1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#737
Evolution, despite being officially considered a theory, is actually a fact.
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
Speedrace
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Nature
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 30,000
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description
~ 0
/
5,000
No information
Round 1
DNA proves we are related to other hominids irrefutably and that all species on earth are related
The fossil record has shown intermediate stages in the evolution of many species
Many species have vestigial characteristics which suggest they are losing traits that no longer meet the needs of selection
More evidence is addressed in the article below
Simply citing a website is not an argument. Because of that, all I must prove wrong are the points that you specifically said.
DNA Relatives
You say that DNA "proves" that every living thing is related, but this is not true. Even the article you cited only says it "strongly suggests" it.
The only way that this conclusion can be reached is with the presupposition that a God doesn't exist. However, those of us who do believe in God reach a completely different conclusion. In our view, it is overwhelming evidence of intelligent design. For example, for this to work, an editing process would have to exist from the beginning of time at the SAME TIME that DNA came into existence. If not, the DNA would mutate itself so much that it would cease to exist. It requires immense faith to believe that this happened by chance.
Another matter is that not all life forms have standard DNA.
Intermediate Evolutionary Stages
If this point is true, we should be up to our necks in transitional fossils. However, the truth is that we are not. If you go to the Wikipedia page of transitional fossils, there are not even 200. [1]
This makes no sense because there should be millions, according to the theory of evolution. Besides this, there are no transitional fossils between taxonomic groups (60% vertebrate and 40% invertebrate). Evolutionists claim that there are, but they are always disproven with time. [2]
Vestigial Characteristics
Creationists aren't against the idea that animals can lose features which are useless, so this doesn't help your point. It can go either way. It is gaining new features that creationists have problems with. [3]
Symbiotic Relationships
Symbiotic relationships are completely different from evolution. For example, there are some fish which have other fish clean their teeth. However, in the evolutionary worldview, both species would have to evolve at the SAME TIME to have such a behavior. There are MANY symbiotic relationships, so this is not even remotely possible unless it is in the creationist worldview.
Sources:
Round 2
Simply citing a website is not an argument. Because of that, all I must prove wrong are the points that you specifically said.
Contained within that website are proofs of evolution, it is also part of my argument since I'm using it as a source. If you ignore it, you are leaving evidence of evolution which I have presented undisputed.
You say that DNA "proves" that every living thing is related, but this is not true. Even the article you cited only says it "strongly suggests" it.
Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that not "all" life on earth is related, the genetic links between the vast majority of species is still undeniable. which indicates evolution even for the species which aren't connected in any known way. How do you explain the fact that we are genetically related to other hominids and apes? Was God trouble shooting and making numerous prototypes before he made humans or something?
The only way that this conclusion can be reached is with the presupposition that a God doesn't exist.
The only way the evidence for evolution can be denied is with the presupposition that creationism is true.
for this to work, an editing process would have to exist from the beginning of time at the SAME TIME that DNA came into existence. If not, the DNA would mutate itself so much that it would cease to exist
This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. Please provide evidence that DNA would "mutate itself out of existence" without an "editing process" that must have necessarily popped into existence simultaneously.
It requires immense faith to believe that this happened by chance.
No one thinks DNA was created by chance, it happened because of a gradual series of interactions between organic molecules according to the laws of nature, and although it is not known precisely how it happened it wasn't an instantaneous thing that fell into place perfectly all at once.
Another matter is that not all life forms have standard DNA.
Not all life forms are entirely alive either, such as viruses.
we should be up to our necks in transitional fossils.
Not necessarily, although there are enough to support my position. There are enough to clearly see examples of organisms adapting to their environment, such as homo ancestors transitioning from long-armed-tree-swingers into bipedal-plain-walkers. Fossilisation is a privilege, not a right. There is no guarantee of an abundance of fossil evidence, many bones do not fossilise at all, and those that do are often smashed to pieces and/or eroded by geology and weather. A huge amount of the species that have ever existed are unknown to mankind, so you have no excuse to say their should be more fossil evidence if evolution is true and there is no sound counter-argument or equally valid alternate theory for the evidence there already is.
For example, there are some fish which have other fish clean their teeth. However, in the evolutionary worldview, both species would have to evolve at the SAME TIME to have such a behavior.
This does not follow at all. You will need to provide more of a basis for the claim that organisms must evolve "at the same time" to be symbiotic.
Contained within that website are proofs of evolution, it is also part of my argument since I'm using it as a source. If you ignore it, you are leaving evidence of evolution which I have presented undisputed.
Yes, it has evidence for evolution, but claims and arguments are only made by you. Sources only provide proof and evidence, not claims.
Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that not "all" life on earth is related, the genetic links between the vast majority of species is still undeniable. which indicates evolution even for the species which aren't connected in any known way. How do you explain the fact that we are genetically related to other hominids and apes? Was God trouble shooting and making numerous prototypes before he made humans or something?
First of all, where’s your evidence that we’re genetically related to apes? Second, I would say that God made all life connected on purpose.
The only way the evidence for evolution can be denied is with the presupposition that creationism is true.
That’s incorrect. There are numerous atheists who do not believe in evolution.
This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. Please provide evidence that DNA would "mutate itself out of existence" without an "editing process" that must have necessarily popped into existence simultaneously.
Oops, for some reason I didn’t provide my source for this. Here it is. [1]
No one thinks DNA was created by chance, it happened because of a gradual series of interactions between organic molecules according to the laws of nature, and although it is not known precisely how it happened it wasn't an instantaneous thing that fell into place perfectly all at once.
That describes being created by chance perfectly. I never said it was an instantaneous thing though.
Not all life forms are entirely alive either, such as viruses.
Viruses aren’t considered to be a life form. They are more like biological robots.
Not necessarily, although there are enough to support my position.
That’s not even close to being true. If evolution was true, there should be millions of transitional fossils, but there are less than 200. In addition, every transitional fossil is often disputed, even among the people who DO believe evolution! There is no undisputed transitional fossil. Darwin noted the lack of them as a counter to his own theory. [2]
There are enough to clearly see examples of organisms adapting to their environment, such as homo ancestors transitioning from long-armed-tree-swingers into bipedal-plain-walkers.
Can you show the proof of this?
Fossilisation is a privilege, not a right. There is no guarantee of an abundance of fossil evidence, many bones do not fossilise at all, and those that do are often smashed to pieces and/or eroded by geology and weather.
I’m aware of this. However, even with this fact, there should still be millions of transitional fossils.
A huge amount of the species that have ever existed are unknown to mankind, so you have no excuse to say their should be more fossil evidence if evolution is true and there is no sound counter-argument or equally valid alternate theory for the evidence there already is.
The burden of proof isn’t on me to prove an alternative theory, the burden of proof is on you to prove evolution to be a fact.
This does not follow at all. You will need to provide more of a basis for the claim that organisms must evolve "at the same time" to be symbiotic.
For example, algae and the fungus of lichen. These two lifeforms both depend on each other completely in order to live. That means that they must have evolved at the exact same time or both would have died out since it can't live without the other. Other examples can include flowers and bees, large marine predators and cleaner fish, etc. [3]
So, can you explain how symbiosis fits into evolution?
Sources:
Round 3
First of all, where’s your evidence that we’re genetically related to apes?
Second, I would say that God made all life connected on purpose.
That is an arbitrary faith based claim. Science tells us that species evolve due to selection and that we are genetically related to other species which we evolved from.
That’s incorrect. There are numerous atheists who do not believe in evolution.
They believe in other fairy tales then, which makes them no better.
Oops, for some reason I didn’t provide my source for this. Here it is. [1]
That's not proof, it's an opinion piece.
That describes being created by chance perfectly. I never said it was an instantaneous thing though.
No, it happened due to cause and effect, it wasn't random at all. Also you said "at the SAME TIME" several times.
Can you show the proof of this?
can you explain how symbiosis fits into evolution?
Can you explain how it doesn't? I don't see how this disproves evolution at all. Organisms interacting in mutually beneficial ways or being interdependent is not some giant paradox. Maybe some did evolve at the same time, so what?
Here’s evidence against it. [1]
That is an arbitrary faith based claim. Science tells us that species evolve due to selection and that we are genetically related to other species which we evolved from.
You asked me what God would do, so I told you. Of course it’s a faith-based claim because the question was faith-based. What did you expect? If you ask about God, your answer will be about God. So, really, your question was arbitrary, because my answer was perfectly in line with that question.
They believe in other fairy tales then, which makes them no better.
This is an unsubstantiated claim.
That's not proof, it's an opinion piece.
So is all of the stuff you quoted. However, we quote them because they provide evidence from experts. That’s what that piece gave. Ignore the opinion part if it makes it easier.
No, it happened due to cause and effect, it wasn't random at all.
It was random. If it wasn’t, your saying that someone was guiding it. If it’s simply left up to nature, it’s random. Yes, cause and effect is a part of that, but the causes and effects are random.
Also you said "at the SAME TIME" several times.
I said that because species like algae and lichen had to evolve at the same time in order to survive. If they didn’t, one of them would have diced out because the other one wasn’t there to evolve with them and help them live.
Again, simply quoting supposed transitional fossils isn’t enough because all transitional fossils have been disputed. [2]
Can you explain how it doesn't? I don't see how this disproves evolution at all. Organisms interacting in mutually beneficial ways or being interdependent is not some giant paradox. Maybe some did evolve at the same time, so what?
Evolution is a delicate process. You’re telling me that two species that need each other popped into existence at the EXACT SAME TIME. Not only that, but MILLIONS or pairs of species that DEPEND ON EACH OTHER to live. That’s literally impossible, because species that evolve separately don’t affect the others evolution, but somehow they evolved separately and ended up in the exact place at the exact time to help each continue to live? The chances of that are ASTRONOMICALLY low. You still have not explained even remotely how there is a chance of this happening.
To summarize, my opponent hasn’t proved evolution. Remember even if I haven’t proven it to be false, my opponent has to prove it to be FACT. He has failed to do that, which means that I win by default.
Sources:
[1] https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/genetics-confirms-recent-supernatural-creation-adam-and-eve/
[2] http://www.pravdareport.com/science/106586-evolution_theory/
To summarize, my opponent hasn’t proved evolution. Remember even if I haven’t proven it to be false, my opponent has to prove it to be FACT. He has failed to do that, which means that I win by default.
Sources:
[1] https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/genetics-confirms-recent-supernatural-creation-adam-and-eve/
[2] http://www.pravdareport.com/science/106586-evolution_theory/
Claiming that evolutionary theory is based off assumptions is a molehill on its own. However you are factually wrong that evolutionary is incompatible with symbiosis. And this is due to you clearly misunderstanding symbiotic relationships.
Evolutionary theory is based off of assumptions.
And I never said that evolutionary theory supports bad science, I said that evolutionary theory is incompatible with symbiosis
But in my case, my understanding is based upon factual evidence and is supported by evolutionary theory.
Your understanding is not and is therefore unsupported by evolutionary theory. That's all there is to it.
If you wish to make a honest attempt at arguing against evolutionary theory, you should actually attempt to understand what evolutionary theory states instead of forming a sock puppet of bad science from creationist literature and claiming that evolutionary theory supports this bad science.
Excuse me. That’s all your understanding of mutualistic evolution is.
Oh don't get me wrong. This isn't an argument for evolution. This is simply an explanation as to why your understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong.
From this, you can either go "Hmmm, my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. Perhaps I should seek out more accurate and different sources of knowledge if these websites which I assumed to be true have misled me" or "Well my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. But that doesn't mean evolution is right".
Because that’s all evolution is. “It’s likely that marine predatory animals didn’t eat cleaner fish because it might have been too much work.”
I don't see how
And then you’d be arguing against your own point lol
It wasn't an argument, it was an explanation. If I were interested in arguing this point with you I'd just jam "Arguments from incredulity or probability are not valid forms of argument" down your throat and call it a day.
Since when is "luck" an argument?
Same selection pressures and luck
But how did the same behavior manifest in multiple different species?
Because thousands to millions of individuals within species interact with each other everyday. Then multiply this by millions of years.
So then, how is it possible for that to happen in thousands to millions of species?
Relationships need not necessarily start with the mouth. For example, the relationship may begun as one of tolerance, where the smaller fish were too fast and too small to be worth catching by the larger fish. And hence the larger fish evolves to tolerate smaller fish, perhaps only attempting to catch them in desperate situations. At the same time, larger fish can provide meals in the form of the remnants of a hunt, so over time the smaller fish has evolved to follow the larger fish.
Note though that neither relationship is dependent on the other having specific traits in particular. It's irrelevant to the larger fish species whether or not the smaller fish species follows them. Nor is the smaller fish species dependent on the shark ignoring them as whether or not they expend energy to run away, it's still beneficial for the easy meals.
The crocodile and the plover bird relationship appears to be a myth. There has been little recorded evidence of this relationship actually existing.
The predatory nature of some of the fish, such as the shark
And my bad, I meant crocodile
Predatory nature of what? You're generalizing multiple species of fish. Not all cleaner fish eat remnants left on teeth, nor are they all of the same size or predated upon by the same species of fish. In the same vein, not all fish with teeth have the same diet or tolerate other fish in their mouths
The birds and the alligator proposed symbiotic relationship seems to be a myth
But the predatory nature of them makes it so that they would eat the cleaner fish, all they have to do is close their mouths
An even better example is certain birds and alligators, why doesn't the alligator chomp down? It's the exact same situation
The idea that the toothed fish necessarily would have to develop an evolutionary mutation at the same time is false. I gave one example below. That is, the ancestors of the toothed fish may have darted in and out of fish mouths to retrieve food in addition to regular sources of food. And this can be seen as a precursor of behaviour that allows for routinely relying on fish mouths as a main source of food. This does not depend on the toothed fish to stop its predatory behaviour. At the same time, teethed fish may not have even been interested in wasting energy chasing after small and and quick fish, and this does not depend on the cleaner fish to eat food around the mouths of teethed fish.
You say that the ancestors of cleaner fish did not always rely on the teeth of other fish for food, and that ancestors of toothed fish didn't always need to have their teeth cleaned. If that's true, then the toothed fish would have to develop an evolutionary mutation that could stop their predatory instincts when they are around cleaner fish at the SAME TIME that cleaner fish developed an evolutionary mutation that caused them to eat the food in toothed fishes mouth. How is that possible for tens, if not hundreds of species of toothed fish to all develop that mutation and for the few cleaner fish species to all develop that?
The ancestors of cleaner fish did not rely upon the teeth of other fish to get food. Nor did the ancestors of toothed fish have teeth such that they require regular cleaning by other fish.
It just so happens that members of the toothed fish, when their teeth are clean, survive for longer, and members of the cleaner fish, when they have additional food sources, also survive for longer. However it does not mean that either species are immediately dependent on each other. It might be the case that ancestor cleaner fish darted in and out of other fish mouths to retrieve food. It might be the case that toothed fish had a set lifespan associated with the degradation of teeth that was entirely sufficiently to allow time for reproduction, with the development of teeth allowing for the fish to take advantage of a specific niche. However it just so happens when two fish of either species co-operated with each other, both lived longer. Now just multiply this over millions of interactions over millions of years
Ok then, explain the cleaner fish one
And what I've said bar the specific algae-lichen relationship holds true for all such relationships. This is why evolution is so robust. It is consistent for all organisms.
There are other symbiotic relationships
Oh, in that case your understanding is fatally flawed. Algae did not evolve such that they can only survive with lichen. In my postulated scenario on the development of the symbiotic relationship between algae-lichen, I made no mention of the algae having any specific traits that forced it to become dependant on the lichen, only the lichen benefitting slightly from having trapped algae within a porous body. It is likely the scenario that the vast majority of the same species of algae floated on by.
Also you seem to be unaware of this but the algae species that comprise the lichen are apparently found independently of lichen, so it's quite clear that algae has always been capable of living independently from lichen or other symbiotic relationships