Evolution is False
Waiting for the contender's third argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
By observing the current rate of evolution in modern organisms, and extrapolating backwards into the past, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is not efficient enough to have evolved microbes into humans within a few billion years. Mutation and Natural Selection alone are not sufficient mechanisms to explain the diversity of life we see today, and there must be some other factor equally important and fundamental. The Intelligent Design movement identifies this unknown factor as an intelligent being which manually directed evolution. Perhaps it is instead some inanimate, unidentified property of the universe. In any case, this debate is not about what this factor is, only that it must exist for microbes to have evolved into humans, because mutation and natural selection are insufficient explanations.
- President Trump
- "Cit+ variant had emerged by 31,500 generations"
- "These early Cit+ genomes also show increases in cit copy number. The earliest one had a tandem duplication"
- "this is not speciation"
- "E. coli's capacity to evolve is more limited than currently assumed."
- "more than 73,000 generations."
- "Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years. This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10²⁰ parasite multiplications."
- "The single point mutations in the gene encoding cytochrome b (cytB), which confer atovaquone resistance, or in the gene encoding dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr), which confer pyrimethamine resistance, have a per-parasite probability of arising de novo of approximately 1 in 10¹² parasite multiplications."
- "So it is probably something like 10^20 total mammals ever existed."
- "We found 6,495 species of currently recognized mammals"
- 73,500 generations is equivalent to 1,102,500 human years, if humans have a generation every 15 years, because 73,500 x 15 = 1,102,500.
" I am not arguing that evolution is false. I am arguing that the mechanisms claimed to be behind evolution are not capable of doing what evolution actually did."
"The Intelligent Design movement identifies this unknown factor as an intelligent being which manually directed evolution. "
"...am I cherry-picking a species known to not be evolving?"
"After 31,500 generations, the only significant beneficial feature that E. coli evolved was the ability to eat citrate in the presence of oxygen"
Is it by pure chance that P. falciparum evolved into zero new species within the same timeframe that all the thousands of mammals evolved from mice?
" ...I ask my opponent to claim this explicitly or provide a counter-example of a faster-evolving organism who has been observed both before and after evolving."
"With all due respect to the claim that single-celled algae evolved into a multi-cellular organism, that's like saying people evolve into a new organism everytime they group into crowds."
"The example of a single lizard species either laying eggs or having live births, depending on their environment, has nothing to do with evolution."
"Humans and chimps are supposed to have descended from the same ancestor 7 million years ago, but at the rate E. coli is evolving, one beneficial mutation every 73,500 generations, that would imply humans and chimps are only separated by 7 mutations."
"Something had to be responsible for helping random mutations and natural selection evolve everything..."
the resolution could just as easily be "Any or all the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism are not sufficient to evolve microbes into humans" based on the comments section.
We are debating whether "mutation and natural selection alone evolved microbes into humans."
I will concede this debate if you are able to demonstrate that any or all the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism are sufficient to evolve microbes into humans, as long as "evolving microbes into humans" isn't assumed to be in the definition of Neo-Darwinism.
I'm not worried about you conceding this debate. I may address human evolution specifically or I may not to demonstrate that evolution is true.
he is actually here to argue that "Intelligent design directed evolution"
you are cherry-picking data
literally every aspect of the environment that P. falciparum was being bred in is different than the conditions of the early Earth.
Also, evolution isn't a ladder as I stated previously.
a far less misleading term than "prehistoric mice" would be "common ancestor(s)."
Finally, generational change in large multicellular organisms are going to carry different impacts with different environmental pressures. So these "timeframes" aren't even comparable.
Fifty weeks is a relative blink of an eye on the evolutionary scale. For the algae it was a little longer - 750 generations.
evolution is a process in constant motion, not a before-after on human time scales
This was not a colony of single-celled algae, these were new organisms, designating specialized cellular function.
To quote the actual paper, "Considerable variation exists in the evolved multicellular life cycles"
Sorting observations of a complex trait such as a life cycle into categories unavoidably requires some subjectivity ... C is similar to B but forms much larger multicellular structures
both cell number and propagule size varying among isolates
The lizards (skinks) are in a state of transitioning from egg births to placental births.
There are lizards that strictly lay eggs, and lizards that strictly have live births
My opponent does not clearly establish why E. Coli mutation rates should necessarily reflect Human and Ape mutation rates.