Before I begin to dismantle my opponent's argument, let me thank him for his eager challenge to me for this debate, as I am always looking to engage with anyone that have different views than I do.
Sorry for the delay...I had wasted so much precious intellectual energy responding to posts elsewhere, that I've been intellectual drained..now I am back and rejuvenated.
So without further ado, let's begin.
I disagree about it being the "most well supported scientific theory in all of science". Keyword: Supported. Hopefully we will learn how it is "supported" later.
In other words, he is saying "not everyone buys in to the the theory of evolution, so advocates of the theory have to constantly defend it".
At first I was going to make this distinction my introduction, but I would rather make it now. I actually believe in evolution, but my belief is in a different "type" of evolution, namely: Microevolution...
Now it is true, things change over time...but there is a limit to the change. For example, there are many different types of dogs...big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, etcs...but they are all DOGS. This is changes WITHIN the kind. There is a type/kind of animal called a "dog"...and within that kind are many different "kinds", or "types"...but they are all dogs. This is microevolution, and I believe in evolution as it is relate to microevolution...because we can SEE it...we can OBSERVE it. Science is supposed to be a methodology based on observation and repeated experiement...and microevolution has been observed, and we can actually experiment with it, as there have been many different dogs that have been bred over the years.
There is just no reason to go beyond microevolution, because anything outside of microevolution as it relates to living organism (animals) is pure speculation. Now, my opponent is an atheist. So in order for him to explain all of the varieties of living organisms (animals) out there today, he has to believe that they (we) all came from a common ancestor...as every living organism can trace its roots back to one single source, which means that there was a lot of changes going on...but we will get to that shortly, I presume.
Notice he said the evolutionary process isn't "instantaneous", which means that it didn't happen all at once, oh no. It happened gradually, over periods of millions and millions of years. Given that time, of course dogs may give birth to eagles...not all at once, but over time. I mean after all, that notion is synonymous with the archaepteryx, which is supposedly the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. Over time, according to how people interpret it, reptiles became birds...point blank, period.
Again, we can agree with that. My point is simple; there are limits to the change...there are limits to the mutation...there are limits to the varieities.
Well, there are more theists in this world than atheists, with over 50% being either Christian or Muslim http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...rd-are-ch/
And included in that percentage is a select few of believers who actually believe in evolution, so even though they believe in evolution, they additionally believe that an intelligent design had his hand in the business. So if we are going by the stats and beliefs, it is clear that the stats are in my favor.
I'd like to ask my opponent how is the similiarites and difference of a genetically linked family in any way synonymous with the changes from a reptile to a bird?
Again, descent with modifications has limits. If you want to call the difference between a child and his parents "descent with modification"...fine..but notice that the child and the parents are both still humans. That is not the same as a reptile changing to a bird.
They add up to what, exactly?
This is change within the kind. You can breed dogs all you want, but you will never get to the point where you will get a non-dog.
Children are different from their parents, but they are still human.
There is a size difference between a Great Dane and Chihuahua...but they are both still DOGS. Just like there is a size difference between Shaquille O'neal and Danny Devito. They are both human, they are of the same "kind"...mankind.
Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos islands and concluded that all of the 14 difference varieties of finches that he saw there shared a common ancestor...and I agree, they did...do you want to know what the common ancestor was?? A freakin' bird.
My opponent is going on a tear about all of the advances that science has made within the past 150 years...all of the evidence...all of the developements that has made the case for evolution stronger...yet, he isn't giving me any evidence. I've seen no evidence for the theory. What he's given is examples of microevolution, changes WITHIN the kind, but that isn't evidence for macroevolution, which he would need to do in order to show where did all of these difference kinds of organisms come from, and how to get from one to the other. Where is the scientific evidence. I am still waiting.
I can also agree with this...however I disagree with the end conclusion. See, we both see the same thing, we just interpret the observation differently. My opponent believes all living organisms share a common descent/ancestor. I believe all living organisms share a common designer. My opponent cannot disprove any notion of common designer using science, and if he can't use science to rule out other possibilities, then he can't use science to CONFIRM his chosen possibility.
Not to mention the fact that, again, we've only observed microevolution..changes within the kind...to additionally believe anything beyond that is PURE speculation and not science.
My opponent points out that apes and human share ERVs, but what he fails to mention is that of the tens and thousands that we share in common (location), only 14 of human ERVs are in the same location as apes...so what about the rest of the thousands of ERVs that are in different locations?
Again, he is assuming common ancestry, but he hasn't proven it. My theory is we have similiar genetic information because the same designer used the same material to create every kind of organism you see. How is his theory have any more virtue than mines? Because his theory is science? I don't even think that his theory is science. Science is based on observation and repeated experiment, and he has never seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. Never.
There is no fossil record. When you (in general) find a fossil, the only thing you can logically determine is "this once living thing has now died". Anything beyond that is speculation. There are no transitional fossils..how are you able to determine what is a transitional fossil as opposed to just a specific kind of animal that just died off...what gives you reason to think fossil X is the evolutionary predecessor of fossil and/or animal Y? You certainly don't have the entire fossil track record of any specific animal...which I would EXPECT for you to have considering all of the animals that have died in their respective "phrases".
The entire thing is one big lie.
This happens time and time again...my opponent is giving examples of microevolution when he talks about the flu. He talks about how we need new flu shots because the virus changes...right, the virus changes, but it isn't a new KIND of virus, it is a different "kind" of the same virus..it is still the FLU no matter how many different manifestations it will have over the years...it is still the flu.
So far, my opponent did not give any evidence of macroevolution. All he has done is give examples of microevolution, which I am willing to grant based on the actual EVIDENCE we have for it.
I want evidence for macroevolution and so far he hasn't produced any as of yet.
None of this is macroevolution.
Natural selection doesn't create any new species...it SELECTS from information that is already in the gene pool. So when he says "....the natural world screams evolution by natural selection", he is, once again, talking about microevolution, no macro. There is no "natural selection" process that will get you from a reptile to a bird. Now, he can believe that all he wants, but he is relying on the "unseen"...he is relying on faith...he certainly can't prove it, and he certainly HASN'T proved it in this debate.
It is funny that he say " (evolution) offers us no indication of intelligent design or special creation"....well, as far as im concerned, evolution does't offer us any indication that nature orchestrated the entire process either.
And not only that, but let me point out something else: My opponent is an atheist, and just by him making the statement "(evolution) offers us no indication of intelligent design or special creation", that statement implies that he doesn't believe in intelligent design, right?
So, he has to believe that a mindless, blind process engineered the entire thing, which is fallacious, because if he can't prove how life can come from nonlife, then he can't definitively say that evolution is a fact. Whether life can come from nonlife is one big giant question mark in science, so if you cant prove that life can come from nonlife, then how are you going to skip the entire abiogenesis process and land directly from evolution. IF life can't come from nonlife, then evolution with intelligent design is OBVIOUSLY false, because evolution depends on existing life. So he doesn't believe that God did it, but he believes that evolution occured with God, which means he has to PRESUPPOSE that life can come from nonlife, which has not been proven to date.
If you can't explain how life can come from nonlife, then you can't logically explain how life forms ever began to change. If abiogenesis without God is actually false, then it follows that evolution without God is actually false.
The only thing we see from the past are bones of animals that once lived, and are now dead. To draw any conclusion besides that is unwarranted. There is no reason to believe that the animals in the dirt was able to do things that the animals of today havent been observed to do, and that is produce a different "kind" of animal (such as a reptile to a bird).
This is wishful thinking by my opponent. Of course, he'd like to see macroevolutin right before his eyes, and he'd love to be able to predict when the next drastic change within an organism will be. The problem is, he's got nothing.
The only thing we see in the present day is animals producing their own kind...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish...so on and so forth. This is MICROEVOLUTION, people...I agree, microevolution happens every day..but a dog producing a dog is a lot different than a reptile changing to a bird...which is something we DON'Tsee.
I feel the same way that my opponent feels, I don't feel the same way about evolution. My feelings are geared toward God. To believe in evolution without God would have to mean that you have to believe in life from nonlife, and intelligence from nonintelligence, and consciousness from unconsciousness. But there isn't any proof for EITHER of it.
Sorry for the delay...I had wasted so much precious intellectual energy responding to posts elsewhere, that I've been intellectual drained..now I am back and rejuvenated.
So without further ado, let's begin.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The theory of evolution is, to put it mildly, possibly the most well supported scientific theory in all of science, certainly within the field of biology.
I disagree about it being the "most well supported scientific theory in all of science". Keyword: Supported. Hopefully we will learn how it is "supported" later.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It is also subject to some of the most fervent and rabidly defended misrepresentations that any functional, well supported theory has ever had to deal with.
In other words, he is saying "not everyone buys in to the the theory of evolution, so advocates of the theory have to constantly defend it".
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: In short, evolution is a process by which inherited characteristics change in populations of biological organisms over successive generations. It is descent, with modification; this definition is not simply one of convenience to my argument, but is instead used in universities, commonly used laymen's resources, and even biology textbooks.
At first I was going to make this distinction my introduction, but I would rather make it now. I actually believe in evolution, but my belief is in a different "type" of evolution, namely: Microevolution...
Now it is true, things change over time...but there is a limit to the change. For example, there are many different types of dogs...big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, etcs...but they are all DOGS. This is changes WITHIN the kind. There is a type/kind of animal called a "dog"...and within that kind are many different "kinds", or "types"...but they are all dogs. This is microevolution, and I believe in evolution as it is relate to microevolution...because we can SEE it...we can OBSERVE it. Science is supposed to be a methodology based on observation and repeated experiement...and microevolution has been observed, and we can actually experiment with it, as there have been many different dogs that have been bred over the years.
There is just no reason to go beyond microevolution, because anything outside of microevolution as it relates to living organism (animals) is pure speculation. Now, my opponent is an atheist. So in order for him to explain all of the varieties of living organisms (animals) out there today, he has to believe that they (we) all came from a common ancestor...as every living organism can trace its roots back to one single source, which means that there was a lot of changes going on...but we will get to that shortly, I presume.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It is also not an instantaneous or magic process, by any means; it does not require that dogs give birth to eagles, for fish to spontaneously grow legs, or for crocoducks to be running around today.
Notice he said the evolutionary process isn't "instantaneous", which means that it didn't happen all at once, oh no. It happened gradually, over periods of millions and millions of years. Given that time, of course dogs may give birth to eagles...not all at once, but over time. I mean after all, that notion is synonymous with the archaepteryx, which is supposedly the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. Over time, according to how people interpret it, reptiles became birds...point blank, period.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: All evolution describes, all it has ever described, is the alteration of inherited traits over multiple generations, via genetic mutation. To assert otherwise indicates a misunderstanding of the theory at best, and a misrepresentation at worst.
Again, we can agree with that. My point is simple; there are limits to the change...there are limits to the mutation...there are limits to the varieities.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: When working with an accurate idea of what evolution is and does, acceptance of it should be trivial; in fact, among scientists of any profession, both theist and atheist, ninety-seven percent accept that evolution occurs, as does sixty-one percent of the public. By no means do I intend to simply let those numbers stand as an argument from popularity or authority, I merely wish to point out the ease with which those in the know are willing to accept this theory. They have their reasons, which I will go on to now.
Well, there are more theists in this world than atheists, with over 50% being either Christian or Muslim http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...rd-are-ch/
And included in that percentage is a select few of believers who actually believe in evolution, so even though they believe in evolution, they additionally believe that an intelligent design had his hand in the business. So if we are going by the stats and beliefs, it is clear that the stats are in my favor.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If one wishes to see the fruits of evolution one can look to many places, but the easiest of them would be to one's own family. Find your children, your parents, your brothers or sisters, and compare their features to yours; barring identical twins you will undoubtedly find both similarities and differences. They do not look exactly like you, and this is evolution in action; though you have inherited traits from your parents, that genetic inheritance has changed due to errors in the replication of those genes, mutations, that cause you to look different, among many other things.
I'd like to ask my opponent how is the similiarites and difference of a genetically linked family in any way synonymous with the changes from a reptile to a bird?
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The fact that you are not a clone of your parents is testament to the fact that you are a part of a continuous line of evolution via descent, with each generation in your family being slightly different from the one before it.
Again, descent with modifications has limits. If you want to call the difference between a child and his parents "descent with modification"...fine..but notice that the child and the parents are both still humans. That is not the same as a reptile changing to a bird.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Mutations are the engine that drives these changes, in fact every human being is born with about sixty of them, but my opponent would have you believe that they mean nothing, that many small changes do not add up.
They add up to what, exactly?
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Luckily for us, our ancestors didn't seem to think the same way, or else they never would have started selectively breeding wolves to retain traits they thought desirable while weeding out those they did not.
This is change within the kind. You can breed dogs all you want, but you will never get to the point where you will get a non-dog.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The domestic dog, in all its breeds and permutations, is but the most prominent of numerous forays into evolution by artificial selection, in both plants and animals, by our ancient ancestors, but none of it would have been possible if they hadn't made a simple observation that my opponent seems unable to make himself; the children of living things are different from their parents.
Children are different from their parents, but they are still human.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Instead of making this observation, he must compare a Great Dane with a Chihuahua, and find no difference between them. After all, in his worldview, those small changes that fuel evolution do not happen.
There is a size difference between a Great Dane and Chihuahua...but they are both still DOGS. Just like there is a size difference between Shaquille O'neal and Danny Devito. They are both human, they are of the same "kind"...mankind.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Those observations, by the way, are what first prompted Charles Darwin to properly formulate the theory of evolution for his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, but they are not where the evidence in favor of evolution stops.
Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos islands and concluded that all of the 14 difference varieties of finches that he saw there shared a common ancestor...and I agree, they did...do you want to know what the common ancestor was?? A freakin' bird.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, in fact the situation is quite the reverse; science has progressed in leaps and bounds in the past 150 years, and all the technological advances that have allowed us to see further, detect more, and peer into worlds heretofore undreamt of, contained the seeds of evolution's destruction. If but one fossil had been out of place, if a single part of the genetic makeup of any species had been independent from any other, if anything had shown us something different, that would have been it. Instead, our increased knowledge base has only ever confirmed or refined our understanding of evolution to the point that today, it is almost unthinkable that it could be proven false.
My opponent is going on a tear about all of the advances that science has made within the past 150 years...all of the evidence...all of the developements that has made the case for evolution stronger...yet, he isn't giving me any evidence. I've seen no evidence for the theory. What he's given is examples of microevolution, changes WITHIN the kind, but that isn't evidence for macroevolution, which he would need to do in order to show where did all of these difference kinds of organisms come from, and how to get from one to the other. Where is the scientific evidence. I am still waiting.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What has happened in that past century and a half? We discovered genetics, something that hadn't figured into evolution before that moment, and what did we find? A universal genetic set up shared across all biological organisms, with genetic relationships that recapitulate those already established through morphology and biochemistry, confirmation that those organisms that are structurally similar more closely match genetically too.
I can also agree with this...however I disagree with the end conclusion. See, we both see the same thing, we just interpret the observation differently. My opponent believes all living organisms share a common descent/ancestor. I believe all living organisms share a common designer. My opponent cannot disprove any notion of common designer using science, and if he can't use science to rule out other possibilities, then he can't use science to CONFIRM his chosen possibility.
Not to mention the fact that, again, we've only observed microevolution..changes within the kind...to additionally believe anything beyond that is PURE speculation and not science.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We find endogenous retrovirals, passed down generation by generation by heredity, indicating that species sharing ERVs have common ancestry, even between chimps and humans, which share seven such virogenes. We find human chromosome 2, indicating a fusing of two chromosomes in one of our common ancestors with the great apes, leading to our current chromosomal setup.
My opponent points out that apes and human share ERVs, but what he fails to mention is that of the tens and thousands that we share in common (location), only 14 of human ERVs are in the same location as apes...so what about the rest of the thousands of ERVs that are in different locations?
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The more we discover, the more firmly grounded evolution becomes; genetics posed such a great stumbling block to the theory, and yet all we find only confirms our common ancestry with everything else on the planet.
Again, he is assuming common ancestry, but he hasn't proven it. My theory is we have similiar genetic information because the same designer used the same material to create every kind of organism you see. How is his theory have any more virtue than mines? Because his theory is science? I don't even think that his theory is science. Science is based on observation and repeated experiment, and he has never seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. Never.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Even the remains of those long dead, no matter their species, attest to evolution. We have gotten so much better at exploring our fossil history, and in doing so we have discovered hundreds, if not thousands of examples of one species transitioning into another, exhibiting traits of organisms that had yet to form.
There is no fossil record. When you (in general) find a fossil, the only thing you can logically determine is "this once living thing has now died". Anything beyond that is speculation. There are no transitional fossils..how are you able to determine what is a transitional fossil as opposed to just a specific kind of animal that just died off...what gives you reason to think fossil X is the evolutionary predecessor of fossil and/or animal Y? You certainly don't have the entire fossil track record of any specific animal...which I would EXPECT for you to have considering all of the animals that have died in their respective "phrases".
The entire thing is one big lie.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We can see it in action just as easily. In many ways, modern medicine relies upon evolution existing to function; diseases grow resistant to antibiotics because they evolve, as our application of antibiotics selects out those organisms that cannot survive them. Ever wonder why you need a new flu shot every year? It's because the flu virus evolves and changes all the time, necessitating a new inoculation to cover the differences
This happens time and time again...my opponent is giving examples of microevolution when he talks about the flu. He talks about how we need new flu shots because the virus changes...right, the virus changes, but it isn't a new KIND of virus, it is a different "kind" of the same virus..it is still the FLU no matter how many different manifestations it will have over the years...it is still the flu.
So far, my opponent did not give any evidence of macroevolution. All he has done is give examples of microevolution, which I am willing to grant based on the actual EVIDENCE we have for it.
I want evidence for macroevolution and so far he hasn't produced any as of yet.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But only in medicine, right? No, I'm not done. We can see evolution happening in laboratories, too: Nylon was invented in 1935, and yet strains of flavobacteria can develop the ability to digest it under laboratory conditions, when they couldn't before. Fruit flies, when isolated in the lab, evolve in reproductive isolation and prefer partners of the same type for breeding. Hell, even in the wild we can watch species evolving new traits.
None of this is macroevolution.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I could keep going, but I think I've made my point more than adequately. Everything we know about the natural world screams evolution by natural selection
Natural selection doesn't create any new species...it SELECTS from information that is already in the gene pool. So when he says "....the natural world screams evolution by natural selection", he is, once again, talking about microevolution, no macro. There is no "natural selection" process that will get you from a reptile to a bird. Now, he can believe that all he wants, but he is relying on the "unseen"...he is relying on faith...he certainly can't prove it, and he certainly HASN'T proved it in this debate.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: and offers us no indication of intelligent design, or special creation, or whatever other buzzword creationists want to try to sneak "god did it" into our biology.
It is funny that he say " (evolution) offers us no indication of intelligent design or special creation"....well, as far as im concerned, evolution does't offer us any indication that nature orchestrated the entire process either.
And not only that, but let me point out something else: My opponent is an atheist, and just by him making the statement "(evolution) offers us no indication of intelligent design or special creation", that statement implies that he doesn't believe in intelligent design, right?
So, he has to believe that a mindless, blind process engineered the entire thing, which is fallacious, because if he can't prove how life can come from nonlife, then he can't definitively say that evolution is a fact. Whether life can come from nonlife is one big giant question mark in science, so if you cant prove that life can come from nonlife, then how are you going to skip the entire abiogenesis process and land directly from evolution. IF life can't come from nonlife, then evolution with intelligent design is OBVIOUSLY false, because evolution depends on existing life. So he doesn't believe that God did it, but he believes that evolution occured with God, which means he has to PRESUPPOSE that life can come from nonlife, which has not been proven to date.
If you can't explain how life can come from nonlife, then you can't logically explain how life forms ever began to change. If abiogenesis without God is actually false, then it follows that evolution without God is actually false.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We can see it in the records of the past
The only thing we see from the past are bones of animals that once lived, and are now dead. To draw any conclusion besides that is unwarranted. There is no reason to believe that the animals in the dirt was able to do things that the animals of today havent been observed to do, and that is produce a different "kind" of animal (such as a reptile to a bird).
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: we can see it in present day right before our eyes, and using our predictive methods we can even see it in the future.
This is wishful thinking by my opponent. Of course, he'd like to see macroevolutin right before his eyes, and he'd love to be able to predict when the next drastic change within an organism will be. The problem is, he's got nothing.
The only thing we see in the present day is animals producing their own kind...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish...so on and so forth. This is MICROEVOLUTION, people...I agree, microevolution happens every day..but a dog producing a dog is a lot different than a reptile changing to a bird...which is something we DON'Tsee.
(November 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Not only is there sufficient evidence to accept evolution, there isn't even a realistic ideological reason to reject it. It is no coincidence that denial of evolution relies so heavily on insistent, baseless literalism in scripture, combined with both a strange and arbitrary selectiveness over what, precisely, should be taken literally, and far more egregiously, serious misinformation about the very basic principles of evolution. Quite simply, there is no rational reason that evolution, properly understood, could possibly be denied.
I feel the same way that my opponent feels, I don't feel the same way about evolution. My feelings are geared toward God. To believe in evolution without God would have to mean that you have to believe in life from nonlife, and intelligence from nonintelligence, and consciousness from unconsciousness. But there isn't any proof for EITHER of it.
