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).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro introduces the concept of genetic entropy; and elaborates that’s the issue with Evolution is that it introduces so many negative or deleterious mutations that must necessarily accumulate in populations.

Cons response was mostly to simply ignore the entire thesis offered by saying it’s not a problem. Without a rebuttal that explains why pros premise is wrong, or without a source to confirm the limited impact of mutations - the point is unrefuted. The remainder of cons first round is mostly just an explanation of evolution - rather than specifically addressing the premise. Even if I accept cons explanation as true - the detail pro gave is unrefuted.

Pro goes on to elaborate in the next round: Specifically going into detail by explaining that seed populations would be subject to massive inbreeding, the sharing of damaged gene copies to the point of genetic deterioration - and pro explains the premise of this pretty well. Pro explains the premise of how natural selection cannot weed out deleterious mutations, which allow the negative mutations to accumulate over time. Most of this is a restatement of the round 1 argument, but dives into much more detail of the specific mechanics.

Cons R2 again ignores this whole argument from pro.

Pro repeats the claims about genetic deterioration venturing into the position of genetic information ; to be followed up with con forfeiting and then claiming victory in the last round - claiming that he had addressed the key point.

Pros main thesis is wholly unaddressed. Con has to defend the issues of genetic deterioration that were well explained - imo this is a low bar as con could have sourced the many examples of organisms not deteriorating over time today; or provided an explanation of why such deterioration doesn’t actually occur.

Given that pros case is wholly unaddressed other than a simple throwaway unsourced denial in R1 by con - arguments to pro:

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Sources: no one is ever going to earn a source point from me citing creation.com. Ever; the source is too biased.