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

is evolution real

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
jackgilbert has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 116752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

jackgilbert

Con

For the first round please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Debate accepted
Debate Round No. 1
jackgilbert

Con

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/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/paleo2/homol1. Htm

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.

Conclusion:

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 in comments
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Con's arguments appear coherent at first, But are actually based on fallacious arguments and completely unsubstantiated claims with links to inaccessible Google Docs. That said, I will attempt to go through their statements one-by-one:

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

Con claims (without one shred of evidence or citation of academic/scientific/scholarly sources) that this is the "STRONGEST piece of data to tell us that macro-evolution never happened, " so it would follow that proving the fossil record to actually support the theory of evolution would suffice in defeating their argument. Below are a number of reputable sources showing this to be the case:

- "The fossil record clearly indicates that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, Which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks. " (Baylor Department of Geosciences)

- "Today, Many thousands of ancient rock deposits have been identified that show corresponding successions of fossil organisms. . . Older fossils are found in the lower layers, Revealing the succession of organisms over time (https://goo. Gl/LQeRMS). . . Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms, Found in well-dated rock sequences, Represent successions of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. " (National Academy of Sciences)

- "The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, When assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years" (Berkeley - Understanding Evolution)

- "Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution" (Forbes - https://goo. Gl/UhNUU8)

- "Fossils tell us when organisms lived, As well as provide evidence for the progression and evolution of life on earth over millions of years. " (Lumen)


"Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution"

Here, Con correctly illustrates the fact that most consider structural/anatomical homology to be proof for evolution, But never does a good job arguing why it should do the opposite. Here are a number of reputable sources that make proper conclusions:

- "While the evidence of homologous structures has been known for quite some time, It was only fairly recently that it has become widely accepted as evidence for evolution. Not until the latter half of the 20th century, When it became possible to analyze and compare DNA, Were researchers able to reaffirm the evolutionary relatedness of species with homologous structures. " (Heather Scoville)

- "Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology: Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures). " (Khan Academy)

- "What observable evidence exists to support the idea that life on earth has evolved its diversity through a long process of descent with modification? One of the most powerful forms of evidence is homology. " (Dr. Dana Krempels)

- "Evolution makes sense of homologies" (UBC Biology)

Con attempts to sway voters by invoking some scientific nomenclature, Namely "cytochrome C". However, I'd urge Con/voters to take a look at the actual scientific literature (since they provided no sources aside from a locked Google Doc) that explains the role of cytochrome C in this debate. The most highly-regarded such article would be this one (https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC3714796/) provided by the US National Library of Medicine - National Institute of Health


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

This is a rather silly string of arguments masquerading as an attempt to reason logically. Closer examination, However, Reveals it to be utterly meaningless and irrelevant. Before looking at this from a macro level, I'd just like to quickly dive in and show how unsubstantiated and untrue Con's claims are. For example, They state that "The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. " However, This is simply untrue. There are countless sources discussing the myriad species of fish with teeth:

- https://goo. Gl/n51cX3
- https://goo. Gl/EcSXwS
- https://goo. Gl/bT6YFZ
- https://goo. Gl/jwJzzo


In this section, Con also claims, "Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. " That is simply not true. No credible scientist on earth will tell you that this is a claim of evolutionary theory.

As far as the evolution of actual mutualism is concerned:

- "These mutualisms represent major evolutionary innovations" (National Center for Biotechnology Information, U. S. National Library of Medicine)

- "Organisms in a mutualistic relationship evolved together. " (NESCI)

- "Many major evolutionary transitions enabling the diversification of life itself have hinged on mutualistic interactions. " (E. Toby Kiers, Todd M. Palmer, Anthony R. Ives, John F. Bruno, And Judith L. Bronstein)

- "Moreover, Under such environmental heterogeneity, We also observe that both mutualism and exploitative interactions can be permanently present in the same population" - Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University

----
I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that, Not only did Con not use a single, Solitary source (aside from his/her locked Google Docs, The contents of which remain ambiguous), But there is ample scientific evidence rebutting their every claim, Including those that they consider to be the "STRONGEST" case against evolution and the "nail in the coffin. "

I would urge Con to provide actual scientific sources for all of his/her claims and also back up the allegation that, "Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. "
Debate Round No. 2
jackgilbert

Con

Thank you pro for your response. I apologize for not citing sources. I will do a better job of it this round. Alright then, Let's cut to the chase.

Details of the fossil record: Evidence against macro-evolution.

You had some very good points in this section. However, They are not logically sound. Take your first point. You said that there are four famous transitional forms that demonstrate evolution. However, If evolution occurred by slow, Tiny changes that took millions of years to complete, Then this should reflect in the fossil record. We should be finding thousands and thousands of these transitional forms. Instead, We are finding millions and millions of complete forms rather than transitional. The conclusion is from this that evolution never occurred. If it did, Then it is essential that there would be transitional forms because of the fact that evolution is a very slow process.

Here is a link: https://creationtoday. Org/creationist-challenge/

Structural homology: More evidence against macro-evolution

All you did here was repeat the reason why this was believed to be evidence for evolution in the first place. You said that because species share homologous features, This means that they are related and could have a common ancestor. However, If this were true, Then their corresponding parts of DNA should be similar. Unfortunately, For evolutionists this isn't true. Thus, There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that they could have come from a common ancestor. If it did, Then the corresponding DNA parts of the species homologous features would be somewhat similar, But this is absolutely not the case. Because evolution is all about common ancestry, Structural homology would seem to refute this idea.

https://sepetjian. Wordpress. Com/2011/10/07/refuting-homologous-evidence-for-evolution
http://www. Defendingthechristianfaith. Org/dna-and-structural-homology-studies-that-argue-against-evolution. Html

Molecular Biology: Strong Evidence against Macro-evolution

Aside from a link, Pro really hasn't given a case against this idea. If you are going to give me a link, Have a general argument that goes along with it. I am not having a debate with ncbi, I am having it with you. If you are telling me that evolution is true, Then why do the macro evolutionary relationships that are supposed to exist, Don't exist? It just doesn't make sense.

Mutualism: The nail in the coffin

Even if the species in mutualistic relationships evolved together, This still would not eliminate the chance portion of this. All of the instincts would have to evolve at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. You can call it if you want to, "evolving together"

I would like to give more arguments against evolution:

What are the odds that a male and female of each species develop AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME and EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE? If they don't, Then they cannot reproduce which means they eventually die without continuing their species.

Another thing, What about organ development. To this argument, I give complete credit to creationtoday. Org. The argument follows:

How did the heart, Lungs, Stomach, Veins, Blood, Kidneys, Etc. Develop in the first animal by slow, Minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, Did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, Then 20 percent, And on up to 100 percent, With veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, White corpuscles, Platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, Then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, How did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, At the same time, The animal"s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, And its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, Brain, Veins and stomach, All of the organs and systems in the first animal"s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.

If you want to see more, Visit the first link I showed you.
I apologize if I missed some of your arguments. I am just barely getting this one in before I forfeit.
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Thank you for responding, However I don't think it's fair to ask me to dedicate time and effort into a full response if you're about to forfeit. As you said, "I am just barely getting this one in before I forfeit. " I think that's fairly disrespectful and inconsiderate of other people's time, But I suppose there's not much I can do about it.

I would just like to point out that my opponent has attempted to counter the proof I put forth from sources ranging from the National Center for Biotechnology Information to the U. S. National Library of Medicine to the National Academy of Sciences. He/she has not done so by using equally-reputable sources, But rather extremely biased, Non-scientific, Purely opinion-based websites like "Defending the Christian Faith" and "Creation Today" along with the biog of someone widely considered to be a lunatic (at best), R. K. Sepetjian.

Overall, It is very frustrating to have put all of this effort into this debate only to see my opponent planning to forfeit after backpedaling away from his/her unsubstantiated claims and replacing them with illegitimate sources.
Debate Round No. 3
jackgilbert

Con

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. It is unfortunate that millions of people in this world are self deceived onto believing that there is no God and this crazy scientific theory with no real evidence is true.
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Thank you for responding rather than forfeiting, It is much appreciated.

"Creationist sources are not biased" is an absolutely self-contradictory statement. It is not possible to logically say that a site run by people whose primary belief is that evolution is not real is a reputable source for quotes avowing that it is, Indeed, Not real. Even if they were, The particular sites you used are certainly not reliable. They are nothing more than blogs and independent websites not affiliated with any scientifically- or historically-accurate organizations. Perhaps if a Creationist website, The writers for which are naturally inclined to support your hypothesis, Were citing scientific journals, We could call them valid sources. Perhaps, Even if it is likely they are cherry picking information from such sources, We would have to agree that they are at least partly relevant and applicable. However, In this case, None of them are.

Furthermore, To turn around and say that Creationist sources are biased while atheist sources are not feels like setting a double standard and simply using fallacious arguments. Beyond that, The sources I used are not self-declared atheist sources. They are scientific sources that draw conclusions which are aligned with atheism, Or at least agnosticism and a skeptical view (at best) toward Creationism. If I used a site named AtheistBigBangStory. Com, We could have this conversation, But that is far from what happened.

Here is a list of 7 scientific discoveries that prove Evoultion is accurate, Curated by George Dvorsky:


1. Discovering DNA

One of the more remarkable things about On the Origin of Species is that Charles Darwin articulated his theory without knowing the exact mechanism by which variation occurs. It wouldn’t be until Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA in the 1950s that evolutionary biologists would finally have the answer.

The advent of genetics is the single most important thing to happen to the study of evolutionary biology since Darwin’s theory first appeared (with a respectful tip of the hat to Gregor Mendel and his discovery of the fundamental laws of inheritance). Because DNA is universal to all life, Its presence strongly suggests that all creatures on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.

It also explains how the proliferation of genetic mutations (essentially copy errors), Combined with the processes of natural selection, Enables evolution to happen. Ultimately, DNA is the engine that drives evolution. It’s an elegant—sometimes brutal—process that doesn’t require a guiding hand. Natural selection is a wholly autonomous process, Thus earning it the moniker of “God killer. ”

2. Finding Transitional Fossils

Species come and go, But life goes on. This is the essential lesson of the extensive fossil record—one that dates back 3. 8 billion years. What’s more, It’s a chain of continuity used by evolutionary biologists to study the various interconnected progressions made by species as they change over time. So-called “transitional fossils” — like the recent discovery of Pappochelys, A 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features — provide evidence for “missing links” between two different species by showing some of the traits of both, Although this isn’t necessarily evidence of direct descent. Biologists use each discovery of such new species to fill in the evolutionary gaps.

The presence of so many fossils demonstrates the ever-changing diversity of life since it first emerged. From life’s early beginnings as single-celled prokaryotic cells through to the Cambrian Explosion and the emergence of dinosaurs and mammals, It’s a story of continuous adaptation. Creationists like to believe that certain evolutionary steps are intractable, But as more and more transitional fossils are discovered, It’s clear that each evolutionary advance can be explained.

Indeed, Fortuitous mutations have fueled a trial-and-error process that have produced gradual but dramatic changes in species over the course of eons. Some evolutionary offshoots worked for a while, But changing circumstances—such as difficult environmental conditions or the introduction of a rival species—produced dead ends (e. G. Wooly mammoths, Sabre toothed tigers, And very likely, The panda bear). Other branches proved more resilient, Allowing species to continue in novel directions (birds, As an offshoot of dinosaurs, Are an excellent example). And yet some species, Such as cyanobacteria, Coelacanths, And crocodiles, Have barely changed, showing that evolution doesn’t fix what ain’t broke.

Fossil discoveries also show the interconnectedness of species over time. A great example is the recent discovery of Archaeornithura meemannae, A newly discovered species that is now the oldest-known member of an evolutionary branch that includes all living birds. This creature fills an important gap that explains its presence among other contemporaneous birds, While also pointing to other yet-to-be-found bird-like creatures. These transitional fossils allow paleontologists and cladisticians to iteratively piece together the great chain of being.

3. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors

Typically, Evolutionary biologists like to point out the differences in species as they branch away from common ancestors, But they also like to identify those characteristics that remain common to both. This serves the dual purpose of showing evolution-in-action, While also demonstrating the subtle ways in which speciation can occur.

For example, The form and structure (morphologies) of deer, Moose, Horses, And zebras are strikingly similar. Not surprisingly, They share a common ancestor. Similarly, Seagulls and pelicans are similar in their appearance, Behavior, And DNA. Again, They share a common ancestor, From which they deviated in relatively minor but important ways. Similarly, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were more alike than they were different, Branching off from the evolutionary tree fairly recently in evolutionary history.

As Darwin pointed out 150 years ago, These common characteristics provide indisputable data points in favor of evolution, Showing the ways in which species diverge when circumstances change.

4. Identifying Vestigial Traits

One of the more compelling arguments in favor of evolution is the presence of vestigial traits—physical characteristics that are gradually working their way out of an organism’s genetic profile. Most of these traits are benign, But some can be harmful (which is why they’re often referred to as “evolutionary baggage”).

Just as full-blown characteristics don’t appear overnight—such as flight in birds, Or an elephant’s long and dextrous trunk—traits that are no longer required for an organism’s day-to-day survival take a long time to disappear. These characteristics fade away because there’s no pressure for the gene or genes in question to retain them, Resulting in faded or lingering traits that bear a weak resemblance to their original form.

In humans, Classic examples include the appendix, Wisdom teeth, The coccyx (or tailbone), And tonsils. Certain behaviors can also be considered vestigial, Such as the Palmar Grasp Reflex and our instinctive aversions to bugs and snakes.

5. Identifying Imperfect Characteristics

Because our current physiological form is derived from those of our ancestors, We can hardly be considered an ideal species; there are many inherent design flaws in the human body. The throat (pharynx), For instance, Serves as a conduit for both food and air. In males, The urethra both helps move urine from the bladder and transports sperm to the penis. Then there is our inability to biosynthesize vitamin C, The extremely narrow birth canal (in women), And our over-loaded lower backs.

(Image at left: This is where it hurts: So much pressure on the lumbar vertebrae (Photo credit:Patrick87/CC BY-SA 3. 0)

Unlike deliberate conscious design, Evolution doesn’t care about perfection. Adaptations simply need to be good enough. What’s more, Evolution cannot start from scratch; each species has to be crafted from its previous form, Which can often lead to awkward or problematic characteristics.

6. Studying Early Embryo Development

Embryos of humans and other animals often bear similar physical characteristics at certain stages. This is because they share ancient genes.

Typically, The similarities are more pronounced for more closely related species.

7. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales

It’s a myth that evolution requires timescales that are too long to be observed by humans. In many instances, Environmental changes occur so suddenly that certain species are forced to adapt quickly to the changing conditions.

A classic example is the peppered moth, An organism that evolved a particular color variation as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to this period, These moths regularly appeared in versions of black and white. But owing to sooty pollution from factories, The white moths had a hard time blending in. The result was an increase in black moths and a dramatic decrease in white moths. University of Wisconsin geneticist Sewall Wright referred to it as “the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed. ”

But there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, Leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, Many animals are adapting to pesticides, Including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.

Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
There is no direct evidence that any god(s) exist. Likewise, There are no purely theoretical arguments that prove any gods either. In addition to the lack of reasons for a God's existence, The Argument from Incoherence holds that the very concept of god is self-contradictory and impossible, Therefore, Theism is false and atheism is true.
The concept of a creator god is even more problematic - for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, It can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, Drives, Motivations, An amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, And it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, Therefore there is a god".
Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a Universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, And is impossible and incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, It is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe.
Posted by jackgilbert 2 months ago
jackgilbert
In this case your question assumes God exists, And my answer is assuming God exists. If he does exist then he is the creator of everything.

P1 God is the creator of everything
P2 Time is included in everything.
C God is the creator of time.

It wouldn't make sense if an all powerful, All knowing being is bound by HIS OWN creation. And if something doesn't make any sense, It probably isn't true.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 2 months ago
BertrandsTeapot
Lol "God by definition is the creator of the universe and therefore the creator of time. " Wow
Posted by jackgilbert 2 months ago
jackgilbert
God is not a created being. God has existed for all eternity. I know you are going to ask that if God doesn't need a beginning, Why does the universe need a beginning.
To this question I will use the following reasoning.
P1 Everything which has a beginning has a cause
P2 The universe has a beginning
C Therefore, The universe has a cause

The universe has a beginning, And therefore needed a cause. In other words it could not have created itself. Something outside of it must have created it. God, Unlike the universe had no beginning and therefore did not need a cause. Asking who created God is a loaded question. The answer is simply no one. In addition, According to Einstein's general relativity which has overwhelming evidence supporting it, Time is linked to space and matter. So time itself had a beginning and therefore had a cause. God, By definition is the creator of the universe and is therefore the creator of time. God is not bound by his own creation, He is not bounded by the time dimension.
Even with a God out of the equation I still have the right to turn the question you just asked me back around on you. Who created the universe?
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 2 months ago
BertrandsTeapot
So Jesus, How was God created?
Posted by ksteelers 2 months ago
ksteelers
Evolution doesn't try to explain Earth's past. Geology does.
Posted by JesusChrist4Ever 2 months ago
JesusChrist4Ever
Actually, Both of you are incorrect. My faith, As a Catholic, States that the human body, Along with many other creatures, Was formed in the process of evolution. However, It is not random and was started by God, Our Creator and Redeemer. Along with that, Our souls are individually and uniquely crafted by God, Seeing as he is a being beyond time.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 2 months ago
BertrandsTeapot
So you think that biased, right-wing, non-scientific, purely opinion-based websites or the ravings of lunatic blogger R. K. Sepetjian are in any way capable of countering the arguments of places ranging from the National Center for Biotechnology Information to the U.S. National Library of Medicine to the National Academy of Sciences?

It will be hard for me to justify spending time and effort going into what I thought was a logical debate with a reasonable person if you are going to tell me you actually think there's the slightest bit of
Posted by Im_Intelligent 2 months ago
Im_Intelligent
@jackgilbert

Regarding the whole bias thing, your creationist sources are not peer reviewed.
Posted by jackgilbert 2 months ago
jackgilbert
I dropped your debates Im intelligent not because I couldn't respond, but because they are so freaking hard to read.
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.