The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Evolution is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Tradesecret has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 123241
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




Good old evolution debate, I will let con go first.



Evolution is not true.

Firstly, If evolution was true then aliens would have visited our planet by now. No alien has visited our planet and opened us as a world to the rest of the universe, Therefore it is unlikely, In fact impossible that evolution is true.

Evolution is premised on the idea that life may evolve anywhere given the right circumstances. Given that there are literally billions and zillions of planets everywhere it is improbable that life has only evolved on our planet. It is equally inconceivable that life has not evolved elsewhere and that such life is not more highly evolved and also with varied moral positions. Given that evolution suggests that live is varied it is ridiculous to assert that all highly evolved life forms would choose either not to come to earth or to involve or engage themselves with our life form here on earth. Given that there would very likely be quite erratic life forms and intelligent life then such radicals would clearly push their position upon us here on earth.

This has not happened. Earth is still a virgin when it comes to alien life. Until the governments of the world unite together or individually declare that they have had communications with life from other planets, The evidence for their existence is moot and unreliable.

If there are no aliens, Then the primary argument for evolution is negated. This leaves the question of how life arose on earth in question. But this is a question and debate about evolution not a debate about origins.

Secondly, Evolution cannot rely upon adaption, Mutation nor maturation of species to the environments that such species are found. Other theories can be relied upon or have equally valid attestations to such criteria. In other words, Such things as adaption, Maturation or mutation are not mutually exclusive to evolution.

Thirdly, Evolution is dogmatic theological doctrine of a religious movement and therefore should be disqualified on that basis alone.

Fourthly, There is no example of anything currently undergoing evolution anywhere in the known world. Every example is of a past or historical example that cannot be verified by observation.
Debate Round No. 1


Claiming that because aliens have not visited us therefore evolution is wrong is absurd and unsubstantiated and unrelated, Secondly claiming something is impossible is claiming absolution which is intellectually dishonest.

Evolution is NOT premised on the idea that life may evolve anywhere. The theory of evolution explains biodiversity, How living systems change and adapt generation after generation to the environment they live in, It says nothing about nor claims that life exists else ware.

I feel like your projecting humanity to what you would expect aliens to be like, Talking about aliens coming to earth and opening us up to the universe, Enough with the alien stuff it’s just empty speculation and unsupported assertions you’re trying to ploy as an argument which is unrelated to evolutionary theory.

There is no current conclusive evidence that any life exists beyond earth, So to claim earth is still a virgin when it is the only valid example we have is also intellectually dishonest and yet another unsubstantiated projection of humanity, Also its completely unrelated to evolutionary theory.

Even if we never found any aliens that wouldn’t automatically make all the evidence and vindication of/for evolutionary theory any less of an evidenced observational reality.

Religions are based on deities, Faith, And require fallacies and misrepresentation to proliferate, Scientific theories are vindicated and evidenced models of reality with successful repetitive predictive capability which have passed through peer review continuously. So no evolution is not a dogmatic theological doctrine, It’s a reality that all observation and evidence supports. General relativity, Quantum mechanics, Mathematical theory, Evolutionary theory have all passed the same scientific peer review standards to be scientific theories, So if you’re going to try and assert that evolution is a religion, Then you have no choice but to claim that the rest must also be religions, If you don’t then you are just cheery picking what you do and don’t except under the same standards which is intellectually dishonest.

I have a slight niche that you may not understand how evolution actually works. Living systems change slightly from generation to generation based on their environment and what selective pressures apply, Living systems don't change "during a generation" because that’s not how evolution works, Evolution is basically nonrandom selection of randomly varying systems, We can measure mutation rates, It’s not that hard to do, And in doing so we find a constant correlation, The bigger and more complex a living system is, The less it mutates every generation, For instance some single stranded RNA viruses can have their entire genomes rewritten within just a few century’s time, Whereas it took millions of years for the DNA of a high level eukaryotic organism like ourselves to change just a few percent, This change is both observational and testable. If you’re expecting me to provide an absurd example of a cat giving birth to a dog or something relating, It’s because you don’t understand how evolution works.

I have mixed feelings about your arguments, While they aren’t classic debunked creationist arguments, They are still equally debunkable, Unevidenced and absurd.



Hi and thank you for your response.

Dismissing the link between evolution and aliens is not helpful. Claiming such a link is wrong, Absurd, Unsubstantiated and unrelated is as intellectually dishonest as suggesting my claim that evolution is impossible. I submit using such a term as intellectually dishonest is ad hominin or personal in nature and therefore not a refutation.

The link between aliens and evolution is fair even if not obvious to you. If aliens turned up tomorrow then every non-evolutionist would by default have lost the non-evolution argument given the evidence before their eyes. Hence the converse is also relevant in relation to the question of evolution. Of course like the similar position to God, It is an argument by silence. Yet, It is a much more glaring and obvious silence for God chooses not to reveal himself and theoretically is able to do so. Aliens do not have the same luxury - speculatively speaking. Therefore - the absence of aliens is a fair counter-argument to evolution. Your particular "feeling" about what I am doing is similarly unhelpful in a debate.

It is also not helpful to misrepresent my argument. I did not say evolution may evolve anywhere per se. I had a specific qualification and you chose to omit that qualification. I will not speculate upon why you chose to omit it. Now while it is correct that evolution is often used to explain biodiversity - it is also true that evolution is used far broader in the debating environment and that is to specifically to attack religion and the Creationist position. Hence the typical creationist v evolution discussions which you labeled "good and old" are part of this discussion. To narrow the discussion to your own definition is to dismiss all other arguments - and obviously not a real or serious debate. It is therefore a dogmatic assertion.

Furthermore to try and unlink evolution with origin theory may well be helpful for scientists in discussing and exploring evolution, But in a debate which is obviously trying to engage creationists is to introduce origin theory per se. To deny otherwise smacks of deceit. It certainly betrays a lack of objectivity and neutrality.

Also since you deferred to my initiating the discussion, Waiving your right to present terms and parameters, It is clearly within my purview how this discussion's terms and parameters are framed.

I chose to use religious defined globally and not from a modern Western secular point of view. This defines religious as synonymous with worldview which is how I understand religion. The Western definition including deity or supernatural aspect is self-serving and does not accurately represent either historical understandings of religion nor of 70% of the current world population.

I see scientific "peer review" as similar to "priestly authority". Only those in the know really understand it and are allowed to question it. This is the paradox of science. Scientific doctrine is so simple everyone can understand it, But so complicated only those with particular knowledge (those approved) can question it. Climate Change is a perfect example. Everyone is expected to believe it has been proven by consensus of scientists. Yet, No one outside of climatology (public scientists) is permitted to question it. Science or dogma? When was the last time a non-scientist was permitted to seriously question evolution? Those outside of the know who do question it are labeled idiots or deniers.

I understand how evolution is portrayed. I just don't like to be told how to think. I also like to question things. I find the usage of millions of years convenient terminology because it tells us "believe us".

I don't expect you to produce an example of a cat turning into a dog. I don't think Creationists would expect evolutionists to do that. That would be like suggesting God to produce a round square or a rock so big he cannot lift it. Absurdity unfortunately rules a lot of these kind of debates - as do personal attacks.

In my view - I think aliens are one of the keys to this topic. I think the lack of aliens are an obvious omission to this discussion.

And this is one of the dilemmas. You say evolution explains bio-diversity - but then you say we can't observe it because it takes millions of years. The Creationist says to me God made the diversity on this planet and he also gave them the ability to adapt to the conditions and environments. The Creationist does not produce God and the evolutionist cannot produce the alien. The Creationist says changes, Mutations and adaptions are a normal process of the way God created his creation and we should be able to see these changes as part of life. We see this. The Evolutionists says these things happen by natural selection and can be observed in the smallest details and variations.

But the Creationist does not call this evolution. The evolutionist calls it evolution. And if both could agree to disagree on the terminology - then there would be no debate. But this is where the debate gets nasty.

Why? Because the evolutionist whilst refusing to discuss origins is prepared to present or presume millions of years. And the Creationist who is prepared to discuss origins refuses to agree to millions of years.

While you might have mixed feelings about my arguments despite your rhetoric you have not refuted even one. In fact you have managed to only open up a can of worms.
Debate Round No. 2


Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with aliens, Evolution has nothing to say about the prospect of alien life, Evolutionary theory only explains biodiversity under natural selection, Thats basicly it. Saying why does evolution not explain aliens would be like asking why atomic theory doesnt explain the weather, So no its not as intellectualy dishonest as you claim, My claim is simply correct, While yours is based in a emotional bias which has nothing to with evolutionary theory.

You continue to project humanity onto what you both expect and demand from alien life if it exists, You also make a fallacy by claiming that if evolution is true why have aliens not visted us. Also even if aliens did show up creationists would still exist, So this isnt my "feelings" rather it is your feelings on the matter of what you expect from the before mentioned, Also even if we never found aliens that still wouldent automaticly dismiss all the evidence we have in vindication of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are not the same thing, You cannot not have decent with modification until some chemical system caplable of darwinian evolution develops, This is also why evolutionary theory also says nothing about abiogenesis, This debate is not meant to discuss abiogeneses, It is creationists who keep brining it into evolution debates because they don't understand that they are not the same thing.

Nothing is stopping creationists or etc from questioning what you afore mentioned, The problem is when they are expected to vindicate it by the scientific method and peer review they cannot do so, There are quite a few creationists out there with actual pHD's claiming the creationist world view and etc, Yet not one of them has ever written a scientific paper about the things creationists claim and have it pass peer review, The reason for this is very simple, Creationism does not have any evidence in its support, Creationism relys on logical fallacys and misrepresnetation of arguments and data, By this alone creationism does not even reach the rank of a scientific hypothesis, But if someone did really have "actual scientific vindicatable testable" proof of creationism, All they would have to do is submit for peer review, Something like this would not matter if you had a degree or not, Because if you are right and this information passes peer review, Then these creationists would have the world of nobel prizes, Grants and etc opened for them in a heart beat, But of cource none of this has happend, All the arguments they make have been debunked countless times. You also make a fallacy in your "Paradox of science" just because someone does not understand somethinh does not mean that it isnt true, Just because someone doesnt understand general realitivty doesnt automaticly make gravity wrong, Reality is obviously complicated so a subjectivly simplified view of it is not possible, And if some people don't understand it, Thats honestly to bad.

No there is no "Believe us" and you feelings on large time scales is not automaticly going to make them any less of a vindicatable and evidenced reality.

There is no such thing as a "evolutionist" for the same reason there is no such thing as a "gravityest" secondly the "Evolutionist" as you put it can provide a pethroload of evidence ranging from the fields of genetics to geology, Including observed speciation events such as the following.

http://www. Talkorigins. Org/faqs/faq-speciation. Html

While a creationist can not do so, They can only provide peduo-evidence and non scientificly sourced non sense.

I don't have mixed feelings about your arguments, They really arnt arguments, You claim that i use feelings even though its clear my arguments are based in logic, You repeat your aliens thing by projecting your own expectations and using empty speculation for something that has no evidence or support, You sugest that because reality is complicated and therefore science is complicated, That because science is not simple enough for everyone to understand it somehow is a "Paradox" you fail to understand that multiple groups have been questioning this subject matter for centurys, And you also fail to understand that the reason creationists can't have a paper pass peer review is for the same reason flat earthers can't get a paper through peer review, They are both equaly unevidenced and unvidicated positions which start from a pre-determined conclusion and work the way down which is peudoscience not science.

I have more then refuted your claims, You of course don't accept this, So you proceed to repeat your same claims and suggest im ignorant and emotionaly biased when its quite clear that you are the one who is ignorant and emotionaly biased with your projecting of humanity to your expectation of alien life, With your clear ignorance to scientific methodology, And your use of creationist terms and statements and appeals to emotion like the following.

" I think aliens are one of the keys to this topic. I think the lack of aliens are an obvious omission to this discussion. "

"I understand how evolution is portrayed. I just don't like to be told how to think. I also like to question things. I find the usage of millions of years convenient terminology because it tells us "believe us"

Also you claim to understand how evolution is petrayed, But then in the very the next sentence you proceed to demonstrate that you clearly don't understand how evolution is petrayed, This is not my feeling, Its written clear as day.

So in conclusion i have more then refuted your claims, And your supposed can of worms is not even something that exists.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 2 years ago

You have swayed me with your informative and clearly irrefutable logical reasoning to this specific subject matter.
Posted by 1leroy 2 years ago
Where is the proof for evolution?
There is not any.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 2 years ago
*Also the before mentioned fact that we have observed speciation events before and therefore know that distinct lineages can and do arise from common ancestry.

*You don"t have to debunk something that was never evidenced in the first place like young earth creationism, Unlike religious ideology evolution was not a pre-determined conclusion in which people tried to prove with pseudo-evidence, Evolution was rather the conclusion drawn from the evidence and observations made as it was both evidenced and explained the before mentioned criteria.
Because the fossil record is so large I cannot simply give you a single link to every last one, I can however give you a link to our own lineages fossil record which should be more than relevant.

http://humanorigins. Si. Edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

Creationists will try and claim that these are fake or something else equally unsupported and
unevidenced, But they are evidently real and have been dated accurately.

Ignoring that macro and micro evolution are terms both made up and coined by creationists, Macro and micro evolution are the exact same thing, The process, The mechanism, All the same, The only difference is time, Or put more simply small genetic changes happen over short periods of time for example a few hundred generations "microevolution" while these eventually accumulate over time into big genetic changes over longer periods of time until such a point that two populations can longer produce offspring for example hundreds of thousands to millions of generations "macro-evolution". There is no evidence that DNA has a limit to how much it can change, However there is plenty of evidence to support continuous change and speciation events.

Again if you take any of this as a personal attack it is not, It is just the observed actions and fallacy"s made by creationists.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 2 years ago
http://www. Talkorigins. Org/faqs/faq-speciation. Html <- you have to remove the spaces, Debate. Org ruins links this way.

As for when you stated the following.

"Much of your other evidence relied on the fact that certain animals/humans share DNA similarities others. Could you please explain how this debunks Creation? Couldn't common DNA between living things, Just show a common designer? "

No it doesn"t, Because in order for this to be the case the following has to be ignored.

*We know that DNA changes at a predictable constant rate generation to generation, This has been both tested and observed.

*We can use this predictability to create a molecular clock which is basically measuring all the mutations that occur in non-coding DNA as non-coding DNA is not subject to selective pressures and just accumulates mutations at a predictive constant rate.

*The estimated dates given by the afore mentioned molecular clock just so happen to fit almost perfectly in accordance with the observable fossil and geological record.

*Retro viruses or "ERV"s" are viruses that insert its genome into that of an organisms existing genome, This means that if two organisms share an identical sequence ERV in the exact same place in its genome, Then the common ancestor between these two organism"s had the ERV in its genome before the speciation event, This is because the chances of the exact same un-mutated sequenced retro virus merging in the exact same place in both respective genomes in both respective populations is statistically improbable, In fact using ERV"s alone you can build a tree of common ancestor, This has been done and just so happens to cross confirm both the afore mentioned genetic family tree and observable fossil record almost perfectly.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 2 years ago
A speciation event happens when a population of organism gets separated from its parent population, This means that all mutations that occur from this point forward every generation to generation will stay localized to the groups they are respective of "populations evolve, Not singular individuals" over time these differences between the groups add up as they begin to fit their respective environments selective pressures "natural selection" at this point two things can happen, The two populations can merge back together over time "semi-hybridization" into one unique population again, Or they can continue drifting apart genetically, This will continue until eventually they are so genetically diverse that the two groups can only produce an infertile hybrid offspring, And eventually they won"t be able to produce fertile offspring at all, At this point a speciation event has occurred, Two organisms that share common ancestry but can longer reproduce with each other allowing their linages to evolve their separate ways, This doesn"t necessarily mean that the two organisms will look completely different "an annoying statements I have heard from creationists is those like that it"s still a bird it"s the same kind" of course with this type of logic I could group chimpanzees and humans as the same kind, This also leads into my evidence I explained beforehand "Comparative anatomy" because organisms that have more recently speciated from one another will tend to share more similarity"s morphologically and genetically compared to organisms who"s lineages split way back, As for observed speciation events I have listed the link that fits the criteria I have explained above, If this does not satisfy you because I didn"t provide an example of a dog giving birth to cat or something of equally unsupported matter or because you consider two birds the same kind, It"s because you don"t understand how evolution really works.
Posted by WhoPutYouOnThePlanet 2 years ago
The point I was trying to establish in my third post is that there is an overwhelming correlation between religious ideology and the denial of evolutionary theory"s vindicatabillity, And that those promoting that evolutionary theory is false have never done so in a scientific verifiable manor, As for @Dr. Franklin im pretty sure he is a troll account based on his other debates you can view.
Posted by backwardseden 2 years ago
"Claiming that because aliens have not visited us therefore evolution is wrong is absurd and unsubstantiated and unrelated, Secondly claiming something is impossible is claiming absolution which is intellectually dishonest. " Absolutely 100% true. God what an idiot.

Btw, Evolution has been seen, Tested and verified
* Antibiotic resistant microbes, Better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.

8/14/19 https://www. Livescience. Com/evolving-superbug-sugar-diet. Html? Utm_source=notification - "Sugary Western Diets Fuel Newly Evolving Superbug"

Superbug 1. A pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, Or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides.
(has developed means evolution is taking place)

Now watch the vidies and read the articles that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now)

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=SPkCc0GXF9s - Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria - PBS Frontline
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ubD-wdvgvaQ - Dan Rather Reports Addicted to Antibiotics
Dan Rather "Every year more than 90, 000 Americans die from similar infections that are resistant to antibiotics. That stunning figure is higher from the death toll from AIDS, Car accidents and prostate cancer combined. "
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=zENv5EDElgA&t=481s - Antibiotics Resistance Documentary

"Drug-Resistant Bacteria Found on International Space Station Toilet"
"Drug-Resistant Space Bugs Found Aboard the ISS" 11/28/18
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
Look, Macro evolution is literally micro evolution scaled up to a million years.
Posted by Philip_McCormick 2 years ago
Let's try to attack the argument, Not the person @Dr. Franklin
Posted by Philip_McCormick 2 years ago
Thanks for the response @WhoPutYouOnThePlanet. I appreciated the points you put in your first two responses. I'd appreciate if we just stayed on debating the facts instead of trying to attack each other's position like you somewhat did your third post. :) I felt like my original post was somewhat civil, So it would be nice we could keep it that.

So if Darwinian evolution has been observed, Can you give me one example of how we have observed one species changing into another species? Perhaps, That's what your link was, But it didn't work for me, So if you could repost the correct link, That would be great. :)

Much of your other evidence relied on the fact that certain animals/humans share DNA similarities others. Could you please explain how this debunks Creation? Couldn't common DNA between living things, Just show a common designer?

"*Fossil record - There is a more then sufficient enough fossil record to support evolution, Contrary to young earth creationist claims. " Do you evidence/examples/anything to back this up?

Let me know if there was anything in you're argument that I missed.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.