Instigator / Pro
7
1538
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#1457

The Damage Inbreeding Causes Demonstrates Evolution Can’t be True

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Lazarous
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
4,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

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).

"Contrary to what Dr Gingerich had imagined, there was no blowhole, there were no flippers (only hooves), and there was no whale neck (just a neck typical for land mammals). Even so, Dr Werner reveals that the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Natural History Museum in London have not stopped using the falsely-reconstructed skull that shows a blowhole (see figure 1)."

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_T-vNByT03qc%2FTRzkT1TTHfI%2FAAAAAAAAACk%2FmH4bU_OWMq0%2Fs320%2FHaeckels%252Bfetus.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

“The reason why the whale fossil are fraud is because a scientist called them out.”

No: a creationist deliberately distorted and misrepresents the evidence. To try and convince the gullible.

“There model had a bunch of parts in which they did not discover yet. There was a blow whole flipper and other body parts even though no flipper or blowhole was found.”

The form is transitional because of key bones related to the ear and jaw that were like both undulates - and whales.

Whether an artist embellished what was found, to include elements that the complete skeleton did not have - does not change the fact the remains have features that are part ungulate - part whale: this is the dishonest omission made by creation.com

“They had bone parts even though they did not discover any bones. They had a couple bones and they drew an entire animal.”

Again - artists drew their impression of an animal : the scientist claimed the transitional form was transitional form as the bones (and subsequently more examples discovered) contained a mosaic of traits between ungulates and whales.

Secondly - this is again dishonesty trying to undersell what was found: stating it’s just a few bones completely ignores the fact that pathologists are able to tell whether a potion of femur found in the ground is human, what sex that human was and how old: bones can tell you a substantial amount, and it’s obvious when large portions of bone look like two different families of organism.

“Secondly Ramshutu claim on similarity is false They should have more similarity then given.”

Why? Because you want it to?

Transitional forms are when an animal that appears to be of one group acquires specific traits that are diagnostic of another. Whales evolved from ungulates; which means that - scientifically - a transitional whale can appear to be an ungulate - with a single trait that only whales have. That’s how transitional forms have.

-->
@crossed

So despite your false claims to the contrary - this was most assuredly exposed by science - at the time.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Haekel.html

And you’re pretty much spelling out why creation.com is completely dishonest.

Science test books, evolution and all literature teach that vertebrate embryos also through similar phases early on: a key example is that fish embryo develops neck ridges that subsequently develop into gills - mammals develop almost identical neck ridges that then develop into ears (among other things).

This is an unassailable fact demonstrated by embryo images, and photos, and is not once - not one single time - challenged by creation.com.

Instead of —showing— that the organisms don’t show the patterns of similarity evolution says they do, creation.com insinuates it ; by pointing out someone who embellished (he didn’t explicitly invent the whole image), to support his own pet theory.

They important thing is that the differences are not actually that far off from what embryos actually look like, and what other scientists drew - and certainly the photo images and molecular phylogeny demonstrate the common origins and the evolution principles involved better sources Han the original drawings ever could.

However - creation.com does bother to attempt to show embryos are dissimilar, or to use relevant context here - this website is interested only on attacking a scientific theory that shows the evidence is at odds with their religion - rather than being accurate or honest.

Hell, even the accusation of fraud is completely overstated; by sounding like the images are completely different, the deviations were subtle, some similarities embellished, and differences were ignored a nuance ignored by creation.com

Likewise, what’s also ignored or glossed over is the - fact - that Haeckel was discredited by scientists in the 1870s, the recapitulation theory was junked in favour of Baer - which is what we see in embryos today; and is a demonstration of how science is self correcting. William His was most instrumental, as was Rutimeyer - a zoologist - who examined Haekels work

-->
@Ramshutu

The reason why the whale fossil are fraud is because a scientist called them out. There model had a bunch of parts in which they did not discover yet. There was a blow whole flipper and other body parts even though no flipper or blowhole was found. They had bone parts even though they did not discover any bones.

They had a couple bones and they drew an entire animal. Secondly Ramshutu claim on similarity is false They should have more similarity then given.

Firstly The reason why we know Mr heckles was a fraud is because thanks to hospitals we can see an embryo if you just get a girl pregnant and take her to the hospital. Secondly 99 percent of scientist lied about this. It took someone to leak real photo of the embryo to prove it false. out of all the scientis only 1 or 2 were truth

"Despite the controversy, textbook authors and teachers of evolutionary theory keep on using these diagrams, or versions of them,3 in order to convince students of evolutionary truth, even in the 21st century!4 In 1997, a ‘bomb’ exploded in the face of all those evolutionists who so fondly kept on using this evolutionary ‘icon’, when embryologist (and evolutionist) Dr Michael K. Richardson and his colleagues published a variety of real photographs of the relevant embryos.5 These drawings of Haeckel were later compared directly to the actual photos, and they were found to be far more different than everybody even thought. Richardson also published photographs of species additional to those which appeared in Haeckel’s popular embryo plates. This showed that Haeckel conveniently used those which tended to look more similar, while ignoring those which were different."

Heckles drawings were frauded by other scientist to spread the evolution stuff. Out of all the scientist only a couple were truthful. They have so many lies they are worst then politician. You know how they say never trust a politician. There may be some good ones. But the reason why you don't trust them is because most of them lie. Same with evolution scientist. I used the Hitler card because liberals use it all the time. Everything i said was true though.

Google image dr heckles drawing then google image human embryo
https://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven
https://www.mamapedia.com/article/how-early-can-an-embryo-be-seen-in-an-ultrasound

-->
@crossed

Moving on - the whale claims are dishonesyz

Pakicetus Is not a whale, it is a transitional form. This means it has traits of an ancestral species with some additional traits of a descendent species without being that species. The article implies it cannot be a transitional form because it has traits dissimilar towhales: this is a dishonest misrepresentation of what a transitional form is.

Reality 5: creation 0.

It also claims that the artists impressions and artistic reconstructions made by artists are from the scientists and are wholly presumed to be accurate and peddled by science to misrepresent the data / this is just made up nonsense. The reality is artists often get the science wrong - as they are artists.

Reality 6: creation 0.

Also Pakicetus does actually have a sigmoid process / despite assertions to the contrary.

http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/cetartiodactyla/protocetidae.html

There are also plate features - as this species is transitional, it has a mixture of traits.

Reality 7: creation 0.

This is exactly how creation.com dishonestly misrepresent the data. They use simplistic pseudoscience that completely fail to understand the science and key data - omitting the context and key information, such as what a transitional form means, what it must have and what it can’t have; oversell errors, and undersell accuracy.

-->
@crossed

So let’s start out with some basic logic.

Evolution is either an accurate description of life, or it isn’t. What Hitler believed, or didn’t, what he misrepresented or didn’t; cannot have any impact or influence on whether evolution is accurate or not.

This is an example of an appeal to emotion; trying to get you to dislike evolution due to what a psychopathic dictator believed - this is a pretty dishonest and completely unscientific premise, and has no impact on the validity of evolution. The fact that it is included in the website shows that the purpose of the site is to attack evolution, not to obtain clear facts about reality.

Reality/science 1: creation.com: 0.

Hitler also said this about evolution: “nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state” - it doesn’t appear as if he believed in evolution.

Reality 2: creation.com: 0

Secondly: Heckles drawings were discovered as false by scientists. Scientists confirm and double check others work, and given that they discovered the fraud demonstrates that they are interested in what is accurate rather than what is convenient. This key omission from creation.com is dishonest - as it paints science as fraudulent - rather than the reality, that science roots out fraud.

Reality 3: creation.com: 0

Thirdly : Hackles fakery wasn’t done to prove evolution - it was to provide evidence for his own theory that embryos develop progressively through their evolutionary history: recapitulation theory. This theory isn’t correct, and has known not to be correct since actual embryos were studied by other people. But saying this, embryology does show key similarities that support evolution - this is why creation.com shows no images of “real embryos” that differ from what any textbook shows - they simply imply that the modern view of embry

Reality 4: creation.com: 0

-->
@Ramshutu

If we are talking about which is more reliable. Creation.com wins by a landslide.

Hitlers idea's were influenced by Spencer and heckles fraud. Remember heckle went out of his way to lie about and create false embryo drawings And he actively tried to hide it.Evolution is why Hitler thought tall blond males were genetically superior to other races.He tried to kill out other races
https://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust

Evolution today still do this stuff. The fake whale fossils etc

https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Creation.com is more reliable because they do not fake bones and such coff coff lucy.

-->
@Lazarous

All humans are biased, the scientific community, including evolutionary biologists, frequently and repeatedly challenge orthodoxy, do not hold any premises as sacrosanct, and evolution as we know it today has changed substantially over the last 150 years as new data and information has been discovered.

So in this respect, they are far less biased than creation.com - as they do not hold key premises sacred.

-->
@Ramshutu

You seem to think that evolutionists don't have bias. This is a blatantly false premise. Heathenism has popularized the idea of evolution; because, if there is no God then I am not accountable to him. This means I can do whatever I want. The agenda here is clear.

I have examined the evidence and will continue to do so. The pattern that is emerging is not the one you claim.

-->
@Lazarous

I have given you an explicit, demonstrable reason as to why their website is biased: that they trying to find evidence to fit their conclusion rather than the other way around.

What you’re doing, is now using vague, unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of bias to claim I’m just as bad. If you have specific reason for claiming I’m biased, go ahead: but as I’ve explained - there is genuine reason to doubt their Claims.

Secondly, and importantly: you can use cold hard facts to refute their arguments, and there are multiple websites dedicated to doing just that. What happens, is that you should explore and independently validate examples one after another until you a pattern develops - that each link misrepresents or distorts the data. However, what invariably happens, is that those who view the site will continue to believe it unless every link is disproven.

-->
@Ramshutu

The bias exhibited through the atheistic scientific community is just as prevalent if not more so. You are guilty of the very bias you accuse this website of possessing. If they cheery picked their data then it should be easy to demonstrate this with cold hard facts. Your method of dismissal implies that you can't dismiss their claims scientifically, and therefore debase methods must be employed. As it turns out, this website frequently sites scientific studies performed by evolutionists. The evidence is not bias. Your objection is unscientific by design.

-->
@RationalMadman

Since you have accepted the debate RationalMadman, I am not going to debate you in the comments. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I am waiting for your developed argument on the debate itself. We can discuss our positions and objections there.

-->
@Lazarous

Genuine scientific websites, and the scientific process requires you to draw a conclusion based on the evidence: creation.com, as mentioned, rejects any other conclusion and the goal is simply to make the facts fit their assumes conclusion.

That is not scientific; that’s apologetics.

Scientific truth is not about finding evidence that agrees with you - but searching for evidence that disagrees with you very hard and not finding any. Creation.com is shoddy science as conclusions are incomplete, unexplored, and are mostly attempts to distort or misrepresent evidence in order to arrive at their preferred conclusion with almost no focus on falsification.

As a result of all of this, and the fact that the affirmation of faith basically states up front shows this is not a credible source, and is inherently unscientific by design.

-->
@Ramshutu

This website bases its evidence upon the weight of science, not bias. You are saying: don't use science because someone who is not an evolutionist is using it. First of all, since this websites scientists base their conclusions on science, the appropriate way to counter such evidence would be with science. Their scientific clams can be verified by science from secular sources. Second, this website is developed and managed by well accredited scientists who are usually speaking within their field of study. To reject this website on such a flimsy argument shows blatant bias. Rather than using a fallacy structure to defame a website, back your case with cold hard evidence. This line of reasoning is akin to me saying 'you’re clearly bios because you are an atheist,' With this statement, I just summarily dismissed all of your evidence without actually possessing any of my own.

-->
@Lazarous

I would recommend not using a website that explicitly claims it will not change it’s mind no matter what the facts are as a valid quasi scientific source - the website explicitly states it is inherently biased - and thus it’s conclusions cannot be trusted.

-->
@crossed

I appreciate your assistance on this. I think that my opponent and I would both agree that negative mutations will cause some organisms to struggle and even go extinct. Where we disagree is the extent to which this is true. I would encourage you to read this article. I think you will find it enlightening as to just how deep my position goes:
https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis

I always welcome constructive criticism. And no, any wise guy comments I get to this do not count as constructive.

Canine purebreds threatened by infertility.
inbreeding caused infertility
http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/Canine-Infertility-Disease_Andrews-1011.asp

The only ones immune to inbreeding are the Rothchilds

Gene mutation leads to infertility not evolution

I am pretty sure after a couple generations of inbreeding the offspring comes out infertile. Because mutations cause infertility

-->
@Lazarous

If i were you i would focus on how people who mutate to much can not breed. It is why a mule can not breed. Plus GMO food. Plus gene mutation leads to infertility
https://mthfrgenehealth.com/miscarriage-infertility-is-mthfr-the-real-problem/

-->
@Lazarous

I am not simply going to say 'duh, it happened anyway.' I promise you that it's due to this that the intermediary species died out. This supports macroevolution, it's a key ingredient in the theory.

-->
@dustryder

I understand the premise of your conjecture. Keep in mind that thus far we have only been discussing the definitions not whether they represent something that is tenable or not.

If the net long term affect of mutations results in a build up in genetic code, macro evolution is true.

If a net loss in genetic information over time is true then genetic entropy is true.

Speciation, in and of itself, is simply a selection process (sometimes random sometimes determined by natural selection) by which genetic code is passed on or not passed on. This process, in and of its self, does not encompass mutations (even though mutations do happen). This process, by its self, will result in no net change in genetic information at best and great loss in genetic information at worst.

After applying the genetic change caused by genetic entropy or macroevolutions with speciation we will gain an understanding of whether genetics are building up or in perpetual decline.

-->
@Lazarous

1) You seem to be fundamentally missing the point that these inherited traits are typically mutations that have persisted and been selected for in the population over time.

2) Sure. But the loss of a particular hair gene is not a sufficient change for speciation as this change is still reflected in the overall dog gene pool. In that particular local population you've mentioned there would have to be a succession of mutations that have been selected for which are not reflected in the overall dog gene pool. And this would lead to speciation.

3) If you simply mean that the offspring did not receive the gene for longhair in that particular group, you are certainly correct. However this does not change the gene pool, as these animals are still dogs and both the genes for long hair and short hair remain in the gene pool for dogs.

4) Boxers aren't a species. When boxers are bred with a long-haired dog variety, long-haired puppies will result

-->
@dustryder

1) You are appealing to a common evolutionary argument to confuse the issue through trying to hash everything into one definition. In reality, we do see how speciation uses natural selection to select certain inherited traits at the expense of losing other traits. This selection process simply removes certain genetic traits from a population (information is lost). An extreme example of this is when breeders breed dogs. We can also observe this in indigenous populations.
2) My example used one dog to provide a simple illustration, and I expanded that explanation to show how a short hair gene could be naturally selected within a regional god population.
3) The gene pool for the dog population did change in my example. The gene for short hair was naturally selected and therefore the long hair gene was lost.
4) The boxer when bred with other boxers will not have long hair. The long hair gene has been lost. We do observe loss of genetic information here and this is not due to a mutation.

-->
@Lazarous

A species can be defined as a group of individuals that can interbreed. Hence speciation occurs when two groups of individuals have a sufficient number of genetic variation such that they can no longer interbreed and become distinct species in their own rights. This genetic variation is caused by successive generations of populations in which a selection of mutations have persisted, typically by natural selection.

The example you gave cannot be sufficiently be described as speciation. This is for several reasons. One, because speciation is predicated on evolution which occurs over time. Two, because speciation occurs over a group of individuals and not just a single pair of dogs. Three, because the gene pool for the dog species has not changed. Four, because genes related to hair are typically passed on recessively regardless of whether they are actually expressed in the phenotype.

dustryer & That1User

Microevolution/Speciation: Each organism has two sets of genetic code; one from each parent. Speciation occurs when certain genetic traits are not passed on to the next generation. For example, two dogs possessing one long hair gene and one short hair gene respectively have a child who receives the short hair gene from each parent. That offspring has lost the genetic code for long hair. This is microevolution/speciation. Clearly, no mutations occurred in this example and genetic information was lost. This process will never result in macroevolution since the best possible outcome is that all the original genetic code continues to be passed on through generations. If these dogs lived in a hot climate natural selection would select the short haired dogs and the long hair gene could possibly be completely lost in the local dog population. Mutations and macroevolution have nothing to do with the premise of speciation.

-->
@Lazarous

Mutations are small changes in the genetic code. Evolution occurs when many mutations are accumulated within a population over time. Speciation is just the formation of new species which is driven by evolution. Hence mutations cause speciation via evolution

-->
@Lazarous

"These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however." A mutation is any change in the genetic code, even loss of genetic code

-->
@Lazarous

Is it actually due to this that the intermediary species die out, this is actually the very thing needed to debunk creationists.

-->
@That1User

Actually speciation has nothing to do with mutations.

Speciation refers to the narrowing of genetic traits in certain populations resulting in creatures that appear unique. These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however. To put it another way, these organisms simply didn’t get a particular genetic trait passed on thorough the generations; therefore the code for that particular trait has been lost.

Mutations, on the other hand, refer to the net effect of damage and any failed attempts at repair of the genetic code in an organism. Genetic Entropy and the conjectures required for evolution to work are the terms that refer to mutations.

-->
@Lazarous

"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...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." This loss of genetic information from the parents to their offspring is a mutation. A mutation is just a genetic change.