Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#2732

Evolution is False

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Bugsy460

Thanks for your vote!

-->
@Puachu

Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off.

This new group, called eukaryotes, also gave rise to other animals, plants, fungi and protozoans. The differences between eukaryotes and other organisms, known as prokaryotes, are numerous and profound. Dr. Lynch, a biologist at Indiana University, is one of many scientists pondering how those differences evolved.

Eukaryotes are big, compared with prokaryotes. Even a single-celled protozoan may be thousands of times as big as a typical bacterium. The differences are even more profound when you look at the DNA. The eukaryote genome is downright baroque. It is typically much bigger and carries many more genes.

Eukaryotes can do more with their genes, too. They can switch genes on and off in complex patterns to control where and when they make proteins. And they can make many proteins from a single gene.

That is because eukaryote genes are segmented into what are called exons. Exons are interspersed with functionless stretches of DNA known as introns. Human cells edit out the introns when they copy a gene for use in building a protein. But a key ability is that they can also edit out exons, meaning that they can make different proteins from the same gene. This versatility means that eukaryotes can build different kinds of cells, tissues and organs, without which humans would look like bacteria.

-->
@Bugsy460

Thank you for voting.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@Puachu

RFD
I vote Con because I don't believe that Pro meets their BOP. Going off the third round resolution, Con says the BOP is for Pro to give a new theory. Pro says it's not and says look at the description, which has no explicit BOP. Con then says the BOP is for Pro to show the missing mechanism, and they simply don't. I buy that there is evidence the microbes evolve quickly and beneficially, I buy the algae has evolved to multicellular, and I buy that the lizards can't switch back and forth because they're evolving. (This list without context sounds like an Alex Jones rant) This fulfills that evolution can happen fast enough, to cause microbes to be humans.

Notes
Pro
Don't switch the debate in the middle, make the resolution more clear. On top of this, if you want to refer to the description to answer claims on what the BOP is, then put an explicit BOP in the description. You spend a lot of time just not engaging with Con's sources and argumentation. For example, you make a baseless claim about one of his sources, he cites why that's wrong from the source, you extend it and add another one in the next speech. Algae and lizard egg/live birth was full of this. Use direct sources to clash, so Con can't just extend their source as an answer.

Con
I don't understand why you dropped the BOP that Pro has to have an alternate theory. There was a lot of argumentation on why it was a good BOP and Pro didn't answer it, meaning it was an instant win for you. Also, you should have called Pro out on the resolution shift as a reason to vote Con.

If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.

-->
@whiteflame

I do understand that, and thanks for the vote!

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting

-->
@Theweakeredge

I appreciate it if you do decide to vote.

-->
@Puachu

Honestly, you'd be the one at a disadvantage if I did vote because your points would be the ones I'd scrutinize the most. It's harder for me with solid biological science topics like this where I come in knowing a great deal about the topic (though my PhD is in microbiology and not evolutionary biology... actually, very little evolution involved in my research), but I'll consider it.

-->
@whiteflame

I would also appreciate your vote, please don't overthink whether your bias gets in the way =D

-->
@Sum1hugme

Well I certainly don't have a Ph.D. on the subject but I have gone through a couple AP and college courses regarding the matter - I can give it a look.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yeah, one of us has a PhD in the subject and the other is a high schooler who only has surface level knowledge on the subject... You probs need somebody in the middle there lol.

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

Well that's a conundrum, since one of you is "too educated" and one is "not educated enough" lol

hmmmm... i'm not sure I'm educated enough on this to vote, but I could try if no one else offers

-->
@whiteflame

I understand.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Ugh... this one's going to be difficult for me to vote on without personal bias getting in the way. I might be able to manage it, but I can make no promises that I can fully step away from what I already know. Might want to look elsewhere.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

There is only a week for voting, so please consider taking the time.

-->
@Sum1hugme

That's pretty incredible because I did not catch a single one!

-->
@Puachu

Sorry for the spelling errors, I speech-to-texted my last round almost completely.

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@gugigor

We had already established this in the comments before the debate began.

Premise: Evolution is false

Pro: " I am not arguing that evolution is false"

Con: well then.

-->
@FLRW

The experiment lasted for 73,500 generations. That's equivalent to over a million human years, assuming humans begin reproducing at 15 years of age.

-->
@Puachu

Your comment 'After 31,500 generations, the only significant beneficial feature that E. coli evolved was the ability to eat citrate in the presence of oxygen." does not make any sense relative to the billions of years that it has been around. This is a time span of only 14 years since the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010 which is 22 years.

I would like to note that my opening arguments were inspired by the comment history of reddit.com/u/JoeCoder

-->
@Sum1hugme

Perfect.

-->
@Puachu

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.

-->
@Sum1hugme

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.

-->
@Puachu

Well then let's get it

-->
@Sum1hugme

That definition is not incompatible with my thesis or even with Intelligent Design, since one could say an "intelligence" was partly responsible for the "changes".

-->
@Sum1hugme

Genetic Drift is already implied by "Mutation and Natural Selection". I'm willing to accept Horizontal Gene Transfer as being included in the definition as well.

-->
@Puachu

I'll take this if you let me define evolution as "changes in allele frequencies in reproductive populations over time."

-->
@Puachu

Woops said genetic drift twice

-->
@Puachu

There are several mechanisms contained within the neo-darwinian synthesis. Naturally selection, genetic drift, mutation, and genetic drift. There also horizontal gene transfer being studied. Are you arguing against all of those?

@Undefeatable Sexual reproduction is not a necessary aspect of evolution, otherwise bacteria could never evolve into people. The other factors are encompassed under the terms "mutation" and "natural selection".

-->
@Puachu

You do realize there are four factors of evolution, not just two right? 1) the potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the heritable genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) competition for limited resources, and (4) the proliferation of those organisms that are better able to survive and reproduce in the environment.

Your description basically gets rid of 1 and 3...

-->
@Undefeatable

We are debating whether "mutation and natural selection alone evolved microbes into humans."

-->
@Puachu

define "evolution".