Evolution is False
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...
- 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.
"I have already explained that Intelligent Design is one of a couple possibilities I'm aware of."
"If malaria and E. coli are cherry-picking, that implies you're aware of examples of organisms that have been observed to accumulate beneficial mutations more rapidly. Please cite these examples, or retract the accusation of cherry-picking."
"...but that would still fail to address why it seems you're acknowledging evolution has come to a grinding halt today, relative to its speed in the past...unless you can demonstrate why the slow rate of evolution of malaria and E. coli is not representive of the rate of evolution of other organisms."
"There's nothing wrong with describing helpful mutations as a step-up on a ladder and harmful mutations as a step-down..."
"I thought you would suggest something like shrew, since Google calls them shrew-like. If they were alive today they'd be colloquially known as mice. Calling them common ancestors is uselessly vague, since I was talking specifically about the last mammalian common ancestor."
"Different things happen differently in different times and places? This is a terrible argument against comparing per-generation evolution rates."
"... because the lifespan of single-celled life is shorter, they don't have time to accumulate as many mutations per generation..."
"That's incorrect. The cells didn't specialize. They were all the same. If a colony of single-celled creatures doesn't possess organs, it's not an organism. It's a colony. "
"This has literally nothing to do with evolution, since their DNA hasn't changed."
"There are no lizards that strictly do one or the other."
"This is a concession that it's not realistic to think a mere 7 beneficial mutations are the difference between humans and chimps"
"because how else are we going to measure the progress of evolution without rapidly-reproducing organisms like bacteria?"
What evidence would meet your personal standard that would convince you of my side of the resolution?
If Humans evolved from single celled organisms
The "explanation" of Intelligent Design fails for several reasons. For one, it is replacing one unknown for another
We have observed rapid mutation rates in E. Coli and Salmonella Pathogens.
a species doesn't have to change at all if it is already well adapted
Here the inherent flaw in my opponent's conceptualization is laid bare, because an adaptation is not inherently good or bad, it's how it's used.
My argument is that the comparison of E. Coli timeframes of mutation and the timeframe of mammalian evolution haven't been demonstrated to be comparable. And the sheer number of uncontrolled/uncontrollable variables indicates that they are actually not comparable.
I had misspoken earlier. I meant to say it is not an aggregate of single celled algae. To quote the actual paper ...
This has literally nothing to do with evolution, since their DNA hasn't changed.— me
This is blatantly false. This paper  states, " In contrast, gene expression changes ...— my opponent
Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence — a change in phenotype without a change in genotype (1)
The paper  cited above names one as an example of exactly what my opponent baselessly claims doesn't exist
My opponent has not demonstrate that there are only seven mutational differences, and that is not my claim.
We could start by examining a creature that actually morphologically resembles the one we are trying to determine the mutation rate of. Bacteria aren't even Eukaryotic, and my opponent is shifting the burden of proof with an appeal to ignorance .
“To be clear I have never denied we evolved from microbes.”
“Beneficial mutations? High rates of neutral or harmful mutations do not support your case.”
“ Whatever the likelihood it was that, by unfortunate chance, I chose an abnormally slowly evolving microbe to misrepresent this as the typical rate of neo-darwinism...My opponent still hasn't provided a counter-example of an organism which evolves more rapidly via the known mechanisms of evolution.”
“The rabbit analogy is interesting but doesn't prove that evolution isn't a ladder; otherwise, no mutation could be described as beneficial or harmful. They'd all be neutral...So explicitly defining the ladder as fitness for a particular environment erases any confusion caused by my opponent's fallacy.”
“Your measurements of microbes don't apply to mammals," without any proof or even concrete explanation why, or even any measurements of his own of the mutation rate of mammals.”“Mammals apparently evolve too slow to measure anything favorable to your stance, which is why I chose microbes. I have no idea what (sheer?) number of variables indicate they aren't comparable. The E. coli experiment was in a lab setting and the malaria case is based on measurements of wild samples over many decades. If neither indicate anything about the evolution rate of mammals, then first, why? What are some of these variables? And two, what could we measure to determine the current, modern evolution rate of mammals?”
“They didn't evolve into multi-cellular creatures. They evolved multi-cellular behavior; clustering.”
“Organisms require organs, of which there were none”
“Gene expression changes are not DNA changes. That is epigenetics...The skink's ability to change from egg-laying to live birth was a result of changes in the expression of unmodified genes. Epigenetics, not evolution.”
“What I do deny is that the live-birthers would not be able to switch to egg-laying if transported into the environment of the egg-layers.”
“my opponent must provide a better explanation than the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism ... my opponent must present an alternative model ... If he accepts that we evolved from microbes, then he is accepting Neo-Darwinism as an explanation for that fact”
“this debate is not about what this factor is”
“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.”
“My opponent has made no attempt to define what he means by “beneficial” mutations.”
“So explicitly defining the ladder as fitness for a particular environment erases any confusion caused by my opponent's fallacy.Fitness in a specific environment is an objective measurement. So the ladder concept is also objective.”
“the fact that there is a high mutation rate observed necessarily entails that there would be a higher rate of “beneficial” mutations. A high mutational rate is all that has to be demonstrated.”
“This study provided two examples that refute my opponent’s claim of low mutation rates.”
“a beneficial mutation in one environment is a step down the ladder in another environment. So, using a ladder analogy is not useful. My opponent’s definition enshrines this arbitrariness”
“I don’t have to demonstrate they aren’t if my opponent’s positive claim that they are representative isn’t substantiated.”
“The major uncounted variable is the absence of a predator, or any other species to compete with. It is well known that competition is a huge driver of evolution.”
“this multicellularity is heritable. All of the new organisms' offspring are multicellular, not unicellular”
“Organisms require organs, of which there were none”This is patently false.Organism - An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.
“I’ll grant it is a change in phenotype, but my opponent does not realize that Epigenetic Inheritance is a mechanism of evolution. So the fact that this phenotype is inheritable is still an example of evolution. ”
“What I do deny is that the live-birthers would not be able to switch to egg-laying if transported into the environment of the egg-layers.”Perhaps my opponent could attempt to substantiate this conjecture in his closing. Please demonstrate what environment would cause Saiphos equalis to revert back to egg-laying.
"Beneficial mutations are those which increase fitness in the current environment"
"...so you have to turn up the beneficial mutation rate as well. "
"This is a logically unsound argument, since it is a fallacy to conclude that a high overall mutation rate “necessarily” entails a high beneficial mutation rate..."
"This is a fancy way of saying the cells tended to stay in clumps. Of course after the daughter cells come into existence within the blob of jelly they will not tend to swim away as individuals, but drag others along with them once a portion does manage to break away."
"I misspoke; the correct phrase should be: “Organisms require organs or organelles, of which there were none”"
"...so unless my DNA is identical to that of the microbe that got me sick the other day, it isn't the missing factor that's needed to explain how microbes evolved into people."
"The same environment where the egg-layers are. Is there even a different answer I could have given to that question"