The Damage Inbreeding Causes Demonstrates Evolution Can’t be True
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Science
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 4,000
Premise: The genetic code of organisms is breaking down over time not being developed and enhanced over time as required for molecules to man evolution. I am using inbreeding as an observable example of deterioration of the genome and am ready to expand my position in the debate to follow.
Rules: Quote your sources and be respectful.
Definitions:
Inbreeding: The Encyclopedia Britannica defines inbreeding as, “the mating of individuals or organisms that are closely related through common ancestry, as opposed to outbreeding, which is the mating of unrelated organisms. Inbreeding is useful in the retention of desirable characteristics or the elimination of undesirable ones, but it often results in decreased vigour, size, and fertility of the offspring because of the combined effect of harmful genes that were recessive in both parents” (https://www.britannica.com/science/inbreeding).
Macroevolution: The gain of additional new genetic information through mutations. If the resulting change in the organism is not determined to represent a net gain in genetic information it falls under one of the next two definitions.
Microevolution/Speciation (for purpose of this debate I will use the term speciation): The process by which animals pass on or fail to pass on genetic traits to their offspring. As John D. Morris, Ph.D. explains, “The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group” (https://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/). This process never results in new genetic information but frequently results in loss of genetic information. For example, dogs with short hair genes in a cold climate are likely to freeze to death resulting in only the dogs with long hair genes remaining. Rather than gaining new genetic code for log hair this dog population has lost the genes required for short hair. Mutations good or bad do not fall under this definition.
Genetic Entropy: As defined by geneticentrapy.org genetic entropy, “is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations” (https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy).
In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.
- The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
- Evolution relies on there being genetic variation? in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
- Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, conduct, and sources
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
None of these are satisfactorily completed.
************************************************************************
Pro explained how the two processes could not occur simultaneously.
Con failed to rebut, simply providing opinions without sources and essentially saying, "You are wrong."
In R2, con essentially conceded the debate, saying, "I probably will lose this debate but at this point I have zero idea what Pro is arguing."
It's fairly obvious what pro is arguing. There is a resolution to this debate, after all.
Pro used reputable sources, con used one source, although it didn't cover the information that was being talked about.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: bobo // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for sources, conduct, and arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro provided understandable information from reliable sources. Did not notice any misspelling. Pro used proper and polite words to disagree with con.
>Reason for Mod Action: This user is inelligable to vote. In order for an account to be eligable to vote, they must first have completed 2 debates OR 100 forum posts AND read the site's COC. They have done none of these.
Please review the COC: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
OoDart's debates that are completed, have 2 with forfeits in them.
2 blatant votebombs, just remove it please even if I will lose anyway. Neither user is even eligible to vote.
My vote accidentally submitted before explaining conduct:
Con forfeited a round.
I would love to bedate you on origins some time. Unfortuanentl a demanding debate challenge has slipped on to my plate. Perhaps you would like to take a rain check, and we can properly hash this out. Regrettably the conversation here has gotten too personal to be very productive.
Remember to always keep the conversation civil.
Watch this amazing video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMbEVv3IsGY
you are so retarded you must be inbred
religious people are completely retarded
you are a coward let me prove to you how true evolution is, you cowardly little worm
evolution has been proven to be a fact
The more i think about this the more i realize you have to be crazy to even think this are you trolling?
Evolution is a basic principle and science is a basic exercise. The complexity is in the finer details of what we attempt to understand.
Extinction is just as much a part of the evolutionary sequence as development is.
And evolution has no problems. It's only human beings that create imaginary problems. Evolution will continue as it will.
And my fourth point simply suggests that the extinction of organic life on Earth is probably an inevitable consequence.
And a lot of the god thing is probably just another inevitable consequence of our imagination.
Though the notion of creation is nonetheless reasonable.
And I think that it is fair to suggest that the 0 to 1 pre-organic creation event occurred more than seven thousand years ago. (Prove me wrong)
What are you talking about? God simply created everything six to seven thousand years ago. The numerous problems that riddle evolution have no association with this model.
Evolution is not a ‘simple concept.’ It is only simple to those that have a simple understanding of science. Science is not simple in the least, and the more we learn about science the more impossibly stretched the theory of evolution becomes.
Man to molecules devolution will not result in life to start with under evolution. Man to molecules devolution is driving all living organisms to extinction. This is the very enemy of evolution.
I’m not sure what you are referring to on your fourth point, but this point is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not demonstrate an increase in genetic information over time.
Hitchens's Razor applies to blatant assertions followed up with no support. This logical tool properly applies to your unsupported position that evolution is scientifically supported. However, I did provide evidence for all three of my points. But for argument sake, lets explore these further:
1) The law of biogenesis is so universally accepted. Scientific laws are already established as axioms, meaning that they are universally recognized as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. However, I will provide a source regardless: Biology Online Dictionary defines the law of biogenesis as. “The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material” (https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis).
2) Everything comes from nothing defies basic logic. The evidence provided here is basic logic, and yet you dismiss basic logic using an abuse of logic. Defining nothing is so difficult because nothing in all reality possesses no definition. There is nothing there to poses the definition. That being said, Merriam-Webster seems to do a pretty good job of describing nothing, “not any thing : no thing”(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing). So I reassert that everything cannot come from nothing. Once we give nothing the attributes to be or do anything, it is no longer nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome is heavily supported in the debate you are commenting on. It seems you have lost sight of the purpose of the comments section.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[1][2][3][4]
— Hitchens's Razor
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[1][2][3][4]
— Hitchens's Razor
Gods fail for exactly the same reasons.
Nonetheless. Evolution is a simple concept relative to a far bigger sequence of events, rather than just the current Darwinian bit.
As such, "man to molecules devolution" can easily be regarded as being a part of the evolutionary sequence.
There is clear evidence to suggest that dominance of the sequence is shifting away from the fragile organic, towards more robust forms of intelligence.
Science does not provide an adequate explanation as to why God might not exist. There is no God of the gaps. Do you believe in Henry Ford or the Model T? The Model T is quite capable of functioning completely independent of Henry Ford. Ruling out the existence of God on the basis of the universes ability to function independently is absurd.
In order for what we know about science to be true, we must assume that our senses are telling us the truth. Do you trust your senses? Under an evolutionary model, natural selection is under no obligation to select that which is true. If a natural sense were to provide an organism with false information in a way that proves beneficial results, that trait would be chosen. The very chaos of the evolutionary model brings into question whether we can trust our senses, and, therefore, whether science can be trusted.
Science contradicts evolution at several lethal points.
1) The law of biogenesis: this scientific law directly contradicts abiogenesis (a non-negotiable requirement for evolution to be true). Without life coming from non-life there is no evolution.
2) Everything comes from nothing: Any working models to explain how everything can come from nothing fall short in that they both (a) do not agree with empirical science and (b) redefine the concept of nothing. The very attempt to define what nothing is automatically identifies what is being described as something other than nothing.
3) The deterioration of the genome: Science observes the genome losing information all the time. The statistics surrounding the empirical science of mutations reveals that all organisms are consistently losing genetic information in an inevitable journey to extinction. This is man to molecules devolution, the very opposite of Darwinistic evolution.
If evolution fails at any one of these points the theory completely breaks down. Empirical science shows that evolution fails at all three.
science does not prove the existence of god it explains why he might not exist how his existence is uneccessary to explain things thats why most scientiest today are atheists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology https://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html
The ‘educated’ tend to think they’ve got it all figured out. They are arrogant and self righteous. This, indeed, is what sets Christianity apart from every other world view including atheism. You are utterly inadequate to save yourself. Don’t look within yourself to solve your problems, for you are the one who is confused. Your point is really quite an irrelevant one considering that there are a great many highly educated creationists. I have cited sources from some of them. Highly intelligent people are on both sides.
I can’t speak to the ‘average church goer,’ since I don’t seem to be particularly average, but I will say I have yet to personally meet an atheist who knows the Bible better than I do. You are not speaking to the ‘average church goer’; therefore stop fabricating this straw man and throwing me into it. If you can’t refute the scientific evidence presented here with real evidence why are you here?
which is why inbreds tend to be very relgious they are fucking stupid
oh bullshit religion is completely unsupported conjecture ask yourself what are most sceintists atheists/ and why athesits on average have iqus 20 points higher than the devout and why atheists know the bible better than the average church goer because we know its all bullshit and you like being a stupid little sheep