life is created intelligently
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
examples like "a dog sheds its fur during the summer so that it can cool off" shows that god was thinking when he created this creature.
god must have known that it was hot during the summer so he design the creature to shed its fur so that it can cool off. this shows that god was thinking when creating the dog. because only an intelligent being can have knowledge of something then applying that knowledge. the dog being hot during the summer is the having knowledge part. and the applying knowledge part is him making the creature to loose its fur is him applying knowledge.
if this was the only examples of god thinking i could see how you could wright it off but it is not.
an another example of god thinking is when he created the dog to grow more fur during the winter so that it can keep himself warm.
or god creating the owl with night vision so that it can see better at night.
or god giving the beavers large teeth so that they can chew down trees.
or god giving cats scratchy tongues so that they can lick all the gunk out of there fur and clean all the met off the bones.
or god making the polar bear white so that it can hide better in its snowy environment.
do you believe evolution
do you believe that all the dogs who could not shed its fur during the summer died out.
why would the dogs who could not shed its fur during the summer die out. because i do not believe lacking the ability to shed its fur would cause them to go extinct. extra furry doggy should not die out because they can can not shed its fur.
why is there a no shedding gene in dogs since that trait use to exist but died out. there is none because it never existed
is it possible that we can reintroduce this gene my do sheds to much.
do you believe that the beaver use to have small teeth but died out because it could not chew down trees so it evolve with big teeth.
were are all the fossils of small teeth beavers.
what did the beaver do before it got big teeth.
what happened to the ecosystem because there were no dams. because all the beavers have small teeth
why would small teeth beavers die out because they can not chew down trees
did Justin beaver evolve from a beaver.
the body can distinguish between good and evil
our body kills the bad germs but spares the good germs
if god created the universe then it would make sense that he would be able to tell the difference between good and bad
but if a bunch of nothing created the universe like science says then it would make more sense that they would kill all germs not just the bad ones but the good ones to.
for example when you wash your hands with soap the soap is not able to distinguish between good and bad germs it just kills them all. if bunch of nothing created the universe it would just kill all the germs not just the bad ones but the good ones to. thus since it can distinguish it. it means and kill the bad ones but spare the good ones it means god designed it.
Life being claimed to be created Intelligently entails what?
- Obviously, there must be a designer/shaper or group thereof.
- There must be sufficient signs within the simulated reality (or created real, physical reality) that implies the creation is intelligently designed as opposed to either being chaotically undesigned or relatively low-to-medium intelligibly designed.
Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"  Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.
Nothing about the design of genetics or the traits that are developed, mentioned by Pro, prove ID beyond anything other than 'but why is ID not possible?'. The rational explanation as to why creatures with traits suited to their environment ended up the quintessential ones of their respective domain in the ecosystem and even out of their species the most 'like their species' relative to the rest is natural selection. Evolution isn't a myth, it's a proven highly regarded scientific theory. The 'missing links' result from one group gradually separating form the other as both are better suited to a climate either side of a territory boundary but neither climate suits the middle-man breeds. This ends up making such a severe genetic difference that species evolve.
What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?By Ker Than, Live Science Contributor | February 26, 2018 08:57pm ETThe theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.The theory has two main points, said Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others," he said.More simply put, the theory can be described as "descent with modification," said Briana Pobiner, an anthropologist and educator at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., who specializes in the study of human origins.The theory is sometimes described as "survival of the fittest," but that can be misleading, Pobiner said. Here, "fitness" refers not to an organism's strength or athletic ability, but rather the ability to survive and reproduce.For example, a study on human evolution on 1,900 students, published online in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in October 2017, found that many people may have trouble finding a mate because of rapidly changing social technological advances that are evolving faster than humans. "Nearly 1 in 2 individuals faces considerable difficulties in the domain of mating," said lead study author Menelaos Apostolou, an associate professor of social sciences at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus. "In most cases, these difficulties are not due to something wrong or broken, but due to people living in an environment which is very different from the environment they evolved to function in." [If You Suck at Dating, It's Not You — It's Evolution]Origin of whalesIn the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.The idea didn't go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal. Instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows and hippopotamuses.The story of the origin of whales is one of evolution's most fascinating tales and one of the best examples scientists have of natural selection.Natural selectionTo understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:Random genetic changes resulted in at least one whale having its nostrils placed farther back on its head. Those animals with this adaptation would have been better suited to a marine lifestyle, since they would not have had to completely surface to breathe. Such animals would have been more successful and had more offspring. In later generations, more genetic changes occurred, moving the nose farther back on the head.Other body parts of early whales also changed. Front legs became flippers. Back legs disappeared. Their bodies became more streamlined and they developed tail flukes to better propel themselves through water.Darwin also described a form of natural selection that depends on an organism's success at attracting a mate, a process known as sexual selection. The colorful plumage of peacocks and the antlers of male deer are both examples of traits that evolved under this type of selection.But Darwin wasn't the first or only scientist to develop a theory of evolution. The French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck came up with the idea that an organism could pass on traits to its offspring, though he was wrong about some of the details. Around the same time as Darwin, British biologist Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
WHY DOES LIFE EVEN NEED TO PREY ON ITSELF TO SUSTAIN ITSELF? This is a nonsensical design of life that defeats its very own excellence.
the body can tell the difference between good and evil
the immune system can tell the difference between good and evil. the immune system attacks the bad germs but spares the good germs. if god created the universe it would make sense that he could tell the difference between bad and good germs and thus it make sense that the immune system would only attack the bad germs. just like how the American military can tell the difference between a country's civilian force and there military force. and thus know that they should spare the civilians and only kill the military forces. the American can tell the difference between good the civilian force and bad the military force because americans are beings capable of thought. since the immune system can tell the difference between good and bad germs it means god must have created it. if a bunch of nothing created the universe the immune system would kill all germs not just the bad ones but the good ones to. for example a bar of soap kills all germs not just the bad ones. a bar of soap can not tell the difference between good germs and bad germs because it lacks the ability to think. so it just kills every germ good and bad. thus if a bunch of nothing created the universe it does not have the ability to think thus it would not be able to tell the difference between bad and good germs and would just end up killing them all.
olive oil can tell the difference between good cells and cance cells. olive oil when consumed goes in the body and specifically targets the cancer cells but spares the good cells. only a being capable of thought and reason can know the difference between good and bad. if a bunch of nothing created the universe olive il would most likely attack both good cells and the bad cells because only an intelligent being can discern the two. for example a treatment for treating cancer called chemo therapy is wear the doctor poisons its patient in the hope that the poison kills the cancer cells inside the patients thus removing the cancer. but the poison can not tell the difference between good cells and the cancer cells because the poison can not discern the two and just kills everything. if a bunch of nothing created the universe olive oil would kill both good and bad cells because it would not be capable to differentiate the 2.
here are some examples of men using intelligence
a man in fire country creating his house out of metal instead of wood because he knows that metal does not burn down.
me opening my window open after i spray down my room with lysol because i know that opening my window would help my room air out
here are some examples of god using intelligence so you can see that it follows the same form of logic.
the god creating the dog with the ability to shed its fur during the summer because he knows that the dog shedding its fur during the summer would help the dog cool down from the heat.
god making the dog grow more fur during the winter because he knows that it is cold during the winter and would need a way to keep warm.
or god creating the polar bear white because he knows that it would hide better in the snow.
do you know what a complimentary good is.
a complimentary good is a good that compliments another good
paper and pencle are a complement good
a ball and base ball bat are also complementary good.
mans complementary goods vs gods complementary good
the man created the pencle to wright on a piece of paper. we know this because the pencle has graphite that leaves a mark on the peice of paper when you drag it on the paper. and the pencle are usually small enough were it is comfortable to hold.
the polor bear and snow are a pair of gods complimentary goods. god created the polar bear white to compliment the with the white snow. we know this because it is meant for the polor bear to hide better. so that it can hunt.
can a bunch of nothing create something that complements another thing like polar bear and the snow. no because only an intelligence can say hay this creature would require the ability to hide from its prey i better turn it white so that it can hide better in the snow.
cause and effect.
lets say i stand in the water a little lake and over millions of years my feat adapted and turned into frog legs. what caused my feat to turn into frog was it the water. there is nothing there that would cause my feat to turn into frog legs. so how could that happen
an owl lives at night and so over millions of years it adapts and grows night vision. what was it about the night that caused the owl to gain night vision. is there something in the darkness of the night that would cause someone to gain night vision.
it is obvious that this is an example of god thinking. so he must have thought hay its dark at night i better give the owl night vision so it can see at night.
there is nothing to cause these things.
There must be sufficient signs within the simulated reality (or created real, physical reality) that implies the creation is intelligently designed as opposed to either being chaotically undesigned or relatively low-to-medium intelligibly designed.
a dog growing more fur during the winter because it is cold out shows. that god was thinking when creating this creature and was aware that he would be cold during the winter so he designed him to grow more fur. is that not an example of the creator using logic and reasoning
Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns.
i am not saying life is to complex for nothing to create the universe but that these examples of life would requires being of intelligence to create.
and yes complexity does mean that god created the universe. can an explosion create a car engine if it can tell me how a car engine is very complex and can not happen by chance it takes a person with supreme intellect to do so. then why can an explosion create the human brain its so complex lets even give it billions of years. the complexity shown in life can not happen by chance.
Evolution isn't a myth, it's a proven highly regarded scientific theory. The 'missing links' result from one group gradually separating form the other as both are better suited to a climate either side of a territory boundary but neither climate suits the middle-man breeds. This ends up making such a severe genetic difference that species evolve.
evolution has more scandals then most politician. doctors heckles embryo scam. which is still in are text books
all there missing links ending up in the end just being a mixture of human and monkey bones
im looking at you pitfall man and lucy etc. plus its a theory not a fact.
he also says that my example does not prove that id was the cause of life but he does not back that up so nothing to rebuttal but a he said i said sort thing.
WHY DOES LIFE EVEN NEED TO PREY ON ITSELF TO SUSTAIN ITSELF? This is a nonsensical design of life that defeats its very own excellence.
when Adam sinned death was brought into the world he also cursed the ground which is why there poison plants.
life is created with system.
the humans breath out co2 the trees eat that co2 and turn it into oxegen the human breath in the oxygen and turn into co2. an endless cycle occurs one can not exist without the other.
the fox eat the rabbits and the rabbit eat the grass. if there are to many rabbits the fox population grows and kills the excess rabbits and when the excess rabbits are gone the excess foxes go hungry and die. so nature keeps itself perfectly balanced. if life was created without thought would it be able to keep itself in check. if there to much of one thing another thing would help lower it to keep itself balanced again.
then there the DNA repair system but that's harder to explain. but same thing
only an intelligent being can create a system. systems are found in nature and done by humans usually done in the form of a factory. we do not see inanimate objects like books toys dishes tornado hurricanes creating system.so why can the examples found in nature be the result of an inanimate object. the logical conclusion is it was not done by an inanimate object but by god. so why can the bunch of nothing that create life can produce system but other inanimate objects can not
he then list more examples of natural selection which does not make m examples above any less credible. you are just ignoring the examples that do not work and highlighting the ones that do. he then gees on about.
i goes on about legs turning into flippers which goes into the cause and effect thing what caused the legs to turn into flippers why would being in water alone for a long time cause my feat to turn into flippers. whats causes this if i put an apple right next to a bunch of bananas would the apple turn into a banana what would cause that.
I stand by my R1 arguments. The life having traits suited to the environment is to do with incremental changes over time. Those without them die off.
Intelligent Design is a phrase and the context of 'Intelligent' the term means something far superior to normal reasoning or acquire knowledge. In fact, the first definition of the three is completely incorrect and that dictionary website needs to remove it, as they are describing 'intellect' not 'intelligence'.
Intelligent Design refers to:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
^ This is a source on the side of Pro, I will also provide another wording now:
The theory of intelligent design simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
^ This source leans strongly to Pro's side but qualifies as fairly neutral.
When discussing 'intelligence' in the context of this debate with regards to the design and creation of life, we cannot possibly be referring to the first 2 definitions (the first of the two being 'intellect' not 'intelligence'). I will explain why, now.
I want to completely disregard the first definition as being 'intellect' but first I want to explain why you may think that it qualifies as 'intelligence'. The term 'intelligence' as a noun is a slang-term invented by Secret-Agent type Intelligence Agencies that became official English due to them. It is also used by the police, following suit of those organisations, when taking on complex cases. Intelligence as a noun refers to:
secret information that is collected, for example about a foreign country, especially one that is an enemy; the people that collect this information
And this is linked not to the 'intelligence' adjective but instead to 'intellect':
Intellect is the ability to understand or deal with ideas and information.
Instead, the adjective 'intelligent' is actually this:
Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
showing intelligence, or able to learn and understand things easily
So, the fact that the creation and design of it is rational or has logic to it is not enough to say that it was designed intelligently, let alone 'created' in such a manner. Instead, you need to prove that it's very actively done so by an entity (or entities) that were particularly superior to most in the detail and complexity they designed it with beyond what you'd expect of a design that could have logic that doesn't occur by accidental, natural selection.
When Pro lists things like this:
the creator of the predators gave these animals big sharp teeth
the creator of the mountain goat gave the goat special feet that make it easier to mountain climb.
This is completely ignoring that the following concepts justifying the traits in the predators and mountain goat:
The Austrian monk Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was the first person to describe how traits are inherited from generation to generation. He studied how pea plants inherited traits such as color and smoothness, and discovered that traits are inherited from parents in certain patterns.
Darwin's concept of natural selection was based on several key observations:
- Traits are often heritable. In living organisms, many characteristics are inherited, or passed from parent to offspring. (Darwin knew this was the case, even though he did not know that traits were inherited via genes.)
- More offspring are produced than can survive. Organisms are capable of producing more offspring than their environments can support. Thus, there is competition for limited resources in each generation.
- Offspring vary in their heritable traits. The offspring in any generation will be slightly different from one another in their traits (color, size, shape, etc.), and many of these features will be heritable.
ID is based on ignoring that patterns, trends, relationships between things and positive results being linked to consistent traits all are absolutely able to (and far more rationally likely to) result from beings that lacked the traits suited to the environment dying off over time as well as, by pure coincidence at first, there being some sort of pattern (such as number of chromosomes in a certain species' DNA strand or even that randomly a lot of one group had brown hair of a specific chestnut colour) and that simply because the common trait didn't hinder their survival it got passed on. This would mean things such as chin shape being varied across the species yet similar among many of the same ethnicity (not race but races with in race like being slavic as opposed to norse or even chins based on being Japanese and Russian mixed gene-line [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201411/the-past-is-written-your-face] in some etc)
Natural selection works to explain links in traits that help survival (sharp tooth of the predator, legs of the mountain goat) while also reversing the burden of proof onto the ID-advocate for traits that are not necessarily explained away by natural selection such as chin shape. Common traits that didn't help survival but also didn't hinder it would naturally be passed on if many of the ethnicity had it, simply because nothing was there to encourage an alteration.
Turmeric having healing powers and even antibacterial properties is not proof of ID, it also wouldn't be ID even if a holy scripture said to use it for that purpose or that turmeric was holy since that could be entirely based on seeing it had healing properties in the first place or simply be a lucky guess that was never removed from scriptures in later editions as it proved true. Turmeric has no evidence of being designed for us and the first humans to try it out for that purpose have showed no signs of being told to do that by a supreme creator or designer of reality, so far as I can see and I am confused what Pro meant by that entire line of reasoning.
Genes get lost, what does it matter if genes are not staying in the species as they reproduce? Point requires no proof against as it had no proof why it mattered.
If the design is intelligent, if everything falls into place in a complex puzzle with strict patterns then why is it true that we needed to evolve at all? Why did the polar bears made without white fur need white fur? Why did the seals they caught fail to avoid being caught while others succeeded in starving the polar bears of food by being better built seals for the job of avoiding being preyed upon by polar bears?
Why does life need to prey on itself in order to sustain itself?
Checkmate, this design would be unintelligent even if it is really designed.
I'm not even sure what on Earth Pro is arguing at this point. I have won and it's over. All that had to be said by the Con side has been said.
sorry for the forfeit. i going to have to take care of some problems in my life. so i might be gone for a while. im really upset about the last forfeit its hard to explain i need to fix some stuff.
alright natural selection.
were are all the small meat meat eaters bones.
if all the carnivores who had small teeth but died out. and only the big teeth meat eaters survived were are all the bones of the small teeth meat eaters
there should be just as many small teeth carnivores as there are big teeth meat eaters. because these carnivores all died out because they had small teeth. if life happened randomly there should be millions of small teeth meat eaters who did not survive.
there are none because god designed the carnivores with big teeth because he knew that carnivores would need big teeth to eat others.
god designed the polar bear white because he knew that the polar bear would be able to hide in the white snow if he did. god designed the bears that live in snow white so they can hide better. god designed the bears that live in caves and logs brown so that they can hide better
god designed the dog to shed its fur during the summer because he knew the dog would get hot with all that fur.
god designed the dog the dog to grow more fur during the winter because he knew the dog would need a way to keep warm
the apple when consumed feeds the good bacteria in the gut but not the bad. how can the apple distinguish good and bad. if a bunch of nothing created the universe would not the apple feed both good and bad bacteria. similar how a bar of soap kills both good and bad germs. and can not distinguish the 2 because it does not have intellect. it requires intellect to distinguish good and bad. for example the us military spare an enemy country's civilian force but kills the military force they can do this because they have intellect and can distinguish good and bad. they can do this because they have intelligence should not the same case apply here
there nothing to cause evolution
there nothing to cause evolution. lets say a man is trapped in a room and there is no door. so the man really wants to get out of the room but all he can do is stare at the wall. him starring at the wall caused a fully functioning door to appear. what caused the door to appear. why would staring at a wall cause a door to appear. there is nothing to cause that. so why does the owl over millions of years gain night vision simply by being in the dark sky's. there is nothing to cause this if i turn off my lights im not going to suddenly gain more rods and cones in my eyes which would cause night vision. because there is nothing to cause that. god created the night time animals with more rods and cones in there eyes which give them night vision because he intended for them to live during the night. he designed day time animals with less rods and cones because he does not intend for us to live during the night.
olive oil distinguishes
Olive oil kills cancer cells but spares good cells if god created the universe it makes sense that olive oil can tell the difference between good cells and cancer cells. But if a bunch of nothing created olive oil would not the olive oil kill both good cells and cancer cells. Because inanimate objects can not tell the difference between good and bad. For example pharmakeai people who are doctors use this treatment called chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer were the physician poisons his patience in the hope that the poison kill the cancer cells but because the poison can not tell the difference between good cells and cancer cells it just kills them all and the doctors hope that the good cells grow back. So if a bunch of nothing created the universe would not olive oil work like chemotherapy.
he post an argument from his last debate. my response is still i do not care about the dentition of intelligence we use. evolution i do not believe happened and my natural selection thing is on the top. i'm aware of the study's of darwin which talk about how animals have traits which makes them suited to there envioroment. im saying they have alwasy been suited for there environment and they did not adapt.
anyway i am very upset with my situation right now and i tried to get online to do this but i was 2 hours late and ended up forfeiting. and i have to sneak on the computer even though i'm not suppose to and being a hypocrite. anyway ratman is cool. i disagree with you but i disagree with everyone else.
I don't see any new logic. Adaptation leads to results geared to the environment. Those who were less adapted to it either died off or their children did. Pretty simple, idea.
>>lets say i stand in the water a little lake and over millions of years my feat adapted and turned into frog legs. what caused my feat to turn into frog was it the water. there is nothing there that would cause my feat to turn into frog legs. so how could that happen
That isn't how evolution works. If you, and say, 1000 other humans all stood around in that lake for millions of generations, and never breeded with or had interactions with other humans, then, while you would never see a change, when compared to your younger ancestor millions of years later, you would see a reasonable change that makes the newest generation more fit. You wouldn't see frog legs as feet, as that would probably not help, but you would see smaller feet, longer legs, and stronger swimming muscles.
Also, a human would be a bad example for this, as the intelligence we have evolved would suit us for almost all environments and let us adapt intuitively and quickly. If you took, instead, an actual frog, and put it in that lake with a bunch of others of the same species, but isolated it from the rest of the species, then those frogs would eventually produce a generation that fits the environment of the lake as well as possible.
Also, others dying out isn't the only way species evolve. There is also a case of not being able to breed as often. Dogs that shed in the summer and gain hair in the winter are best fit for the current season, and because of that, they get benefits:
1.) Become stronger than dogs burdened by a heavy coat in the heat
2.) Eat more and better with the adapted coat helping them catch food by not tiring them as much
3.) freeze to death less
4.) Generally become stronger and more fit than dogs that don't shed.
Not to insult, but this is taught in 9th grade biology thoroughly and is very certainly not a myth.
Vote Reported: Timewarps_1 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to con
RFD: The contender had a better argument in my opinion.
Reason for mod action: Firstly, in order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. The voter has done none of these things and thus their vote is removed.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
my sourcing sucked in my last posts so.. here some more