Debate: Is there sufficient evidence to believe in evolution?

[Esquilax]

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.

And thank you for having the wherewithal to respond to my challenge; far too many christian theist's holding your position have backed down under similar circumstances. Though of course, as you'll see my argument is still thoroughly mantled.

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".

Well... yes. That is the thing one would have to do, when a substantially justified scientific theory that is the cornerstone of biological science finds itself assailed by ideologically or commercially driven demagogues who trade on misrepresentations and the ignorance of their audience in order to bolster the arbitrarily chosen faith of those who don't want to fully understand the thing they are committed to disagreeing with.

One must counter lies with facts. This is not terribly controversial.

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...

I knew we were going here before I typed word one of my opening statement. It's emblematic of the slow retreat of creationism, as the real facts of evolution continue to circulate through the mainstream and edge it out, but like all creationist arguments it relies on fabrication more than observation.

Simply put, the micro/macro distinction that my opponent wishes to hang his argument on is a meaningless one, not in use in any reputable sense. Whereas I took my definition from universities, biology textbooks and so on, where one would expect to see an explanation of the theory from the people who understand it best, my opponent offers no such sourcing. Insofar as macroevolution is used at all in science, it discusses nothing more than a change in scale, a compounding of "micro"evolutionary steps sufficient to cross the boundaries from one species to another. They are, in fact, the same term; macro is nothing more than a plural for micro, when we're discussing evolution.

By contrast, my opponent wishes to define macroevolution as its own distinct form of evolution, unseen and unverified. Dogs giving birth to cats, eagles spawning salmon, horses siring gryphons. But that's not what I believe in, and that's not what evolution, at any scale, describes. If my opponent's description here has any use at all, it's as an illustration of the difference in our methodology. I went to scholastic resources and universities for my definitions, and sculpted my arguments and conclusions to the reality. His_Majesty, instead, concocts a definition of evolution out of wholecloth that best suits his argument, putting his conclusions first and seeking to present a definition of evolution- accuracy, evidently, be damned- that will allow him to retain his opposition. The distinction is an important one; I fit my conclusions to the facts, while my opponent seeks to redefine the facts to fit his conclusions.

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.

First of all, I intend to dismiss this talk of "kinds" immediately, and I urge the readers to do so as well. "Kind" is not a recognized scientific term, and furthermore it has no set definition; it is a word used solely by creationists to mean what they need it to mean at any given time in order to disagree with evolution. A charitable interpretation would be that "kind" is simply a misunderstanding, an attempt to elevate the intuitive laymen's understanding of biology, based solely on how animals look, to the level of a rigorous scientific understanding of phylogenetics, but it is paramount that we realize that the simplistic "X looks like Y, therefore it's the same kind" reasoning is not equal to the biological classification system, and never will be. However, if one wasn't willing to be charitable with this "kind" concept, it would be a matter of mere moments to find numerous examples from creationists of the definition expanding and contracting at will to fit whatever the creationist needs at the moment. If His_Majesty were serious about this term, he should have offered a concrete definition of what it is before using it in his post, instead of trading- rather suspiciously, in my view- in vague, oblique references to it, in the process of stressing it so strongly. If he wishes to provide a set definition in his next post, that I can interrogate in mine, I will listen, but that would necessarily lessen the elasticity of the term, that he has so far used to fill whatever need he requires at the time.

But I do have one thing to point out too: "Kind" is not a scientific term. In its current form it doesn't even approach accurate biological applicability, and His_Majesty hasn't offered a single reason why we should use it here. "Kind" isn't even included in the definition of evolution or macroevolution; species is. If kind means anything other than species, it's hardly germane to whether evolution, as it's defined, actually happens. The question under discussion is "is there sufficient evidence to believe in evolution?" and since evolution is a scientific theory the evidence in support of it necessarily comes from scientific study; when discussing that evidence we must use the language of science to that end. Why my opponent is now insisting that we apply a manufactured, vague term that has nothing to do with science, in place of the ready made terminology we already have, I do not know. I suspect it's a matter of convenience for him, easier to spin the evidence with because evolution describes the development of new species and he can't disagree with that because there are multiple species of birds or frogs or cats, but he's offered no reason for us to follow him there. He hasn't defined, let alone justified, the word he wants to use, and yet he expects that we'll swallow it whole?

I used real terms, produced and utilized by the actual people studying this subject. My opponent made up a term and disagreed with the science because a word of his own making does not fit in with the scientific definitions. As it is now, disagreeing with evolution on the basis of "kinds" is exactly the same as disagreeing with the theory of gravity because we've never seen gravity pass the Flargnapf barrier. It's equally meaningless and insubstantial.

Now that that is out of the way, one last thing: His_Majesty asserts that there is a limit to evolution that prevents it from producing new "kinds." But he doesn't, at any point, attempt to justify this. He just says it. My question in response is, what is this limit? What is the force that prevents small evolutionary change from passing it? Does he have any peer reviewed scientific data that demonstrates this force exists? If not, why should we believe him when he asserts there is one?

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.

It isn't a matter of what I have to believe, as god/common ancestor is a false dichotomy; aside from a lack of belief in god there is no required beliefs for an atheist. It's a matter of what is supported by the evidence, which is, as of now, common ancestry. Notice, readers, the rhetorical trick of trying to turn my acceptance of evolution into some dogmatic belief unconnected to the evidence. Don't be deceived.

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.

First of all, achaeopteryx is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, not reptiles and birds. Dinosaurs are their own unique clade, unconnected with reptiles; the former is clade Dinosauria, the latter is class Reptilia. This is the reason the scientific terminology is more effective in this context than a grab bag of random, intuitively driven buzzwords; it prevents muddling up the particulars, especially when the particulars are what are important. It's easy to see the line of thought involved in my opponent's mistake- dinosaurs are just big lizards, lizards are reptiles, therefore...- but there is a difference and that difference is not a trivial one. What does it say about my opponent's position, that his unwillingness to use or understand the scientific vernacular that's relevant caused him to make such an elementary mistake?

Additionally, the reason I felt the need to point out that evolution doesn't say that dogs breed eagles is because this is a common creationist ridicule tactic; "you believe that a monkey gave birth to a man!" In fact, my opponent has used that exact strawman in another thread; it's what prompted me to challenge him at all, and to cover my bases here. A truthful description of the process is that slowly, over many generations and mutations, a feathered dinosaur can father subtly different offspring, until eventually one of those offspring gives birth to a creature so different that, morphologically and phylogenetically, it cannot be classified as the same species as that initial feathered dinosaur.

To be clear, "species" is not magic. It's not some inherent physical law that cannot be violated. "Species" is a concept that we came up with to more accurately classify the organisms that we co-exist with. It's a descriptive label; to go from one species to another simply means that our definition was transcended, that they were less rigid that one might think. My opponent wishes to characterize the process as a form of impossible witchcraft, appealing to our intuitive understanding that species don't change within our lifetime, but in reality the process is a trivial one of changing definitions. It is no more remarkable than a word taking on an additional meaning over time.

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.

My opponent seems very fond of random assertions, but when it comes to actually supporting them he's remarkably silent. What are these limits? What physical phenomena enforces them? What reason do we have to believe any of this?

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/

Isn't it sad that I made a point of specifying that I wasn't just making an argument from popularity, and my opponent immediately responds with a straight argument from popularity, seemingly as if I'd offered one myself, when I'd specifically noted that what I said might be construed as one, but shouldn't be? Does he just think the fallacy is compelling, or did he not read my post closely enough to be aware of my thoughts regarding it?

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.

You see? He's so proud of this fallacy, apparently unaware of how ineffective and, frankly, shameful it is. He even asserts that only a "select few" believers accept evolution, which shows that he didn't really pay much attention to the statistics I provided (sixty-one percent of the population at large accepts evolution) in his rush to reciprocate a fallacy I took pains to avoid.

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?

Well, just as with the sequence from dinosaur to bird, the changes in a family are small, slight, but cumulative. They add up over time, over generations, until eventually your descendants wouldn't like very much like you at all. If you take a step in one direction, and then continue taking one single step in that direction without stopping, eventually you will walk a mile. Similarly, if your child is slightly different from you, and theirs is slightly different from them, eventually the resulting child, whatever it is, will be very different from you. They will have walked a genetic mile from you.

By contrast, I must take pains to point out, my opponent's view is that no matter how many single steps you take in one direction, you will never walk a mile. Something will stop you, though he doesn't seem to know what it is.

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.

What is this limit, and how do you intend to demonstrate it?

Organisms are changing all the time, His_Majesty. In strange and marked ways; in my opening I linked to lizards that are developing the ability to give birth to live young instead of using eggs, to a different set of lizards evolving entirely new digestive structures, and those new characteristics don't just vanish after one generation. They have persisted, and been added to a longer list of new variables in the population over time. If you have a proper understanding of the kinds of changes that can and do develop in animal populations, and the knowledge that they persist, then the differences between a dinosaur and a bird are not the insurmountable wall you wish to pretend it is.

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?

Gradual alterations in an organism's morphology and genetics, such that eventually it cannot be called a part of the same species as its ancestor, because it's just too different.

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.

Are wolves dogs? Because genetically, dogs are descended from wolves. Either currently extant wolves, or an extinct common ancestor. So, evidently if you breed wolves enough times, you'll get a non-wolf.

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.

Give them time. This repetitious refrain was proven to be entirely irrelevant in my opening, it's simply unseemly to keep repeating it anyway.

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.

So, primates are a different "kind" to humans? Humans are their own distinct kind, which no other organism occupies?

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.

But not the same species of bird. That's an important fact that my opponent felt the need to leave out.

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.

I trust the audience can see the linked portions of my opening, which lead to other sources, which is what we call "evidence."

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.

Actually, I'm quite enjoying this now; it's always very pleasant when my opponent's key argument can be refuted early on, leaving me with very little to do as he repeats ineffective and nullified talking points over and over.

Although, as it happens, here. An evolution from a single-celled "kind" to the multi-cellular "kind." There's simply no reason such a transition should be disagreeable to my opponent, and yet I suspect that he'll tell me that single-celled and multi-celled are not distinct kinds, regardless.

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.

Actually, ruling out a designer using science is relatively easy: we have no indication that a designer was ever involved with the origins of life, and that lack of evidence is sufficient to rule out design until such time as evidence presents itself. In fact, there are numerous aspects of organic construction that simply make no sense if one accepts the idea that a designer was involved. Why are the spinal nerves in my back not suited to upright walking, for example? If I am, indeed, designed exactly as I am, why are those nerves suited better to forward leaning quadrupedal motion like an ape's would be? Where is the sense in that design?

That is just one example, but I trust my audience are familiar with many more. Given the amount of features, not only in humans but many other organisms, that would actually be ineffective or harmful if they were designed, positing a designer without positive evidence for its existence would simply be ludicrous.

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.

Are we all enjoying watching this, now that this "kinds" nonsense has been firmly placed in the trash?

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?

What about them? What, in the science, would indicate to you that they would all need to be in the same place? Why would they be implemented at all, if we are the product of design?

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.

Is anyone else amused by the double standard here, where I have to prove evolution, but my opponent feels no need to do anything more than assert design? He calls it a theory, and in doing so deeply insults real scientific theories, but where is the evidence for design? Discounting the bible, where in biology would any of us get the idea that life was designed?

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.

We have, however, seen an organism produce a new species, which is what evolution actually describes. My opponent still wishes to tack on some new definition and claim that evolution isn't science because we only observe what evolution describes, and not what he wants evolution to describe. But are we really to take his strange, irrelevant definitions over the ones proffered by the scientists with training?

Are we going to start questioning gravity because of that pesky Flargnapf barrier?

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?

This is a common creationist refrain, and relies on the usual double standards I have pointed out elsewhere. My opponent apparently feels no need to justify believing every fossil is completely independent of any other, but requires a much higher standard from the idea he disagrees with.

But you don't need perfect knowledge to discern a pattern, and in the case of the fossil record such patterns are clear. Of the thousands of fossils we have discovered, they all fall into a clear, ordered chronological line; we see new traits and organisms developing in line with the predictions of evolutionary theory, and never otherwise. The stratigraphic column provides a timeline along which we can date fossils, and at no point have we ever found a fossil in an era before it would have evolved. We never find any pre-cambrian rabbits, for example. We find a definite progression, as evolution predicts; sea dwelling organisms progressing up to tetrapods, and so on. This evidence is also not considered in a vacuum; when one realizes that there is genetic and morphological data here too, then the probability of ancestry only improves.

Now, my opponent believes that all the "kinds"- whatever those are- were created at once, by god. This is entirely discordant with the fossil record; if everything were created in the same time frame then why do we see such an ordered progression? If all the kinds were created at the same time then we should see an equal distribution of fossils from every kind at every point in the stratigraphic column, but we just don't. The fossil evidence not only confirms evolution, it is strictly contradictory of the claims of creationism.

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".

Why would you expect that? Because you don't understand how rare fossil formation is, or because it's convenient to your argument?

The entire thing is one big lie.

That's quite a claim. Like all the other claims my opponent has made, it also has no support presented.

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.

By this point, I am officially out of ways to say "kinds mean nothing."

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.

I certainly have, assuming you're willing to use the actual definition of what macroevolution is, without bootstrapping any fantasy concepts onto it. I'm sure the readers can see this.

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.

*Unless you're actually using the definition of macroevolution.

That's a nice caveat to be able to put on a debate claim. It makes my job so much easier.

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.

Evidently, my opponent also doesn't understand natural selection, as it works on the randomized mutations that arise through reproduction. When he says it only selects from information "already in the gene pool" he is being baselessly restrictive. When he says natural selection can't get from reptile to bird, he is employing an argument from ignorance. He is also factually incorrect. At this point, this should hardly be surprising.

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.

"As far as I'm concerned," means little. We have already established that you are working with faulty definitions.

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?

Actually, it implies we have no indication of intelligent design or special creation.

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.

And now, just for fun, I present a list of things that are not evolution:

1. Abiogenesis.

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

Evolution concerns itself with life that already exists, and this debate concerns itself with evolution alone. Even if god created life, it would still be evolving. Kindly stop trying to distract from the meat of the debate with irrelevant side issues.

. IF life can't come from nonlife, then evolution with intelligent design is OBVIOUSLY false, because evolution depends on existing life.

Couldn't existing life have come from an intelligent designer, and then started evolving?

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.

I think my opponent needs to look up the term "theistic evolution." So many of his fellow theists, including the Pope himself, have managed to combine the two ideas. I wonder why he feels the need to construct such a blatant false dichotomy?

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.

2. Abiogenesis.

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).

It's fascinating how randomly my opponent's willingness to follow data where it leads stops and starts like a faulty car engine, isn't it?

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.

Over the course of this debate I have provided literally one hundred percent more academic resources and links than my opponent.

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.

Keep walking west, my opponent says. No matter how many steps you take, it's impossible to walk a mile! Because he has never seen someone walking a mile, where a mile is defined as ninety eight million Globloons, a unit of measurement he just made up!

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.

3. Abiogenesis.
4. The development of intelligence.
5. The development of consciousness.
6. Kinds.

As a post script, evidently my opponent also isn't paying attention to the adjudication, and went ahead of me for some reason.