Instigator / Pro
16
1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2490

The theory of Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not the best description of reality

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
21
Better sources
6
14
Better legibility
5
7
Better conduct
5
2

After 7 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

JRob
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
44
1523
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Description

A theory which, different from natural selection, Instead says that major evolutionary steps occur from DNA rearrangements which are carried out by cellular genetic engineering systems that are operating non-randomly.

This is not an intelligent design debate. If you wanted to go a step further of "how", Then I'd take the intelligent design route citing a few areas of cellular biology. However, that would be a different debate.

For this debate I'm simply taking the view of that evolution has been driven by cellular systems of natural, Non-random genetic engineering is a better theory than the defined natural selection.

One comparison between the two can be seen in the idea of mutations. Natural selection says the random mutations which are most favorable are passed on. The opposing theory would instead say that most mutations are not random. They result from the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function given a non-random read-write process.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You're dead right. It was a really interesting topic and similar to astronomy, people know a lot of the intro level stuff. DNA and cellular biology is kind of in the same boat. I was hoping for a discovery documentary level discussion (and now know to better attempt to estimate my depth of knowledge to ensure fair expectation setting).

Then here, I bump into someone with both a deeper base of knowledge and far more rigorous debate style over discussion style. I literally feel bad if he feels his time was wasted.

All that said, wow I sincerely appreciate those call outs! I have so much to learn and those like my opponent who have been patient and kind have accelerated working through that learning curve dramatically.

Sorry for the lack of fireworks on what could have been a really fun one. Haha give me a year or so and I might be ready to re-tackle.

Unless we're talking physics/astronomy. Then I'm game all day!

Thanks again, that was kind of you to go out of your way to share!

And again one further nod to Jrob. You're a beast (good kind haha)

Hmm... not a very efficient debate tactic, but UpholdingTheFaith is a very intellectually honest individual, taking time to reevaulte biases and revise their opinion. I have to say, that great, it's not very often that people are like that. Props to Pro for the conduct.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

We were in the "hot debates" category for a little while there! Woo! :)

-->
@JRob

You're fine. That comment just makes me feel twice as bad about the second response I did.

So hey. We're both learning and growing right. And open to a conversation. A win i think.

I mention it, but to reiterate - I am genuinely sorry for the length of the first round.

Future, succinct-ness, yes.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Same. Simultaneously believing in ID and Genesis seems impossible to me. I've yet to hear a solid explanation as to why they are compatible.

-->
@MisterChris

I personally, haven't heard any argument for intelligent design that doesn't have critical mistakes.

-->
@Sum1hugme

They are, but it makes creationism seem more plausible by comparison. I don't see how you could argue for Intelligent design from a biblical standpoint

-->
@MisterChris

The argument from improbability there is something in a discussion about abiogenesis. But unfortunately, evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are separate theories.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

By far the best point in your favor is the biogenesis upon which an athiest evolutionary theory relies.

New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 on page 527 (https://books.google.com/books?id=riW31Fy4kpkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=New+Scientist,+Nov+19,+1981&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP8efk4rLkAhUER6wKHbW1D7EQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false):

"Imagine 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many bio-polymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the bio-polymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

For a singular gene to arrive by chance, as Creation 1, no 1 (June 1978): 9-10 (https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/a-look-at-some-figures/), explains:

“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”

Is this just about whether natural selection describes one mechanism of genetic changes in reproductive populations over time?

This will be fun to read

An interesting point of view!

-->
@seldiora

I understand that position. Perhaps worth starting another debate with better terms for the type of discussion you're looking for? No pressure either way, feel free to engage in this debate if you wish. Perhaps we could just focus on a few things and let another debate continue the discussion if necessary?

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

One day for arg is not enough for such a scientific idea