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

is evolution real?

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 #3.
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: 6/4/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 114954
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)



So sorry I did not respond to your last argument. Our family was on vacation so I didn't have enough time to post my argument. Could you copy and paste your last argument so we can start again?


If Humans and other species of primate came from a common ansester, we should find evidence of this in our DNA, first lets take a step back and considor evolution from the prespective of Darwin, he proposed a metaphorical tree of life whose branches were defined by the Linnaean taxonomic classification scheme, that is the familial relationships between life forms were organized around their morphologys, Darwin published origins of species almost a century before the discovery of DNA which was later used as one of the primary basis for classifying organisims and whats now known as phylogenetics. If evolutionary theory is correct, if we compare Linnaean hierarchy of genetic ones we should expect a significant overlap, and this is exactly what we find, DNA cross confirms Linnaean taxonomy more then 80% of the time, in other words DNA tells the same story as Darwins tree of life, DNA is also incredibly useful for determining various aspects of populations, for example the hardy-weinberg equation which serves as the basis for paternity tests, can be used along with with distint gene markers to calculate when life forms diverged from a common ansestor, we can use the mathamatical models brought to us by differential equations and apply them to DNA to determine that Europeans broke off from Africans 50,000 years ago, that the Homo-genus broke off from other primates around 6,000,000 years ago and so on. Next considor the chronological order of organisms in the fossil record, if evolutionary theroy is correct, then we should find that their placement in history corresponds to the mathematical extrapolations involving DNA, and that both of these chronological hierarchies should correspond to the aforementioned morphological and genetic family trees, and guess what, thats exactly what we find. Why is it that every avenue of biological categorization consistently points to evolution from a common ancestor, the only mathamatical models that are able to account for the overlap of diffrent taxonomic trees are evolutionary algorithms, evolutionary theory not only is sublime in that it accurately tells us what we should expect to find but also in that it tells us what we shouldent expect to find, it is also useful to define the term "vestigial structure" a vestige is a structure whose function has changed, but it doesnt necessarily have to be useless, its also useful to define the related term "atavism" which refers to the reappearance of a characteristic unique to an organisms ancestor. The relevance of atavisms and vestiges to evolutionary theory is that if we all came from a common ansestor, our DNA should have metaphorical extra baggage from our ancestors, and that should be expressed both molecularly and morphologically, moreover the extra baggage can belong only to the lineage of the organism in question. We expect to occasionally find semi-functional tails in humans, remnants of teeth in birds and hind fins on dolphins as extra baggage from their ancestors, but we also never expect to find bones or their remnants in invertebrates, celluose in animal cells, or memories on amphibians because these features are not found in any organisms in these examples respective ancestries, the fact that atavisms and vestiges fulfilled this prediction with zero condradictions with any of the hierarchies that ive already mentioned serves as extreamely powerful evidence that all organisms descended from a common ancestor. In fact, evolution is the only theory capable of explaing psychological atavisms and vestiges, one example of such is of human infants instinctively knowing how to float when placed in water, before loosing this abillity after a few weeks, and another is of the abillity of over a third of all infants to use the palmar grasp reflex to support their own body weights with their hands and feet, which is a feature prevalent in juvenile members of other species of primates that is used to keep the baby latched on to the mother, because there are no grip points on a human female for her baby, this reflex is vestigial and like the aforementioed flotation reflex, it generally disapears in a matter of weeks. Again, only evolutionary theory is caplable of explaing the existence of this extra baggage, yet another prediction that evolutionary theory has accuratley made concerns endogenous retroviruses, which can be regarded as vestiges at the molecular level, 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 basepair long ERV withen the three billion basepair 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 exitence of shared ERV's because the odds that a single ERV intergrated itself into an identical location in two diffrent organisims 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 thousond identicly 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 catergorize 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, finally we get to one of the most famous pieces of genetic evidence for common ancestry between humans and other great apes, all of the great apes that are not human posses 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans only have 23 pairs. If evolutionary theroy is accurate then the common ancestor to all great apes had either 23 pairs of chromosomes or 24 pairs of chromosomes, if the former is correct, then the ansestors unique to the other great apes must have had one of their chromosome pairs divide into two independent pairs of chromosomes, and if the latter is correct, then the ansestors unique to modern humans must have had two pairs of their chromosomes fused into one larger paie, in either case, there would be signs that such an event had taken place, and if evolutionary theory is accurate, then we should expect to find those signs, as it happens, we did find it, the percise location of the fusion site on human chromosome#2 was located in mid-2006 successfully vindicating yet another prediction of evolutionary theory, this was an extreamly short list of obserable and testable evidence for evolution that comes only from genetics, other evidence strictly from the feild of genetics and biochemistry would include
*non-ERV molecular vestiges
*molecular convergence
*Roles of gene duplication
*addition of new nucleotide combinations to DNA
this is without going into the mountains of other evidence that includes thousands of discovered transisitonal forms, dozens of witnessed speciation events, and the perfectly consistent geological record, this perfect geological record is filled with a large number of very simple predictions and il list just a few of them here.

If evolutionary theory is accurate, then the following predictions will hold.

*You will never find Aviance in sediment older then the Jurassic
*You will never find Amphibians in sediment older than the Devonian
*You will never find Primates in sediment older than the Cretaceous
*You will find only aquatic life in sediment older than the Silurian
*You will never find a fossilized Rabbit in the Precambrian


: Macro and micro evolution.
This is probaly one of the most pathetic consepts ive herd, the terms macro and micro evolution were derived from christian/creationists who obviously dont understand what they are talking about, they say that micro evolution is "adaptation" and theirby not really evolution, they often apply this pathetic construct to dogs and rabbits, however, what they have failed to understand is that in order for something like the change of skintone or a change in fur color to occur, this requires modification of the genetic code which can only happen through mutation for this to happen in the first place, it also requires natural selection and selective pressures in order for these advantages to be carryed out through the majoirty of a species population, and probaly the biggest failure of all, is that macro evolution and micro evolution are the EXACT same thing, the only diffrence is time, they fail to realize how these slight changes in short periods of time end up adding up to bigger changes over long periods of time.

*Christian/creation micro evolution logical failure*
-A Chihuahua along with all other species of dogs including the ones that cant interbreed with each other decending from an ancient population of wolf is perfectly reasonable and possible.

-A Human along with all other species of great apes including the ones that cant interbreed with each other decending from an ancient population of great ape's, is completely unreasonable and impossible.
*Christian/creation micro evolution logical failure*
Debate Round No. 1


The process of macro-evolution itself might be possible, but there are 2 objections that I have.

1. How does Macro-evolution explain mutualism?
Mutualism, is a relationship between two organisms 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. 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 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.

2. How did the first life form come to exist in the first place.

These are some of the chances that the first life form will come to exist. Remember, these all have to occur in sequence.

1. The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. That is 10 with 40,000 zeros after it

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1.28 with 10,175 zeros after it

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion

5. "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, that's never going to happen

Another thing. On top of all this, there are four criteria ALL life must meet in order to survive. Here they are.

1. All life forms contain DNA
You suggested that the first life form did not have DNA but if it doesn't have DNA, it is not alive. And if a life form contains DNA, then it contains the most complex thing in the universe. Too much, arguably, to have arisen by chance.
2. All life forms must reproduce.
This is a little more complex then it sounds. Reproduction is broken down into 2 major processes. Meiosis and Mitosis. Without EITHER of these, reproduction has been scientifically shown to be not possible. Although I would love to into them, it goes beyond 10,000 characters.
3. All life forms must have a method of extracting energy from their surroundings and converting it to energy they can use. For plants this process is called photosynthesis. This is a key feature of all life forms. Without it, they WILL NOT survive.
4. All life forms must sense and respond to those changes. For us, this is like realizing it is cold outside and going to a warmer place. Without this criteria, the "first organism" would not have lasted very long.

By the way, I gave a very simple example for each of these criteria. But believe me, there are much more complex ones.

In order for life to originate, these features must develop AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. Why? Because Without even one, the organism will not survive, Without reproduction the organism will not be able to keep it's species alive. Without DNA, the organism will not have a means of protein synthesis, which is essential in all life forms. Without a means of getting energy the organism will not be able to support it's daily life functions. Without a means to sense and respond to changes, there are about 100 life threatening scenarios and organism could face without a means of realizing it. They could die from heat, cold, suffocation, the list goes on and on. If you ask me, I don't even believe that one of the complicated processes could have come across by chance.


Were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis, and we have evidence and justification to show that its not impossible as you asserted.

As for living things working together, thats not explainable by any means, its how the first complex cells and eventually multicellier organisms arose, for instance in the case of ekaryotes, its most likely that 2.1 billion years ago an archaea ate a bacterium, but rather then kill the bacterium, the bacterium continued to live inside of the Archaean, this eventually lead to the bacterium evolving into a ATP generator, they still reproduce on their own inside the ekaryote and have their own DNA

Similar process with multiple cells, you have a clump of cells that produce more cells, you run this for hundreds of generations with selective pressures, and you get something called division of labor, were the clump of cells benefit due to a mutation that happend at some cells in this part of the clump.

As for the probability argument, its bullcrap, let me give you an example.

Lets talk about the probability to create a pebble, just an ordinary pebble you find on the side of the road, but lets not make the whole pebble, lets place the first atom of the pebble, that means we have to place it here instead of everywhere else in the known universe, the probability of just placing the first atom is 1*e27 so what does this mean? that pebbles are so statistically improbable god must have done it? no, it means reality doesn't just work by probability, their are laws and constants they control how things will move and react, probability has a minor role in it, when you say something like "the chance of a cell forming by chance is 1 in 50,000" that would be like saying "if i drop this ball, what is the probability that the ball will fall down instead of any of any other direction in 3D space, you can do the math and find that the probability of the ball falling down is pretty much non existent, yet when i let go of the ball, it falls down, over and over and over again, this is because the way things move and react is not mainly governed by probability, chemicals will react and behave by the nature of matter and so forth, in fact, you can run the probability of any event, for example me writing this very debate, and find that the probability of me writing this debate in this specific context on this specific day at this specific time is practically impossible, this is why the probability argument is not valid by any means.

And just for the sake of argument, if i were to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say THAT IT IS ALL PROBABILITY, then it still wouldn't work because all of these probability arguments would be making the same mistake, they only account that the odds are runned only once at one place throughout the entire history of the universe, which wouldn't be true at all.

As for your list of what it takes for something to stay alive, what you need to understand is that cells like ekaryotes and even "simple" bacteria are evolutionary heavy weights, they are VERY COMPLEX protein machines that have been evolving in an arms race for the past 3.8 billion years, so of course if you take the DNA out of this complex machine or something of equivalent it will die, you need to understand that life at the very beginning wouldn't have done the following.

*Protein synthesis
*Protein machinery

Meiosis and Mitosis are processes that occur in ekaryotic cells due to their great complexity regarding a nucleolus and more complex chromosomes, bacteria dont replicate like this, the have looped DNA which is replicated into two copy's by DNA replicaces and the bacteria's membrane is divided by a protein called FtsZ.

But even this is complex to what must have existed at one point in the past, DNA is just one of many types of nucleic acids that can exist, and we do have good reason to believe that RNA came before DNA since it can act as both an instruction carrier and a catalyst similar to proteins, this also explains why dexoyribonucleotides are synthesized from ribonucleotides instead of vice versa, and why the entire protein synthesis is based on RNA, you have a protein that prints an mRNA strand corresponding to the sequence written on the DNA, the mRNA reacts with the rRNA inside a ribosome "a ribosome is 60% RNA by mass and is what actually carriers out the binding of amino acids" which are supplied by tRNA, this is something you would expect if DNA is merely a storage molecule and protein synthesis originated from an RNA world.

the first living cell would have been nothing more then a self replicating RNA inside of a self replicating vessical probably made of simple fats or equivalent, this didn't require protein synthesis or metabolism by just a supply of free floating fats and ribonucleotides to replicate and evolve.

You confuse alot of terms and apply them to all living things, simple cells and complex cells are completely different in how they operate, and you assume that the first living entities required the same complexity and organization and molecules in which life today requires, please do some research from more credible sources.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
*thats not unexplainable by any means*
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago

"thats not explainable by any means"

i meant to say unexplainable sorry about that
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
dont use answers in genesis and other creation sites, they are some of the most uncredible sites runned by incompitant science denialists like Ken Ham.
This debate has 4 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.