Evolution, despite being officially considered a theory, is actually a fact.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Simply citing a website is not an argument. Because of that, all I must prove wrong are the points that you specifically said.
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.
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.
we should be up to our necks in transitional fossils.
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.
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.
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 the evidence for evolution can be denied is with the presupposition that creationism is true.
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.
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.
Not all life forms are entirely alive either, such as viruses.
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.
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.
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’s incorrect. There are numerous atheists who do not believe in evolution.
Oops, for some reason I didn’t provide my source for this. Here it is. [1]
That describes being created by chance perfectly. I never said it was an instantaneous thing though.
Can you show the proof of this?
can you explain how symbiosis fits into evolution?
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.
They believe in other fairy tales then, which makes them no better.
That's not proof, it's an opinion piece.
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 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?
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/
“DNA proves we are related to other hominids irrefutably and that all species on earth are related”
On what basis can you make this claim?
I was searching for an answer to this question throughout pros arguments, and didn’t find it.
Resolution is king, and as this is a debate - my first expectation would be that pro offers a constructive argument as to why he can make his claim. He doesn’t offer such an argument. The entire premise of his position assumes that individuals like me understand what he’s talking about, and make the argument for why this evidence demonstrates evolution based on our own understanding of it.
As a result, I can fully accept everything pro offers, but it doesn’t end up being clear to me why they end up making evolution “a fact”.
While I don’t feel that con does a great job casting doubt on evolution; he clearly sets up rational reasons to disbelieve that evolution is a “fact”, in the way that pro presents it. The arguments for DNA relatives, arguing that the analysis requires a presupposition of Gods existence, and the argument from symbiosis were the best parts of pro response. pros defense of the former offered no explanation of how DNA allows us to infer ancestry; and for the latter was merely dismissed by pro. These two are enough in the absence of pros burden to cast doubt on the resolution.
The fossile evidence argument from con was terrible - 200 transitional forms? Why are there any?
My main issue here is that I would have to inject my own understanding of evolution here to award this debate to pro - as he offers no justification of his claims. Cons position is not great, but does just enough to cast doubt on the resolution.
Arguments to pro.
All other points tied.
Pro would have better off just making the topic Evolution. Pro's topic suggests a contradiction between theories and facts that is not so. Many famous theories can be facts; many facts are famous theories.
Pro's supports are sound enough although the quality of the one source and the degree of effort in presentation are both fairly sub-par. Con's stronger effort in reply is cheering but ill-reasoned.
Pro argues that DNA maps out the inter-relatedness of all life. Con argues that the map is proof of intelligence design. How is evolution made less factual by some theistic veneer? If God made DNA then God likely designed evolution- why wouldn't a God designed adaptation system be just as factual as a non-God designed adaptation system? Irrelevant counter.
Pro argues that the fossil record documents intermediate stages in species transitions. Con argues that Wikipedia cites less than 200 fossils that substantiate Pro's claim and gives us a link to better evidence than Pro's.
Pro argues that vestigial characteristics are evidence of no-longer-adaptive traits. Con does not oppose.
Pro gives us a link to further arguments and even claims in R2 that Con must respond to those arguments. In fact, that's a violation of DART voting rules:
The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.
Con wisely dismisses Pro's claim to any credit for argument on some other site because voters here may not consider them.
Con was off point on the first contention, more supportive of Pro's argument than Pro in the second, and fine with third contention. Con lost this argument.
Conduct to Con for Pro's assertion of other people's arguments on other sites. Let's avoid the like in future.
Am I supposed to believe that there is absolutely no other conceivable way for the facts you listed to be true unless evolution is fact? Because I can think of five alternatives off the top of my head.