
Definitive Human/Neanderthawl Seperation

Nor have you refuted why we share a great deal of DNA with other great ape primates, i really wish you would give an explination for this rather then simply labeling it ignorant.
dukeofpanda

Con

You're forgetting the entire period of time before the Cambrian Explosion where NOTHING happened! The fossil record showed no change in organisms for hundreds of millions of years. NO CHANGE FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. Something happened to diversify life, but it was not evolution because the fossil record showed NO GRADUAL CHANGES in life for HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF YEARS. Then in 6 million years a drastic and relatively sudden change in life given the long history of life Earth with NO CHANGE IN LIFE FOR THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE THE ^ MILLION YEARS OF THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.

Evolution was not responsible for the changes during the Cambrian Explosion because 1) fossil records prior show no evidence of changes in life indicative of any macro-evolutionary process whatsoever 2) the supposed progression of fossils during the period are grossly misrepresented with actual fossils varying in sizes so drastically that no connection is realistically possible; for example two skulls next to each other in the timeline may be shown similar in size when in actuality the second skull is 3 times the size and obviously not connected at all.

As for humans; Again, the fossils on hand are scarce. Pictures depicting the gradual progression of mankind are often based on bone fragments and teeth and a ton of artist imagination aka. LIES! There's like two samples of anything close to a full skeleton and even those aren't complete. The rest are literally skull fragments and bits and pieces. That's like trying to figure out the picture of a thousand piece puzzle with 10 or 15 pieces on hand.

The Fossil record disproves macro-evolution throughout the hundreds of millions before the Cambrian period or afterward and it isn't anywhere near complete enough to show macro-evolution throughout human history.

And here's why this retrovirus nonsense has nothing to do with macro-evolution.

There's a study concerning a retrovirus in Koalas that shows that some Koalas have a genetic predisposition to develop cancer and other diseases. CANCER! It kinda sounds like how some people have a genetic predisposition to diabetes and other health problems. It's bad genes, not some hokey pokey virus. It's not going to lead to macro-evolution into some new life form millions of years from now; its just gonna kill a bunch of Koalas. That makes more sense to me than trying to bend a genetic phenomenon to some religious devotion to proving evolution. Heck, I question if these alleged retroviruses are even responsible for the genetic traits scientists say they are.

You can't just claim retroviruses are responsible for every genetic difference. Sure we can ACTIVELY OBSERVE the changes the AIDS retrovirus causes in a person, but we haven't observed that a virus caused a change in genetic coding that caused the formation of placentas. I could even argue that it's highly unlikely to be a virus mutation since most mutations tend to be bad. Like with AIDS and Koala cancer. It's not unreasonable to claim that scientists shoe horn these ideas in wherever they can just to support their personal narrative.

The role of retroviruses in history is uncertain; there is no definitive link between retroviruses and macro-evolution because the similarities between genetically similar species is not definitely indicative of macro-evolution, or even retrovirus influence. Throwing terms around like evolutionary decent doesn't prove anything; its more accurately wishful speculation. Speciation can account for microevoultion, WHICH AGAIN I'M NOT DENYING THAT SOME LEVEL OF MUTATIONS CAN OCCUR WHICH RESULTS IN MICROEVOLTUION. That's why we have many kinds of frogs, many kinds of wolves, many kinds of apes, and many kinds of humans. But frogs have been frogs for a long time and they haven't change into something else. That would be macro-evolution and its a bunch of bullocks.

*Also, wolves can breed with dogs and their offspring can reproduce. The concept of speciation, or what constitutes a species is rather subjective and is actually a matter of debate within the scientific community. At one point in time White people did not reproduce with Black people. Should we classify them as separate species? An argument could be made to do so, but we don't classify Black and White people as separate species. But we do for dogs/wolves. Maybe it's not necessary. Maybe many of the title of species isn't necessary for everything we have classified as a separate "species."

Something else to keep in mind is the degradation of DNA. DNA starts breaking down fairly quickly, reaching a half life at around 500 years under decent conditions and even if frozen and preserved perfectly at the moment of death the DNA would only preserve for one million years before it begins breaking down. Trying to rely on the DNA of fossils hundreds of thousands of years old to accurately track genetic history is ridiculous. There's no way to know if the DNA of fossils of neanderthals or anything can reliably be used to track fine details in genetic history because it's near impossible for those samples to have been perfectly preserved at the moment of death. This could account for the confusion regarding the Neanderthal.

There simply isn't any definitive evidence to prove that Macro-evolution is a real and occurring process. Everything is patchy, or questionable at best. It's like mankind was given 10 random frames of movie that was 10,000,000 frames in length. You can guess what happened in the rest of the movie but don't try to tell me you KNOW. What's ignorant is claiming to know something to be real despite the obvious lack of understanding and evidence so apparent. It is reasonable to doubt, though.
Debate Round No. 4
Im_Intelligent

Pro

So because there was little to no change before the Cambrian, that makes it wrong, um okee

You have alot of misconceptions about the Cambrian explosion and evolution.

You say nothing happend before the Cambrian, this is not true, the Cambrian explosion was a point in which there was a huge divergence of multicellier life, it was not the point at which life went multicellier.

2.1 Billion years ago are when complex cells "Eukaryotes" the large cells with the nucleolus and mitochondria appeared.

We also know that a primitive form of algae and fungi entered the game around 1.2 to 1.9 billion years ago.

Anything before the Cambrian was the equivalent of a sea sponge at best, basically just a colony of complex cells with division of labor, it was around 541 million years ago over a period of at least 6 million years in which these life forms diverged into a multitude of aquatic species that no longer exist.

As for why the Cambrian explosion was so sudden as you assert it, Consider this, in order for a multicellier organism to perform complex functions like the movement of limbs, it needs a nervous system or equivalent, these often require alot of energy and oxygen in order to obtain sufficient functionality. Before the Cambrian explosion the concentrations of oxygen in both the air and water would not have been sufficient to allow for the complex systems we see in the simplest of fish such as flatworms, when the oxygen levels reached a certain point to allow of these systems, that means when they did show up via mutation, they were not useless, and could be used for basic functions, take this and run it for thousands apon thousands of generations and you will get a simple nervous system, more complex movement, and consequently a huge diversity of life.

Of course you going to want evidence that this was the case right, which is rational of course. Well it just so happens that we were able to figure out when the ozone layer "which requires oxygen" reached its sufficient peak, which also just so happens to have occurred around 600 million years ago, conscience? probably not.
https://www.albany.edu...

"You can't just claim retroviruses are responsible for every genetic difference. Sure we can ACTIVELY OBSERVE the changes the AIDS retrovirus causes in a person, but we haven't observed that a virus caused a change in genetic coding that caused the formation of placentas."

ok im going to explain this to you one last time in the best way i can.

When a retrovirus enters a germ cell belonging to the host, its genetic material becomes permanently integrated with its hosts DNA, and since DNA is passed on to the next generation of organisms the ERV also gets passed on, if all organisms came from a common ancestor, then the distribution of ERV's in the genomes should reflect that, in other words, a typically 500 base-pair long ERV whiten the three billion base-pair long human genome must be identical both in SEQUENCE and LOCATION to an ERV found in other species of primates, evolution is the only probable candidate for the existence of shared ERV's because the odds that a single ERV integrated itself into an identical location in two different organisms is approximately one in three billion. If evolutionary theory is correct then we should expect to find at least one common ERV between humans and chimps, as it happens we share around two hundred thousand identically placed and identically sequenced ERV's with chimps, in addition to this, studies of ERV's and other genomes have yielded statistical distributions of ERV parallels that allow us to categorize organisms by maximizing the number of shared ERV's and minimizing the number of differing ones, the end result is a phylogeny that is based exclusively on ERV's, and it also cross confirms the aforementioned chronological and structural hierarchies.

Please do some research, because the evidence is there, and it supports macro-evolution, and rejecting it because it doesn't fit your preconceived conclusion is an annoyance.

"Trying to rely on the DNA of fossils hundreds of thousands of years old to accurately track genetic history is ridiculous. There's no way to know if the DNA of fossils of neanderthals or anything can reliably be used to track fine details in genetic history because it's near impossible for those samples to have been perfectly preserved at the moment of death. This could account for the confusion regarding the Neanderthal."

First of all we dont use DNA over a certain period of time.
Second of the neanderthals DNA we sequenced was 40,000 years old
Third of all we have methods to test for DNA degradation
Forth of all if the DNA was degraded we wouldn't have been able to sequence it -_-
Fifth of all you completely direguarded everything i pointed about the neanderthals anatomy.
Sixth of all, the genetics results were consistent with two predictions.

*Homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred at some point
*Europeans should contain more neanderthal DNA then populations from Africa and etc, this was also tested and confirmed.

So no, there is no confusion, neanderthals were not a separate kind of homo sapien, if you think otherwise, go talk to the people who actually have the qualification and understanding to do tests like this, tell them they are wrong, present your ideology and evidence, get it varifed and peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize, and dont say they wont listen because they are ignorant, they are not, you have very little justification for you assertion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
https://phys.org...
http://www.fossilmuseum.net...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
https://www2.palomar.edu...
dukeofpanda

Con

Gah!

Sorry to punk out like this, but I have a stack of paragraphs to grade and provide feedback for in preparation for my students' upcoming finals and I was assigned to guest teach at an additional high school this week which meant a bit of prep over the last few days in addition to my normal responsibilities. I'm not a science teacher in case you were wondering, but I did manage to find time to read over your articles and I found that the results drawn by the authors were still very speculative. While the authors want to push hard for evolution if you don't get overwhelmed by the technical language of the articles a careful reader can see that everything presented is merely suggestion and not entirely conclusive. Oh, they want to heavily suggest their opinion, but in the end it's only suggestion. Even the researchers knew better than to claim declarations of reality based on their best guesses.

This makes sense since none of the suppositions by the researchers has actually been observed. Of course they want to push their opinions regarding their research, but the bottom line is there is really nothing there. There is no definitive link that slight variations in the DNA of somewhat similar organisms to Macro-evolution. That would almost be like claiming because my truck and your airplane have similar parts to a car that they all evolved from bicycles. Those things don't evolve, but the suggestion could be made if didn't know that for sure already; because we made those things and we know their history. And that's the point we know the history of airplanes. We don't know the history of life. It's impossible because we weren't here for it and most of it was lost through time.

All our discussion of the Precambrian period and the Cambrian Explosion yielded no actual fossils to confirm any process of definitive transformation from any organism, simple or complex, into something much grander. Even as new lifeforms began to appear in the fossil record it shows stability in that organism with no change until its extinction. You wanted to point out that just because the fossil record doesn't show these major transitions, due to the nature of the Earth at the time, it doesn't mean those transitions didn't happen. I can't disprove their existence to you and you can't prove their existence either. So they must exist? Well sir, that's just as much blind faith as some scientists accuse religious people of having.

And I will claim that any good scientist is relatively ignorant. A good scientists knows they don't really know anything, but they aren't going to stop trying to find out and they'll do it the only way they can; by measuring what they can, but they know there is the possibility there is more out there than they can currently measure. That's a good scientist in my books; they keep searching because they know they don't know.

Macro-evolution cannot be accurately and conclusively observed or measured therefore it is not real nor definitively occurring; it's a speculation at best.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
And for the sake of argument even if we didn't have any transitional forms we do know the history of life despite your repetitive assertions that we simply cant know.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
https://www.asa3.org...
http://www.fossilmuseum.net...

There are transitional forms in the Cambrian, i also stated earlier that organisms without any skeletal or support structure tend not to fossilize often, if they even fossilize at all.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
Didn't see the yeast cell thing till after I finished
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
Check this out.

This is an experiment were a clump of yeast cells was put under selective pressures, these cells had no division of labor at first, meaning they were kinda like cyanobacteria, they stuck together, but they were there own separate entities, eventually this clump through successive generations evolved simple division of labor allowing it to do things like break off only a certain part of the organism for reproduction.

http://micropop.cbs.umn.edu...
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
thats fine
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
Sorry for the late reply, I'm glad I could even get the argument off in time. I was gone on a two day trip for work.
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
Yeah... I'm a religious person, but I'm trying to keep this on topic. And there is no animosity, i hope, between Im_Intelligent and myself. Just an interesting debate of conflicting viewpoints.

I won't threaten with hellfire at the end of this either. haha!

The concept of hell as an eternal life of torture where the devil resides isn't supported by scripture anyway. It was a lie invented by the church to scare people into staying in order to make money. WHAAAAAT?!
Posted by dukeofpanda 3 years ago
dukeofpanda
The last sentence in my last post is a mistake. I put it earlier in the argument and forgot to delete it.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
Were talking evolution, not abiogenesis.

If i want to re-explain for the hundredth time to you why creating something like a lion from scratch in lab isn't how it works, just for you to undermine it, repeat yourself, threaten me with hell fire and other empty speculation, il let you know.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
quit lying?
You know you can produce a single piece of evidence that demonstrates evolution EVER creating a Living breathing animal From ANY of their experiments?

Science just PROVED Humans, and all other animal LIFE had to be CREATED to exist on Earth. HOW? Because NATURE by experimentation has PROVEN animal LIFE is impossible to form under nature or natural means. READ the Experiment papers moron! Here I'll help you ... check the work of 1858 Alfred Russel Wallace,1859 " Charles Darwin,1861 " Louis Pasteur,1863 " Gregor Mendel,1892 " Dmitri Ivanovsky,1915 J. B. S. Haldane ,1928 " Griffith, 1928 " Alexander Fleming,1943 " Oswald Avery,1944 " Barbara McClintock ,1950 Soviet biologist Georgy Shaposhnikov,1951 " George Otto Gey ,1952 " Alfred Hershey & Martha Chase ,1952 - Frederick Sanger,1953 " Stanley L. Miller & Harold C. Urey,1953 " Rosalind Franklin,1958 " Meselson"Stahl ,1960 " B. F. Skinner's,1964 Theodosius Dobzhansky,1965 " Leonard Hayflick,1966 Richard Lewontin ,1968 Geerat J. Vermeij ,1971 John O'Keefe,1971 Stuart Kauffman,1972 Stephen Jay Gould,1973 Eric Charnov,1976 Richard Dawkins,1977 - Frederick Sanger,1978 Michael Ghiselin ,1983 " Kary Mullis,1985 Peter R. Grant, Nancy A. Moran,1988, Richard Lenski's,1995 - Eric Cornell, Carl Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle ,1996 " Roslin Institute,1998, Theodore Garland, Jr,2001 " The first draft of the Human Genome Project ,2005 Jared Diamond,2005 " Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser,2006 - Shinya Yamanaka ,2008 Margie Profet ,2010 " J. Craigs, 2010 - The Neanderthal Genome Project,2011 Marc Hauser .

ALL of them FAILED to produce Live breathing animals, by abiogenesis it won't take you long ... just look at WHAT the made? easy to see it's bacteria, organism, can't pet it, it doesn't breath andcan't bear young ... therefore not LIFE?
you goober!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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