Instigator / Con

Evolution is not real


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro

1. Any change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

2. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

1. Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed

Round 1
I will start with brief introduction and later on I can go into details and evidence for everything mentioned below depending on what my opponent will reject.

  Fossil records show a gradual change in species over time, indicating a process of adaptation and evolution. Additionally, DNA analysis provides further confirmation by revealing genetic similarities and differences among organisms, reflecting their evolutionary relationships. The theory of evolution, proposed by Charles Darwin, explains how species evolve through natural selection, where organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. This gradual change over millions of years has led to the diversity of life forms we see today.

Furthermore, the concept of common ancestry is a key component of evolution. By studying similarities in anatomical structures, embryonic development, and genetic sequences across different species, scientists have been able to trace the evolutionary history of organisms and establish evolutionary relationships. For instance, homologous structures like the pentadactyl limb in vertebrates indicate a common evolutionary origin, despite serving different functions in various species.

Moreover, the process of speciation, where one species splits into two or more distinct species over time, provides concrete evidence for evolution. This can occur through various mechanisms such as geographic isolation, genetic drift, or natural selection, leading to the development of new species with unique characteristics.

In conclusion, the overwhelming evidence from various scientific fields, including paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy, strongly supports the reality of evolution. The consistent patterns observed in nature, the fossil record, and molecular biology all point towards a dynamic and ever-changing process that shapes the diversity of life on Earth. Evolution is a well-established scientific fact that continues to be supported and validated through ongoing research and discoveries.

I know that ants communicate using and chemical signals. I also know that primates, elephants, and some birds have been known to use rudimentary tools. Octopi can open jars, dolphins will recognize themselves in a mirror, and I was able to teach my dog some basic commands like 'sit', and 'jump up'. But I still view human intelligence as separate from animal intelligence. Many famous philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, believed that one of the defining traits of human intelligence was creativity; the ability to create. Do you believe that creativity be found elsewhere in nature? Or am I correct in saying that as far as we know, creativity is a uniquely human trait?

Question: Assuming that creativity is a uniquely human trait, how come we ('we' as in humans) are the only creatures on the planet that possess creativity? With so many living things on this earth, what caused our species to develop brains powerful enough to create the society that we live in today? 

It seems like the theory of evolution doesn't give an answer to that question, although please correct me if you believe that to be incorrect. I do not consider myself exceedingly religious, but I have found that the bible offers an answer to my question.

I realize that this is a debate focused on biology, so will keep religion out of it from now on, unless you are open to hearing some creationism arguments.


Round 2
Thanks for the reply,

“But I still view human intelligence as separate from animal intelligence.”

You’re correct, human intelligence is far more evolved than the intelligence of any other animal on the planet. 
Therefore we are obviously way more creative. 
It is separate, meaning its just way more complex and not similar to other animals. We are just animals that developed complex thinking and reasoning.

Do you believe that creativity be found elsewhere in nature? Or am I correct in saying that as far as we know, creativity is a uniquely human trait?

No, I don’t think complex creativity like that can be found in other animals. I wont dispute any of that since it’s all correct but irrelevant and doesn’t disprove Evolution. Intelligence and creativity is a unique trait for humans. Every animal has an unique trait. Intelligence is our biggest advantage and the best trait an animal can develop but we also have some disadvantages. We are not as powerful or agile as many other species, we do not posses the longevity of a turtle or a jellyfish, we don’t have the speed of a cheetah, we don’t have abilities to see in the dark as a bat. We did not evolve to able to fly or breathe under water, we don’t have a thick fur or skin. We also didn’t evolve to be able to regenerate limbs like lizards or heal as fast as axolotls. Humans don’t have many other traits that other animals have. Every form of life on this Earth evolves a certain way in order to survive.

Assuming that creativity is a uniquely human trait, how come we ('we' as in humans) are the only creatures on the planet that possess creativity? With so many living things on this earth, what caused our species to develop brains powerful enough to create the society that we live in today?

Just to state again - Creativity being a unique trait is irrelevant because it wont disprove Evolution but I can try to answer your question regardless.

According to the “cultural brain hypothesis,” humans evolved large brains and great intelligence in order to keep up with our complex social groups.
This hypothesis posits that human cognitive complexity arose as a result of the higher level of social complexity required from living in enlarged groups. These bigger groups entail a greater amount of social relations and interactions thus leading to an expanded quantity of intelligence in humans
You can say “Well there’s other animals living in big groups but they didn’t become as smart as us”.
This could be due to that some animals may not have faced the same level of social challenges that pushed human cognitive development. Also they did not have the same need for complex communication and cooperation. Like I said they also had different traits/abilities that helped them survive without  needing creative thinking. Humans need to be creative and cooperative in order to hunt a bear for example. We cannot kill it without using our intelligence because a bear has bigger claws, teeth, size etc..
There’s also many other things we can take account of but we wont go too deep into neuroscience since
the question “How did humans became so smart and other animals didn’t” is not an argument against Evolution. Many evolutionary biologists study this question and theres many articles about it.

It seems like the theory of evolution doesn't give an answer to that question

Lets just assume for the sake of the argument that Evolution does not provide an answer to every single question you can think of even though I just gave you a valid hypothesis for your question. There will be things that have not been discovered yet or can’t be ever (like maybe we won’t ever be able to discover every fact and property of black holes due to our limits to explore a black hole entirely). Science is all about progress. We keep learning new things every day. Our technology keeps advancing and the gaps become smaller and smaller. Even if we still don’t know a 100% of everything that is there to be discovered that doesn’t disprove Evolution. There’s already a vast amount of evidence for it. If you want to disprove Evolution you need to review the evidence and show them to be false. Which is what scientists do before they propose a theory. If they fail to disprove it then that theory becomes a fact. 

I have no problems with you bringing up religious arguments if you think they will help you disprove Evolution. On the other hand I’ve heard many theists give answers such as “only God knows”, “this hasn’t been written/described in the scriptures” so they are questions that religion can’t answer either. Would that disprove the whole religion? 

When reading through the following, please note that I am arguing that evolution does not exist. 
I do believe that genetic mutations exist, but just because genetic mutations exist, that does not necessarily mean that evolution exists.

Think of: Melanoma, leukemia, lung cancer, ect.
When has a genetic mutation ever helped you? 

Many genetic mutations are harmful. 
Some genetic mutations don't do anything.
And a tiny tiny tiny fraction of genetic mutations are helpful.
But even helpful genetic mutations are only slight improvements.

Here is a study on mutations in yeast:

Most genetic mutations are either neutral or harmful.
Isn't that the reason why a cell will undergo apoptosis if genetic damage is found within that cell? (YES)
Isn't that the reason for why different codons can code for the same amino acid? (YES)
That is the main reason for why I believe that the theory of evolution is wrong.
It contradicts itself! 
There are biological systems in place to stop mutations from happening, and at the same time, I am supposed to believe that mutations actually benefit a species by allowing it to adapt.

It simply does not make any sense to me, although if you believe otherwise, speak up.


Round 3
"When reading through the following, please note that I am arguing that evolution does not exist. "
I'm assuming you're restating your position in the debate because my rebuttal to your first question was that its irrelevant. Just to clarify what I mean, all I'm saying is that the arguments that you present would not disprove Evolution even if they are proven to be right. So while I know you're arguing that evolution doesn't exist, the arguments are irrelevant because they won't get you to the conclusion that evolution doesn't exist. I think the same goes for the argument you just presented and I'll explain why.

"I do believe that genetic mutations exist, but just because genetic mutations exist, that does not necessarily mean that evolution exists."
If you believe genetic mutations exist you're already half way there to understand this line of evidence.
Overall I think you just have very common misconceptions about genetic evolution. All you need to know for a start about genes is this:

1.DNA is the code of life. When reproduction occurs the genes in the DNA are passed to the offspring
2.Genes come in different variants called alleles
3. Different alleles are differently suited for life in different environment. That's where natural selection plays its huge part.

Lets go back to the definition of Evolution. 

"Heritable traits":  that does not necessarily mean DNA, there's also other non genetic factors of evolution
"Population": Individuals don't evolve. An organism doesn't magically turn into other kind of organism. The whole population slowly changes across multiple generations as the average traits amongst them starts to shift.
"Any":  there's no good or bad in evolution, because there is no plan or end goal in mind. Its just about reproduction.

"Think of: Melanoma, leukemia, lung cancer, ect.
When has a genetic mutation ever helped you?

Many genetic mutations are harmful.
Some genetic mutations don't do anything.
And a tiny tiny tiny fraction of genetic mutations are helpful.
But even helpful genetic mutations are only slight improvements."

Lets start with this. Evolution requires genetic variation. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Evolution works through random mutation and natural selection. The key word here is random not beneficial. In your argument you said that you don't believe in Evolution because most of the mutations are harmful which is false. Most genetic mutations are neutral and small % is beneficial or harmful.

Mutations can be neutral, strictly harmful, strictly helpful, and whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark [different colors from different gene (mutations)]. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths. A famous paper by H.B.D. Kettlewell proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best. In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare. One gene became more beneficial for survival than the other because of the environment. 
Before the Industrial Revolution, a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation, whereas during the dark years it was a favorable (helpful) mutation.

We have to know what we're talking about here. Evolution does not say that all mutations will be beneficial or that there wont be any neutral or harmful mutations. It's all random but only the mutations that are helpful (slightly or not)/neutral will get passed on to the next generation. Why? Because the ones with harmful mutations would die and not reproduce. If a bear that lives in the north pole has a mutation that caused it to have less fur, thinner skin or something that will contribute to it not surviving in the cold the bear will die, not reproduce and this gene wont continue. The bears that got the right gene for their environment will live on and reproduce, which is what evolution is. You can get examples of beneficial mutations from any species today that is still alive and existing. A chameleon wont be able to blend and change its color if it didn't have that mutation which helped him hide better (survive).

The existence of harmful mutations does not disprove Evolution. What does your example of harmful mutation do? For one cancer is mostly all the time caused by non hereditary causes. Its a disease, damaged cells caused by external, environmental factors that happen to us and other animals and it would be a problem for a species and its evolution (survival) only if it kills the majority of the population before it gets to reproduce. This is a reason why Evolution does not care about it. Same goes for other diseases like arthritis for example. It comes later in life, way after an our species usually reproduces. Its not a problem when it comes to our species surviving because we get to multiply before we encounter that problem.
If you take cancer itself and study it you would find proof for evolution because cancer itself evolves. Diseases and bacteria evolve. That's why we have to keep coming up with new vaccines for the flu for example. Because it reproduces and creates new variants that evolve to survive our ways to kill it.

"When has a genetic mutation ever helped you?
Quick answer: Lactose intolerance, Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Sickle cell resistance to malaria, Resistance to atherosclerosis, Immunity to HIV.

Not all humans have those mutations but they have happened to a part of the human population and were beneficial. And I'm only showing you mutations that you would consider genetic mutations. In reality everything about us is a mutation. Our ability to see is a mutation. The development of eyes is a genetic mutation. Everything about every animal is due to how their genes mutated. I'm sure knowing that now,  you'll be able to think of more mutations that are beneficial. Like the ability to speak. All due to genetic mutations [the FOXP2 gene acquired two amino acids substitutions (N303 and S325) after the split of humans from their common ancestors with chimpanzees, leading to contribution of the development of human linguistic abilities]. 
Or lets go outside of humans. Every trait that is helpful for the survival of an organism is considered beneficial. 

"Most genetic mutations are either neutral or harmful.
Isn't that the reason why a cell will undergo apoptosis if genetic damage is found within that cell? (YES)"
Most genetic mutations are neutral and I'm not sure where you're going with the apoptosis which is the programmed death of unwanted cells during the developmental stage of life. Like the cells between your fingers.
So no contradictions has been found in Evolution so far you just have to study it in more detailed.

BTW you can present your religious arguments I don't mind.

Thank you for such a comprehensive response.
Apoptosis is triggered by genetic damage from within the cell, as well as other things.

Moving forward.

I consider myself to be a pantheist, so I don't believe in young earth creationism. I was just throwing it out there earlier.

That being said, I would like to hear what you have to say about the topic of creationism.
Some believe that religious texts are meant to be taken literally and others believe that they are more figurative.
Some think that whatever religion says about creation is obsolete in a society built on the foundations of science and reasoning.
Do you think that religion contradicts evolution?

Personally, I refer to the Oxford Annotated Bible, of which an online version is linked to right here
Round 4
Well there’s some clarifications I would need before answering your questions properly but since this the final round I wont be able to respond so we’ll have to leave that topic for a new debate.

In general I don’t think science or evolution contradicts the possibility of God. You can have Evolution and God in the same time if God was the one who started it and set everything in motion. Same goes for every other scientific theory.

But religion on the other hand is a separate thing because science and evolution contradict a lot of things in a lot of religions. Not everything but for example Evolution and science contradict stories from the Bible like the Adam and Eve story, the Ark story and so on. So the only way to be christian and believe in evolution is obviously if you take the Bible not literally (at least not every part of it).

I don’t know what you mean by referring to the Bible and getting answers from it and identifying as pantheist. Im not too familiar with pantheism but from what I know the definition for God is pretty much just the universe. Pantheists are describing the universe, reality and everything in it and calling it God/divine which I don’t  know why. If you’re just going to describe the universe just call it “the universe”. It already has a name. By calling it divine or God you’re smuggling properties about the Universe that we don’t know. Because if you are just going to call the Universe/Nature/reality - “God” and that’s all there is why call it a God? That term usually implies some other qualities that most people think of when they say God. Like intelligent, conscious agent that interacts and has a personal relationship with us. I don’t know if in the pantheistic worldview the Universe deeply cares about our daily life and if you’re getting your answers from the Bible I think you just might be a Christian who is not a fundamentalist. That’s my opinion.
Good Game! 
Thank you for the debate, I am convinced.

To clarify: yes, my religious beliefs are a little bit ambiguous. I read the bible because I think it has insightful things to say about human nature, although I am still deciding  on how (or if) it applies to philosophy. I came upon the term pantheism while reading over something about John A. Leslie (Canadian proffesor) and his beliefs. Leslie believes that the universe and god are one, and he also believes that god is intelligent in some ways.  I do not use 'god' and 'the universe' interchangeably because I think that the universe is the reality that we can observe, In contrast to what I refer to as god; the underlying reason behind the universe; the why to it all. Still, I think that god and the universe are one.