Instigator / Pro
9
1309
rating
274
debates
40.51%
won
Topic
#4967
Evolution is wrong
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
2
3
After 4 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
27
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
Definitions
Evolution is defined as belief that first life was created by random collision of particles, guided by no intelligence or intent.
These definitions can never be changed. Rules also can never be changed. Description also cannot be changed.
Upon agreeing to debate, you accept everything written in description as totally true.
Burden of proof is on Pro to disprove evolution.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Okay, now I am going to explain why evolution is fake news.
First, there is no such thing as simple life form. That term was completely made up.
Lets take a look at the most simple life form, which is the cell. We will see that it is not even close to being simple.
When you make a car, each part goes in its own place. If just one part is out of place, car wont work. And if you just threw car parts around against each other, you would never make a car.
Even the most simple cell consists of over 500 million atoms all set in a very specific way.
Think of it this way. Our alphabet has 26 letters. If you took those 26 letters and tried to throw them around to get the word "Hello" in perfect order, it would take you about 10 million attempts. Thats just for the simple word Hello.
In nature, Alphabet has trillions of letters. As I said, the simple cell consists of 500 million atoms. It is like a very large book written in perfect order. If any piece was out of place, cell would not work properly.
If you threw 500 million letters around randomly, you would never get a perfectly written 500 million letter book. Just for the word "Hello" it takes 10 million attempts when there are no defects in letters.
Now, lets count for defects. Defects are parts that dont work anymore or never worked at all, but due to collision ended up being included. Since collision is random, parts that play no role would be included too. Think of it like using both Chinese letters and English letters together to try to get English word "Hello". It would no longer take 10 million attempts, because Chinese letters would play no other role but creating obstructions. It would take 100000000 trillion attempts to get the word "Hello".
To get the 500 million letter coherent book perfectly written would be literally impossible with random collisions.
However, even the most basic cell is literally a 500 million letters book perfectly written and organized in perfect structure with no defects. How is that possible? The evolution has no answer. All that they came up with was "it was random collision.". However, the chances for random collision to make just one such cell are literally impossible. Even one single cell is so complicated that scientists are still unable to know the purpose of each of its genes. Even the most basic cells have at least 500 genes structured in perfect order. Any change in structure of genes, and cell would not work properly, would not reproduce properly, would be abnormal. And genes are just one part of the cell that needs to be perfect.
In nature, there are scientific impossibilities such as mutual dependence. These impossibilities can only be explained by 2 mutually dependent life forms being created at exactly the same time.
Since two life forms depend on each other, both must exist at the same time or they cannot exist at all. If just one existed, it would die because its survival depends upon the other life form.
Same way, all parts of cell are mutually dependent to exist at the same time in proper order if cell is to exist.
Lets take a look at basic parts of a cell:
1. Cell membrane
2. Cytoplasm
3. Organelles
4. Mitochondria
5. Nucleus
6. Chloroplasts
7. Cell wall
8. Ribosomes
9. Endoplasmic recticulum
10. Golgi apparatus
Now, each of these basic parts itself contains thousands of parts.
For example, nucleus alone contains:
1. DNA (contains 1. 500 genes in perfect order, each gene contains over 1000 bases, 2. Chemical bases, 3. Nucleotides, 4. Instructions for proteins)
2. Nuclear envelope
3. Nuclear pores
4. Nucleoplasm
5. Nucleolus
6. Proteins and ribosomes
Each cell is made out of thousands of well-arranged molecules, each molecule with thousands of parts. For example, basic protein molecule has at least 500 well arranged atoms. Basic cell has at least 1000 protein molecules.
To say that such perfect 500 million parts structure was formed by random collisions is not only absurd, but impossible, since random collisions always come with defects that break the structure.
By law of mutual dependence, (if two things are mutually dependent, they can only exist if they both exist at the same time), with 500 million mutually dependent parts that exist without any defects breaking structure, it follows that 500 million parts had to be at the same time put together in a perfect way, without any unnecessary parts or harmful parts being added, in an environment filled with defects, random unnecessary parts, is impossible to happen.
It is equivalent to trying to write a book in English by taking Chinese, Japanese, English and letters from all other languages and throwing them around until you get perfect book in English.
It is impossible, since to get the word "Hello" alone takes 1000000 trillion attempts.
To get 1 million English words in perfect order of a book, by throwing letters around, is impossible.
The most basic cell is literally a 500 million letters book written in perfect order. Any change in order, and cell would not work. Such cell could not have been created by random collision of parts, since chances for that are impossible.
Con
#2
Pro is suggesting that Evolution is merely improbable but nevertheless still theoretically possible.
Let me just give one example.
However, even the most basic cell is literally a 500 million letters book perfectly written and organized in perfect structure with no defects. How is that possible? The evolution has no answer. All that they came up with was "it was random collision."
Yeah this. I refuse to state that random collisions "can't" cause this, because it of course can. Pro, meanwhile, has never proven that random collision can't just be lucky enough to create stuff like this, merely how improbable it is. Pro has provided no proof on that it is theoretically impossible.
What is theoretically impossible? Say, if Pro brings up a valid in-real-life frame where any attempts to create life from particles is halted via cause-and-effect trancendental causes (the same cause-and-effect was attempted by Zeus in the mythology of Prometheus: in that story, there is a mechanism/system to prevent gods from bringing fire to humans until it didn't). Unless Pro brings up any active mechanism/system that prevents life from being evolved and keep evolving, Pro has progressed null.
And the BoP is default to Pro due to that it is stated in the description. All I need to prove is that "The statement 'evolution is wrong' is unsound" rather than that "evolution is correct". I cannot "prove" the latter, because it is entirely possible that everything was created today yet didn't "evolve", but that doesn't make Pro the correct one here unless he proves that evolution is possible in no circumstances, not even microevolution and allele shifts, not even in speciation billions of years after the first inception of the cell, of which Pro think is improbable.
Oh, and what does it mean? Evolution Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Evolution : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations.
Random Arg: Speciation
By proving one kind of evolution being existent, evolution isn't "wrong", because the theory would at least be partly right(and the other part is me being too lazy to keep proving because I suck ass at biology, not inherently wrong).
By evolving from one species to another so that the population is better adapted to the environment, textbook-definition evolution occurs. The source above shows that yes, it presents as a real phenomenon and is studied extensively by scholars today.
If somehow Pro is going to pull the "Appeal to authority fallacy" card with me using so, then I am going to retaliate: What sources do you have that are somehow more authentic than decades if not centuries of collective work regarding biology?
Conclusions
- Proving that one kind of evolution takes place disproves "Evolution is wrong" for that it partly correctly interprets and explains the real world.
- Speciation is one kind of evolution and it exists according to biologists of the last decades, which I consider to be an authentic source.
- Just because it is incredibly hard to form cells does not disprove the presence of speciation as an existing phenomenon. For this matter, Pro's argument is not constructive.
- Pro has not given any citations to any scholarly page, so it is entirely indistinguishable from Pro making BS up. I am not saying Pro is doing so, but we can't prove that he isn't when he refuses to list his sources.
- Vote Con, plzzzzzzzz? (smiley face?) (UwU)
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:
Concession.
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:
Concessions
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:
Concession
Well, no problem, the debate got the votes.
No I don't like voting.
Hey, you like voting, no? This seems like an easy vote.
Hey guys, you like voting. Cast some votes. Given that I conceded the debate, vote will only take a couple of seconds.
Fixing your definitions and presets are VERY BAD, as it essentially fixes yourself whenever there is a leverage on the other side. And you know how I roll.