Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Evolution

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 16:51, 14 April 2011; England4ever (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Is evolution fact or fiction?

Background and context

This article outlines some of the arguments surrounding evolution, looking at evolution from a logical, rational & scientific view point. Before Darwin, 'evolution' was a word with a Latin origin, that implied change over time, that described any aging process and there is nothing in the universe as we know it that doesn't age or change over time and therefore could be called an example of evolution. Darwin's tried to elevate the concept to a higher abstract or theoretical level. His studies of animal species in the Galapagos Islands in the mid-19th century fostered his conclusion that species evolve through the natural selection. That is, animals in a species with slight variations and mutations that enable them to survive and thrive more successfully are more likely to propagate themselves, whereas those that are less successful are not as capable of propagating their particular DNA and traits. Overtime, this process will happen many times and the overall traits in a species will change, usually continually toward those traits that make the species more "successful". The theory has been very controversial right from the outset, because it clearly contradicts the account of God's creation of the world and the creatures in it in the book of Genesis. The aim of this debate is to discuss whether or not the theory of evolution is valid as a scientific theory and worldview.


Regarding the Age of the universe

Pro

  • No real proof at all regarding the age of the universe appears to be a point to tie in the inception of the universe with evolution. These two scientific inquiries are only marginally related. For example, The Big Bang, and whether it is true or not has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. If we'd like to discuss that issue it should be in another debate. I'd suggest Debate: Big Bang

Con

  • No real proof at all regarding the age of the universe. The age of the universe cannot be used to prove evolution. A young earth would definitely disprove evolution but not all creationists align themselves with this view, as the Hebrew word for day- "yom" can also refer to an unspecified period of time, similar to the English idiom "in my day..." which usually means something like "when I was younger" as opposed to referring to a particular day which allows Christians to accept conventional dating methods (whether accurate or not) whilst maintaining integrity in their belief in Biblical inerrancy. The age of the universe is debated between creationists, and so is irrelevant to this debate. The Evolutionist debater is right to point out that this question should be debated elsewhere. The new debate, http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Age_of_the_Earth would be an excellent place to develop this.

"Transitional" Species

test
END

Pro

  • "No real proof of an animal ever changing into a different kind of animal." - There are hundreds of "transitional fossils", here is a list. Exactly how many fossils does someone need to find that are "transitional" before this is acceptable? If you don't want to look through the long list I point to the VERY notable example of dinosaurs to birds.

Con

  • No real proof of an animal ever changing into a different kind of animal. In fact, we know of hundreds if not thousands of species that have become extinct during recorded history, but how many animals do we know of, that have evolved during the same period?
  • Of the supposed "transitional fossils" that have been found, most of them have turned out to be frauds (such as "Piltdown man"), insufficient bones collected (a supposed "missing link" between apes and men in Nebraska turned out to be a pig's tooth), or otherwise explainable. In view of this, it would be rather foolhardy to assert that the fossil record actually supports evolution.


Scientifically Observing/Recreating Evolution

Pro

  • "In fact, we know of hundreds if not thousands of species that have become extinct during recorded history, but how many animals do we know of, that have evolved during the same period?" - The length of time that life has existed on earth is VERY VERY much more then the length of time there has been recorded history. Compare about ~3,500,000,000 to ~10,000. They are VERY different things. BUT if you need something an easy example is plant polyploidy. There has also been speciation (or, in other words, "evolution") in fruit flies in a controlled experimental setting.
  • You have to define "major variation", and if you mean speciation, it's because it takes MANY generations. The fact is that cats+dogs+mice+cows simply have too long of a gestation and life-span for us to have watched them evolve in a controlled setting. We're talking thousands of generations, that is just impossible to do with those particular lifeforms. But as said above, it has been done in other lifeforms with much shorter lifespans.

Con

  • We have been doing tests on mice and rabbits and whatever have you. We have been breeding cats & dogs & cows etc, but what we see as the end product is still mice and rabbits and cats and dogs and cows etc. Why is it we have not observed a single major variation?
  • The theory of evolution is based around the idea that creatures genetically mutate to survive better, but mutations (which are caused by concentration of the gene pool due to competitors with less helpful-to-survival genes having died off) have actually only served to distort a species when they occur. Such disadvantages caused by mutations include things like spina bifida, cleft palate, and suchlike. Basically these deficiencies occur due to inbreeding, which the evolutionary process requires. So mutations would actually make animals less able to survive instead of more, which completely undermines Darwin's theory. Evolutionists claim that there are some mutations that have a positive effect on the creature in question, ones that increase the genetic information in the genome as opposed to deleting it or distorting it, but such mutations have never been observed in a living creature.
  • Since evolution would theoretically take so long to occur, there has been no recorded occurence of one species evolving into another in all human history. As skeletal "proof" of evolution can be otherwise explained as has been mentioned elsewhere in this debate, living proof is the only possible valid proof of the theory, however since the very time consuming nature of the theory cancels out the possibility of such proof being available, the theory is doomed to remain hypothetical forever. How can evolution be called scientific, empirical, or factual if it is merely theoretical?
  • We're not saying that species never go through any changes whatsoever (microevolution), we're only arguing that it is impossible for really drastic changes to happen, such as developing a completely new feature (a mammal won't ever grow feathers), or changing to a point where it cannot reproduce with its ancestor species. We aren't saying that mutations never occur, they obviously do, but they just never increase the information in the creature's genome.

Evolution defying creatures

Pro

Con

  • The Duck- billed platypus is an excellent example of a living creature which completely undermines Darwinism. Evolutionists theorise that some reptiles evolved into mammals whilst others became birds. The Platypus has somehow got traits similar to all three types of creature, but how how on earth can this be evolutionarily explained? By the time the supposed missing links between reptiles and birds and reptiles and mammals had developed the traits found in the Platypus' genome, the two species would obviously be unable to reproduce with one another, and could by no means therefore produce a creature capable of evolving into a Platypus. The only rational explanation for the striking similarities the Platypus, being a mammal, has with a duck, is that both creatures were separately designed by the same God.

Geological Column

Pro

  • "Geologic column is just impossible to explain. Why is it the layers in for example Grand Canyon, are virtually flat! Was there no erosion for millions and millions and millions of years?" - taking 10 seconds and one picture I see that it's not really that flat at all: [1]. In terms of the grand canyon, obviously there has been erosion, it's well accepted that the canyon itself was formed by the erosion due to the Colorado River.

Con

  • Geologic column is just impossible to explain. Why is it the layers in for example Grand Canyon, are virtually flat! Was there no erosion for millions and millions and millions of years?




See also

External links and resources:

Evidence for Truth: Science By Dr E.K. Victor Pearce

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.