Instigator / Pro
Points: 10

Evolution, despite being officially considered a theory, is actually a fact.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Speedrace
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Contender / Con
Points: 11
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
 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



Published:
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
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?
Published:
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/

Added:
--> @Speedrace
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.
#51
Added:
--> @dustryder
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
Contender
#50
Added:
--> @Speedrace
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.
#49
Added:
--> @dustryder
Excuse me. That’s all your understanding of mutualistic evolution is.
Contender
#48
Added:
--> @Speedrace
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".
#47
Added:
--> @dustryder
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.”
Contender
#46
Added:
--> @Speedrace
I don't see how
#45
Added:
--> @dustryder
And then you’d be arguing against your own point lol
Contender
#44
Added:
--> @Speedrace
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.
#43
Added:
--> @dustryder
Since when is "luck" an argument?
Contender
#42
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Same selection pressures and luck
#41
Added:
--> @dustryder
But how did the same behavior manifest in multiple different species?
Contender
#40
Added:
--> @Speedrace
Because thousands to millions of individuals within species interact with each other everyday. Then multiply this by millions of years.
#39
Added:
--> @dustryder
So then, how is it possible for that to happen in thousands to millions of species?
Contender
#38
Added:
--> @Speedrace
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.
#37
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
“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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.