CreateDebate


Debate Info

374
311
It has It has not
Debate Score:685
Arguments:232
Total Votes:1055
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It has (113)
 
 It has not (119)

Debate Creator

jade127(8) pic



Has evolution been scientifically proved?

It has

Side Score: 374
VS.

It has not

Side Score: 311
22 points

In Biology a theory is the highest title you can give to a scientific study. There is more than enough evidence to substantiate that evolution has occurred, does occur, and will continue. Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas. There is a law of gravity, but there is a theory of gravitation. Because in science gravity and gravitation are slightly different.

| Side: It has
5 points

"Evolution will never obtain the title of Law as that is reserved for mathematical formulas."

There's a few, Mendel's come to mind. But it's hard to break down something as statistically based as evolution into something with nice algebraic terms.

Supporting Evidence: Mendelian inheritance (en.wikipedia.org)
| Side: It has
2 points

Manitoba is a Canadian prairie province which was brought into Confederation in 1870 after the Red River Rebellion. The area has been inhabited for thousands of years, with European contact made in the 17th century. The province has over 10,000 lakes, and has a largely continental climate due to its mostly flat topography.

Supporting Evidence: BH0-004 (www.real-testking.com)
| Side: It has
Gericho49 Disputed
3 points

Science involves observations, theory, design, testing and predictable outcomes. How does one design test and observe evolution? If the latter is as ubiquitous as Darwin suggested, we should have many transitional species that can be observed in the immediate past not just "long ago and far away". Where for example, are the remains of "mutated" apes that have failed to propagate? All we have is some dubious fossils, the false claim about peppered moths and where bones found far apart, are assumed to be from the one individual (e.g pitdown man).

For macro evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. Even then we have two competing theories one of gradual changes over time and SJ Gould's punctuated equilibrium, the sudden appearance of unexplained species. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information (the coded set of instructions which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blueprint’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next.

An analogy: new computer programs do not arise from old computer programs by copying errors. Instead, the resulting program usually jams. However, some evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.

Evolution therefore is certainly not a given and certainly not "childishly simple" as Dawkins would have us believe.

| Side: It has not
anotherguy34 Disputed
2 points

HA HA you are absolutely right! I'm SURE none of them witnessed evolution. "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." Louis Pasteur- he was WRONG! It is dead, but the foolish evolutionists treat it as it is still right. Making daughters of its flawed, and retarded theory- Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is one and the same.. Evolutionist need to let go of their fairy tales of molecules being the building blocks of life. ''Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain'' (Shapiro, 1986) Scientists know little in these regards, but behave as if it is fact. The only giver of life is GOD! not a bunch of molecules dancing around in a magical dance to create life. Showing abiogenesis and spontaneous generation disproves Evolution because it is based on the premise that God did not make the Universe. Saying abiogenesis and spontaneous generation or any other of ''science's'' witchraft and magical hypotheses is irrelevant to evoultion is saying the ''creationists are right, but I DID come from an ape.''

The theory of evolution is nothing but a masonic doctrine of man progressing (evolving) until he becomes perfect (god-like) which lead to the belief of the black man being sub-human and asians being more advanced. This theory scientists see as fact Evolution lead to more preposterous and supernatural implications the fools who think they are wise were trying to avoid. And in trying to disprove the supernatural they proved it.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Agriculture, found especially in the fertile southern and western parts of the province, is vital to its economy; other major industries are transportation, manufacturing, mining, forestry, energy, and tourism. The political and cultural capital, Winnipeg, is home to four of the province's five universities, all four of its major professional

Supporting Evidence: comptia a+ (www.real-testking.com)
| Side: It has not
anotherguy34 Disputed
1 point

Sense and insight would tell you, that when a theory contradicts a proven factual LAW that the theory is nothing but a lie...

| Side: It has not
lupus6x9(10) Disputed
0 points

Therefore, evolution has not been scientifically proven. It has been heavily supported by evidence, but this evidence is not substantial enough to "prove" this theory. The question is specifically "Has evolution been scientifically prove[n]?" and the response, even here, is "No." There is no mathematical formula, there is no absolute evidence in its favor. There is reasonable doubt, no matter how little.

| Side: It has not
nagtroll(273) Disputed
2 points

Therefore your usurpation of supposed assumption of stated opinion cannot be proven or supported by evidence, but is not substantial enough to answer the question specifically.

No.

no no no no no no no

No.

I disagree.

Thank you for arguing.

| Side: It has
HGrey87(749) Disputed
1 point

I agreed with you up until "reasonable doubt." The social sciences, which incorporate the confounding input of statistical variability, have something called Statistical Significance. This means when something acts in a predicted way a certain percentage of times, given the sample is large enough, it can be considered reliable enough to base other research on. In other words, when something is accepted by the scientific community at large (which evolution IS, don't let the media deceive you), there is no reasonable doubt about it.

Speaking of science reliable enough to base work on, consider the company Monsanto, and others like it. They specialize in breeding (EVOLVING) plants and patenting their genotypes. Pure fucking evil, but obviously based on sound science. Major international corporations base their entire business model on evolution. They have no reason to do this if they are not completely convinced of the reliability of that basis.

| Side: It has
1 point

The only reason you will be down voted is because you spoke the truth. They downvoted you with emotion rather than logic.

| Side: It has not
9 points

The fact that nearly half people think evolution has not been scientifically proven is a proof in itself of how poorly people understand what science is all about. I am inclined to believe that 85% of those who are in favor of evolution know little more than the average high school biology about it. I include myself in that category. As a scientist, I've studied physics not biology. Yet, that little we know make much more sense than any religious alternative. Think about the judeochristian God creating the earth in a seven day creationist marathon or about Brahma starting from a lotus flower or a about the wish list of a native American earth-maker. They are all equal in being legend and myths. Yet, there must be something that people who doubt evolution don't understand and my only answer must be that they simply approach evolution with a close mind, only trying to disproof it. It is too beautiful and simple for the simplest mind not to grasp. So my argument is that if you have not made an honest effort to understand evolution putting aside your religious bias, you cannot have an opinion against it. The mere fact that evolution is taken for granted as truth by every biologists should convince you that science has proven it. Here is a video that give you the basic scientific argument for evolution against creationism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k. I stand for that argument.

| Side: It has
cybrweez(53) Disputed
3 points

But I thought evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe? How can it compare against creationism?

| Side: It has not
munificent(48) Disputed
3 points

Creationism includes both the beginning of the universe, and the origin of species on Earth. Evolution addresses the latter. (Cosmology addresses the former.)

If creationism only said "the universe began when God created it but then who knows where us and the animals came from?" then it would not be in conflict with evolutionary theory.

| Side: It has
wledlund(3) Disputed
2 points

What evidence is there that universal evolution doesn't exist? The universe constantly changes. Creationism is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the creation of the ever expanding universe. One must realize that the books of Genesis were not testimonies by God, and therefore were not revelations to us. A revelation is only a revelation to the individual who received the information directly from God himself. As soon as the person tells someone else that something was revealed to him by God, it can only be hearsay and nothing else.

| Side: It has
2 points

This isn't the debate about which makes more sense over a seven day creation or evolution, it is one of belief in evolution. Most people on here, dont deny it due to their religion, they do it based on factual information or lack thereof. Just because you believe in this doesnt make it easy to understand. We can all take the concept of, oh, we evolved from organisms and animals, but you have to be able to prove how that happens, which no one can.

| Side: It has not
AltonSmith(108) Disputed
1 point

Or perhaps many of those who do not believe in evolution are themselves students of science and as such see that there are many logical and evidential flaws in the theory.

| Side: It has not
5 points

I think it's pretty common knowledge that evolution is a scientific fact, with so much observational evidence to support it that the only reason someone would deny it is either because they didn't understand it, or it went against their specific religious views.

I think the only real thing that could be up for debate is the mechanism through which evolution occurs (natural selection), although even this is pretty much scientific fact.

So I would say yes; evolution has been scientifically and observationally proven.

| Side: It has
2 points

Evolution is proven every year in fact. The influenza virus, it evolves every year and needs new vaccines, people aren't given the same flu vaccine every year, it's needed re-tailoring to fit the existing virus.

Same goes with all anti-bacterial medicine, all bacteria is constantly evolving on the lower level, why wouldn't it happen on the higher up level? It just takes longer, it's been seen that evolution existed because different animals are evolved to work better in their environment. Human remains have been found and body structures have changed over the time periods in which they existed.

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

That is your opinion.

The truth of the examples given, and those not given, these being: bacteria, viruses, prions, whether disease causing as in flesh eating bacteria or whether innocuous does not change the fact that what is being observed can only be described after the fact. That live virus forms are engineered and released onto the unsuspecting human population is no consolation to those viruses that never got a chance to get started. Live viruses only protect against one clad, are unstable, and vaccines generally contain co-contaminants that are a result of the production process. Another Case in point: pig farms. Overuse of antibiotics breeds new forms of superbug. What is really happening is that the bugs are already there. Those more successful, or less inhibited, become more prevalent in their environment. Does this mean that man causes all disease to begin with? Hardly.

In the end Darwin said it best in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

Let it be borne in mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly said that the, whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

| Side: It has not
2 points

Whether or not something is scientifically proven or a theory are simply human conventions that we try to apply to the unexplanable. There are too many natural occurences that we as humans will try to explain and simply fail to explain, which is how I believe creationsim was brought about in the first place. People tried to explain the incomprehensible.

| Side: It has
2 points

Science doesn't do "proof". It identifies the theories which best support all available evidence. Then tries it's damnedest to prove those new theories wrong.

Since the theory of evolution manages to be compatible with every scientific observation ever made, not to mention the fact that its principles are used to design vaccines, it has come as close to proof as any scientific theory can. The day evolution is proven wrong is the day I'll go back and check on gravity and atomic theory, too. They're all on equal footing at this point.

| Side: As close as science can do
2 points

It doesn't need to be proven as there is no underlying math, (in physics there is).

It is widely acknowledged as "what happened" and that is proof enough, it should be taught in schools therefore.

| Side: It has
2 points

Well if it hasn't then by all means please tell your mother not get a flu shot ever again. Do us all a favor and don't get one either.

And please tell me why telomeric DNA exists at the center of the 2nd chromosome.

| Side: It has
2 points

Evolution is a theory, just like gravity is a theory. In the scientific community, it is considered a fact based on the insurmountable amount of evidence that supports its concept. The means of evolution, however, are hypotheses of how evolution would have occurred; these are natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations, for the most part.

| Side: It has
2 points

There's a fair bit of good evidence to prove evolution.

1. Intermediate forms between two seperate species within the fossil record have been found

2. Genitics has provided research demonstrating how evolution is viable, and likely

3. It works

I can't actually remember everything, but thats about as much as I remember. Theres much more better evidence FOR evolution. Darwin was right.

| Side: It has
1 point

Evolution and speciation as a result of natural selection has been proven and observed many times. The only thing really up for debate is the origin of all known current species from one common ancestor.

| Side: It has
5 points

Sorry, but the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.

Look to the big bang theory and others for that.

| Side: It has
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
1 point

Riles wasn't referring to the origin of life; he was referring to common descent in the current population of species.

| Side: It has
E223(189) Disputed
1 point

Read the whole comment that he makes first

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
2 points

Well personally, my second cousin by marriage on my mothers side descends from the Archea branch, but my bosses boss is an arachnid. To my knowledge they are not related.

| Side: It has not

Insofar as any natural phenomenon can be studied, processed, explained and supported through and by the scientific method, evolution has been "proved".

| Side: It has
1 point

Evolution is a scientific fact. The change in organisms is absolutely undisputed, and the genetic evidence is even more convincing than the fossil record (as stated by the head of the Human Genome Project, a Christian).

The THEORY of evolution, how this change occurs (e.g., by natural selection), is what is unproven. But evolution itself is an established fact.

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

Fact shmakt.

That is just your opinion.

Not everyone evolves. Look at Neanderthals. What happened to them? Did they die out on their own? Or was it MURDER?!!!

And if its true that humans killed off the Neanderthals, can we really say it was natural selection; or is it necessarily artificial selection, having been done at the hands of humankind?

*

"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection." - Charles Darwin,

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

| Side: It has not
debrikishaw(4) Disputed
2 points

Yes, everyone evolves, as everyone endures mutations.

What you are saying implies that there is a set path planned for the evolution of certain species, which there is not.

Mutations are accidents. They can sometimes benefit.

Also Neanderthals died out on their own because it was an injurious variation.

and what bothers me is that you said "that is just your opinion," because that usually infers that you are saying that person is wrong and you are factual. You are not factual. Saying "that is just your opinion" does not make it wrong!

| Side: It has
1 point

The theory of evolution has been proven both scientifically and logically. On a scientific level, evolution has been observed within species by scientists since Darwin's own observation in the Galapagos Islands, where birds' beaks had mutated to help them utilize different souces of food. Even today, signs of the trend in "survival of the fittest" are all around us. African Americans, whose ancestors in the United States were the strongest from Africa, brought to the US as slaves, now dominate the sports industry. The children of the best and brightest Asians who were able to immigrate to the US during the 70s-80s now happen to be many of the most brilliant in schools and universities. Its not a coincidence.

Just thinking about it for a moment, evolution does, at least at first thought, make sense. Being a programmer, I have seen evolution logically proven as I and others use "code evolution" to evolve our programs. This happens by making copies of the programs and altering some just like creatures mutate, and then combining them two by two to symbolize mating. In the end, we usually end up with about a thousand crap programs and a few super-good programs.

Evolution does logically work out, and thus nothing is stopping it from happening in our society. On another note, I would like to clearly point out that just because evolution is a possible process does not mean that life as we know is a result of it. In fact, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which theorizes that life is the result of evolution, is weak because it fails to explain how life originated, instead addressing only how it developed. I believe that to connect the process of evolution with the question of "how we got here" was a huge leap in logic, and, personally, I'm not a Darwinist.

| Side: It has
0 points

You most certainly are a Darwinist.

"..which theorizes that life is the result of evolution,"

Evolution underpins the diversity of life.

"because it fails to explain how life originated,"

That's because Darwin's theory is that of natural selection which requires life to work.

How life originated in the first place isn't exactly a stretch when you have the facts of evolution in hand. Most probably, it was the increasing probability of randomly sloshing molecules in a 'primordial soup' when the Earth had cooled enough. It may 'simply' be a calculation of how many collisions/conformations of various molecules and time is required to chance upon a self-replicating system. Millions of years+ no doubt.

| Side: It has
1 point

It has been proved as much as such a theory CAN be proved, there is enough evidence going for it that all we are missing is actual observation, which is nigh impossible given the topic.

| Side: It has
1 point

There's pretty much no way evolution is not true. It's been very well proven and is not just a "theory." Believe what you will, but there's no denying that there is a LOT of evidence towards evolution.

| Side: It has
1 point

While a lot of things in science can't necessarily be "proven", evolution and other theories have a lot of strong evidence to support them. A scientific theory is not like other theories. Gravity is considered a theory. It can't be proven to be 100% true, but there is clearly enough evidence that support it for it to be taken as truth.

Evolution is in the same boat. There are some undeniable evidence of evolution that exists. We have seen species adapt to the environment and change over time. You can't deny that part of evolution. I wish people would stop assuming that a scientific theory means that its a way that someone thinks and has no real evidence.

| Side: It has
1 point

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Supporting Evidence: Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (www.physorg.com)
| Side: second law of thermodynamics
1 point

I've studied a lot of Biology and to me evolution has indeed been proved.

The way science uses the word "theory" is not the same as the way its used by the general public.

The general public uses the word "theory" to describe an assumption, something that may or may not be true, something not proved.

Science however, uses it in quite a different context. "Theory" for science is the explanation of how something works. Not an assumption of how it may work, but a thorough and well examined explanation of how it works. Nothing is given the status of a "theory" in science unless it has been tested over and over and over again and proved by other sciences and observation.

Take gravity for example. There is the Law of Gravity, which says that things tend to fall downward. Then there is the Theory of Gravity, which explains what Gravity is, what causes it, and how it works. Its not an "assumption" of how it works. Its a proved explanation of it.

I have come across many religious people that see evolution as a threat to what they believe. They say it contradicts the theory that God created man. But at no point has the theory of evolution ever claimed to know WHO created the building blocks or the why. In my opinion, there is a way to accept both.

If you believe that God created man then evolution is the way by which he went about doing it. What's wrong with that?

| Side: It has
1 point

Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea!

Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure.

| Side: It has
1 point

For (Macro-)Evolution Theory to be valid, laws of nature that are generally accepted as true and standard must be repeatedly denied. The typical outcome of a dramatic mutation is that it: (1) does not reproduce in the mutated form to a successful degree, (2) is often sterile, and (3) has low survivability rates. (Macro-)Evolution Theory supposes that these natural limitations to mutation were repeatedly set aside over innumerable generations in an ever-succeeding pattern that defies the standards known to exist - and, further, that this denial continued successfully over millions of years.

| Side: It has not
1 point

1st: Evolution does not require dramatic mutation. Most evolution occurs through small incremental mutations over many many generations. (If it helps, imagine how people age. From day to day there are no obvious differences, but over long periods of time, people can look completely different then they did when they were younger.)

2nd: We have seen significant mutations occur that do not affect the viability of the organisms offspring.

3rd: We have actually seen evolution occur, even to the point of speciation.

4th: You're dumb to think that you know more than every biologist on earth.

In short, you're wrong because you are distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just on a larger time scale.

| Side: It has
AltonSmith(108) Disputed
0 points

In fact, there is a substantial issue with this stage-by-stage development. According to evolutionary theory, organisms develop in stages. That might seem reasonable. Indeed, it is quite possible for organisms to adapt to their surroundings, but that does not explain the necessarily complex processes that would occur as one species evolves into another. If there is a requirement for a life form to begin this development, it will never be met. That is because even if the first phases of this biological development were to occur, they would produce useless structures, and ultimately these would be bred out in offspring.

| Side: It has not
1 point

yes,it has been proved

we live in a SCIENCE-FI world and if we don't believe in SCIENCE it is foolishness

| Side: It has
1 point

Evolution is basically common sense once you put down your bible and get out of the church. All evolution is is adaptation over a long period of time. For instance: All human life began in Africa. The tribes spread all over the world and adapted to their climate. That is why we have so many different groups of people.

| Side: It has
1 point

There is far too much scientific evidence in the world today to deny the evolutionary theory.

| Side: It has

Evolution is proven every year in fact. The influenza virus, it evolves every year and needs new vaccines, people aren't given the same flu vaccine every year, it's needed re-tailoring to fit the existing virus.

Supporting Evidence: Austin mobile mechanic (www.moonlightingautomotive.com)
| Side: It has
1 point

If people don't except Biology proves then we cannot use forensic evidence in court, period. And yes, we do use it. Therefore, micro/macro evolution is very REAL!

| Side: It has
1 point

Beyond proven. We see animals have changed from fossil records. We have proof of trnsitional species in both human origins and dinosaur origins in fossils with dino and bird traits. We even have new DNA proof that birds descended from certain dino species and humans were related to neanderthal. it was darwin who first discovered that species change. A devoutly religious man for his entire life. He saw things that did not make sense in the view of religion. He found fossils of animals that did not exsist that were replaced by different but similar species. he also saw birds of exactly the same genetics on one in the Galapogas islands that only varied by beak type between each island. They had changed to accomodate their food type. whether you like it or not evolution went from theory to scientific fact with the use of advanced scientific methods and technology.

| Side: It has
1 point

Of course it has. I'm not going into full detail of this evidence here in my post, but there is a vast amount of evidence proving it true.

| Side: It has
1 point

The fact thathuman embryos have tails, indicate that we share ancestries with an animal that had a tail.

| Side: It has
1 point

The fact that snakes sometimes mutate and have hind legs, show that they mutated from an animal that used to have legs.

| Side: It has
1 point

All mammal embryos seem to transitions from fish to amphibians to reptiles and then to mammals.

| Side: It has
1 point

It has because you can see resemblences and time lapses and the scientists have worked on showing the way of how things came to be instead of stories and such.

| Side: It has
1 point

Yes, anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what evolution is.

| Side: It has
1 point

Yes, only people who don't know what it is don't think so.

| Side: It has
0 points

It is the best theory we have as of yet, It has been proven to take place, and it has be accepted by the scientific community. So i would say yes.

| Side: It has
0 points

Evolution has indeed been scientifically proven. The trick here is to ask ourselves what the constraints of the scientific method is and how that affects our understanding of evolution.

I trust the science that proves evolution, what I don't trust is the derivative opinions on why and how it happens. The how is still a very uncertain subject (due to its complexities) and the why (being a philosophical question, requiring value judgments rather than scientific deduction) is outside of the realm of the scientific method.

That being said, science has a fundamental assumption that influences its outcomes. It is the assumption that it is humanly possible to fully explain nature through analytical study. Whether it can or cannot be done is an entire debate in its own right, but that core assumption is reflected in the conviction that evolution entirely explains the process of life. Which of course it doesn't.

So, the fact that evolution has been scientifically defined, tested and found to be so has very little effect on what we believe the reason and purpose of evolution is. It may be a proven theory, but it is still a very incomplete theory.

| Side: It has
0 points

Evolution is a fact as defined. Technically speaking, proofs only exist in mathematics. I suspect the questioner is confusing the theory of evolution by natural selection with evolution as a concept.

| Side: It has
0 points

The fact that this argument nearly has the dissenting side winning is a great testament to how far this site has to go before it becomes a credible place to argue intellectually.

| Side: It has
xaeon(1073) Disputed
4 points

There is currently a problem with the site's algorithm where favouring or opposing an argument doesn't neccessarilly give your "points" to correct side of the debate. The "no it hasn't" side is far more heated, and as such when people use the favour and oppose buttons to reply, they are inadvertently giving their vote to the wrong side.

I've bought this issue up with CreateDebate and it is being fixed.

| Side: It has
0 points

Well we had to ocme form somewhere not juut out of the blue and DNA don't lie when it says our DNA is 98% the same as a slug. That is a shocker I bet. We are more related to slugs then primates if you go by that. And to say a living thing won't change if it's enviorment does is kinda silly since then it could not surivie an we would not be around or life for that matter,life is always adapting and changing,over tme of course.

| Side: Darwin was right
-1 points

I think there is more proof that species evolve than there is that they were created.

| Side: It has
Ojoe(24) Disputed
3 points

I often write articles, and as I reread them I fix my mistakes, edit some paragraphs and then, before publishing it, I have an editor look it through. He changes it again until the article reflects it true purpose.

As such the article evolved, yet it was created.

The point is that evolution is not necessarily evidence against the possibility of a creator. It may in fact be proof of one.

| Side: It has
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
2 points

A more appropriate description of evolution-as-literature would be to present an article you have written that is selectively transformed into a book or an article that diverges over time into multiple variations of itself to communicate with a new audience, each variation existing independent of the other forms and without replacing these variations.

| Side: It has
-1 points

why doe the flu evolve every year?

| Side: It has
honpcguru(1) Disputed
2 points

After variation and mutation, however, they are still viruses, and in the same family (as far as I know). Do the current viruses we see exhibit characteristics that would put them in a different family when compared with the earliest recorded viruses?

It seems that the variation of a virus is observational proof of variation within a species/family, but doesn't necessarily demonstrate the traversal from one to another.

Supporting Evidence: The flu virus family wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
| Side: It has
AltonSmith(108) Disputed
0 points

Viruses mutate when replicating, and these variations can cause beneficial results such as resistance to medications. However, this does not imply evolution. The definitions are very important in this debate.

| Side: It has not
-1 points

Yes, the fossil record provides more than enough evidence. Religious fanatics like to ignore evidence, and repeat nonsense statements such as "It doesn't explain where everything came from in the first place" when evolution is not even an attempt to explain where everything came from. It's the Catholic church and round earth theory all over again...

| Side: It has
-2 points
4 points

The problem with this question is what is the definition of "evolution" and "proven"?

| Side: It has not
4 points

It is still a theory because it can not be proven in such a small time period. However it is almost absolutely likely to be correct.

| Side: It has not
E223(189) Disputed
2 points

No, that's incorrect.

We've proven that genetic mutations happen, it's logical that the species that are best suited to their environment will survive, ergo we can assume that Evolution through Natural Selection happens.

Not only that, but we've witnessed species such as Mayflies undergo evolutionary changes (small changes, yes, but changes none the less)

Saying that it can't be proven in such a small time period is like saying that we can't prove that Pluto will orbit the sun all the way. We haven't known about it long enough to watch it go all the way around, but we can assume that it will simply because we know the mechanics behind it, just like we know the mechanics behind evolution.

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

No, that is also incorrect.

When a genetic mutation occurs in the brain it causes cancer...somtimes. Also sometimes not. But that said what is being argued ergo the question at hand, that is: Has evolution been scientifically proved, has not here been fully addressed. Or has it?

What is observed in mayflies living within the environment (but never outside of one) can only be the only basis of the only possible conclusion which is - uncertain. But that is known; we haven't assumed enough of the mechanics behind the mechanics behind evolutionary action.

while evolution may take our life,

it will never take (pause) our FREDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

| Side: It has not
SexyBanana(299) Disputed
1 point

Please learn what a theory is, please.....................................................

| Side: It has
4 points

No, of course it has not been proven scientifically. Many things have not been proven though that we know for sure to be true. Universal Gravitation has not been proven, but no one would deny that it exists. Similarly, micro evolution, organisms adapting to the environment, definitely exists.

Macro evolution, the evolution of one species to another, and the idea of a common ancestor, is not quite as widely accepted. However, there is a very strong case for it.

Note that evolution does not explain the creation of earth or life, simply the changes of life over enormous amounts of time.

| Side: It has not
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
6 points

So, if you have multiples micro evolution on the same origin species where it changes so dramatic that it looks obviously different from its origin. What do you call that? um um ummm Super duper multiple micro evolution?

| Side: It has
anotherguy34 Disputed
1 point

Multiple micro evolution never made a new animal or organism...

The scenario made was merely fantasy...

| Side: It has not
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

That is where you are wrong.

The old argument that layers of sediment were deposited by the biblical flood are unsubstantial.

Just because i found fish bones in my trash can does that mean they were deposited there by the flood too?

The creationists need to re-examine the scriptures for where it talks about Darwin's book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection."-Darwin

If anything the battles between races in the bible would support Darwin's theory.

And gravity is due to cosmic evolution, which operates at a cosmological time scale, not a geological one; So space-time while continuing to expand, has not been known to contract from our four dimensional perspective. Although antimater has been annihilated with Lithium in collider experiments under laboratory conditions to release pure energy. But this is generally known.

| Side: It has
0 points

Manitoba is a Canadian prairie province which was brought into Confederation in 1870 after the Red River Rebellion. The area has been inhabited for thousands of years, with European contact made in the 17th century. The province has over 10,000 lakes, and has a largely continental climate due to its mostly flat topography.

Supporting Evidence: ibm certification dumps (www.real-testking.com)
| Side: It has
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
1 point

From my understanding, the rest of the world accept the fact that we're evolved from something as remote as a an ape. The only groups of people that don't accept are people who don't learn evolution biology where they believe in monotheist religion. If you belong in those group of people, you are considered to be very bias, unprofessional, no intelligent, emo, childish person. The prove for a monotheist religion is just 1 book. If you believe in to be so holly, then I guess my bible is science. The foundation of 3 Newton's law in physics, quantum mechanic, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, etc, are much more creditable that a single holly book. In fact, even with all claimed holy book in the world are not as valuable as a single basic physics book alone.

| Side: It has
SexyBanana(299) Disputed
1 point

Macro does not exist, evolution is evolution and we HAVE seen "macro" evolution many times. Go back to school.

| Side: It has
SexyBanana(299) Disputed
1 point

There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution............................................

| Side: It has
4 points

No. That's why it is called "Evolutionary Theory," not "The Law of Evolution."

| Side: It has not
Cuaroc(5369) Disputed
1 point

Try reading what Scientific Theory means before spewing nonsense.

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
0 points

Contra the "Evolutionary Theory", which is the selection of the fittest,

*

is the "Antievolutionary Theory", which is the antiselection of the unfittest. While this theory may be logically equivalent, it is still not accepted by the scientific community, but rather has been a victim of its own theory and been antiselected.

| Side: It has
Mwilkinson(2) Disputed
2 points

Charles Darwin wrote about The Theory of Biological Evolution not Antievolution just because the word Anti- is in front of something it does not make it correct mate.

| Side: It has not
KrittMasta(17) Disputed
0 points

In science, theory is something that has been proven that it works no problem. Law is something that has been proven that there is no other way that it couldn't work. The margin of what theory and law are just so small that the scope of the reality as we know tends to follow on the discovered evidences.

| Side: It has
anotherguy34 Disputed
1 point

The THEORY of evolution breaks not one, but TWO

scientific laws. One of which is the Law of thermodynamics. A law is fact, a theory is theory. When a theory contradicts a fact, it is wrong. Why people continue trying to trace their lineage to primates is beyond me.

Well...its not beyond me any more....

| Side: It has not
3 points

The process of evolution is fact. We have provably observed the processes that encompass this term, do not confuse this with theory of a common ancestor. Evolution simply explains the morphing from one genetic makeup to the next.

The theory of a common ancestor, and the term theory doesn't imply uncertainty as quantum theory is yet to be disproved and the theory of gravitation obviously stands, seems right to me. There are plenty of fossil records to show this process and we've mapped enough genes to see the remnants of these transformations. Even if not 100%, it's a fairly clear pointer, wouldn't you think?

| Side: It has not
1 point

Yes it is true. BUT it we all know that is not what many scientists try to communicate when they speak of evolution.. It is only when faced with logical sensible arguments they give testament to its true meaning..

| Side: It has not
3 points

It has not been proven and i don't think it can be...think about it this way they say humans evolved from apes or whatever right? yet have you ever seen an ape evolve into a human yourself? alot of people debate that what i cannot see i do not believe but i'm almost sure no one has seen an ape evolve into a human we my have similar looks but it doesn't mean we have evolved from apes...yes i believe in god.. and i have never seen him but god makes more sense to me then evolution ever will. show me! a documentary or something when an ape has evolved into a human

| Side: It has not
Nichole(688) Disputed
2 points

Us evolving from chimpanzees (yes, it is chimps that we share the most DNA with, not apes, and not monkeys), is merely an idea just because their DNA is so similar to ours. It doesn't make the theory of evolution what-so-ever. Evolution is just the process of change or growth through genetics, mutations, and natural selection. Which has been proven. When a scientist genetically modifies the DNA of a fly successfully, it has evolved. (No, really, I recall reading about a study of them inserting a different wing color into the flys DNA and evolving the fly successfully with the new wing color). It's pretty dang simple. It has nothing to do with the creation of humans. There is absolutely not enough evidence going anywhere to lead to a decent idea of where we came from. And you learn about the history of homosapiens through archaeological anthropology, which I suggest everyone should study because most of you seem to pulling crap out of your butts.

| Side: It has
ricedaragh(2526) Disputed
1 point

Chimps are members of the ape family as are we, there are five in total including orang utan, gorilla and bonobos.

| Side: It has not
anotherguy34 Disputed
1 point

Because we are pokemons!

More evidence points to a designer than to a coincidence.

When the scientists CREATED the new fly, it evolved. Problem there.... Nature does not inject DNA into other unrelated animals. The only way another species is created is when they procreate... If they do not procreate with their relatives the offspring is sterile. Evolution is artificial. You said it yourself.

Scientists almost speak of Nature as having a mind .God has mind though :). Only Natural selection ''could pick out with unerring skill the best of varieties'' a quote from Darwin. All of you who accept evolution admit it yourself that it has not been proven AND IT WILL NEVER be proven because it is not true, and is directly related to practices that are completely unrelated to science such as freemasonry.

Shame on you scientists! you aren't supposed to be involved in secret societies that believe in ancient mysteries and golems and such... Such beliefs are inconsistent, and shows the originators of this silly theory's true intentions. To control the goyim. Or cattle. The sheep! who do not think for themselves!

| Side: It has not
2 points

Correct the only way that either side could be proven is wether or not we can prove or disprove God

| Side: It has not

By the way, my good fellow, the word is "proven", not "proved"

| Side: proven not proved
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

"Prove" it, my good fellow,

Don't "proven" it,

By the way

| Side: It has

As I prepare to answer this question, I realize I have essentially no knowledge about the theory of evolution, besides Darwinism and the title. But the title itself is enough for me to know that it hasn't been scientifically proven: it is the THEORY of evolution. Much like the Big Bang THEORY. While it is probable that these events happened, it is not certain. And while I believe that they have happened, it is not certain.

| Side: It has
1 point

Yes, you are right, it is impossible to call it a certainity, but for this reason:

All evidence for evolution is proven. The EVIDENCE is fact. The problem is it is impossible to say "This evidence means X, X exactly, and X only."

It bothers me when people say "it is only a theory" to disprove it, for they are confusing the word "theory" with "idea."

Here's a tip: don't use the Big Bang Theory as an example as another theory, for it is widely disputed. Use the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Anyone to not believe in that is a lunatic.

| Side: It has

Honestly, this was so long ago that I don't even remember what my argument was. So... yeah?

| Side: It has not
2 points

To say that evolution has been scientifically proved would require that it be first studied then determined scientifically. To do so would require that the question be analyzed for its scientific qualities; those true and those false. Any falsehood would constitute a rejection of the theory as a whole, and the proponents would have to start again from a different hypothesis. This does not in any way speak to any objective measure of the absolute truth or falsehood of the theory itself, but rather the wording and logic behind the theory, as any theory can only be judged on the basis of its wording to be judged objectively, and not subjectively which would only be a matter of opinion. Therefore the rejection of the scientific method is complete in the sense that it cannot be disproven on the basis of absolute knowledge outside the tools of argument available; namely words, which are the basis for any theory or hypothesis being argued, defended, or subjected to tests to find weaknesses in order to reject that theory. Such a theory cannot be truly known or even truly unknown, for to be truly unknown one must first truly know what is not to be known, and surely that itself cannot be known, truly. Really in reality it is difficult to prove with absolute certainty or absolute uncertainty the absolute absurdity or surdity of what is known or what is to be unknown, even at a future date in time. Space. Space, the final frontier, you are already here, but knowing exactly where you are with respect to where you were is certainly uncertain for even a population of sodium atoms at or near absolute zero can not be known in terms of absolute position or velocity, for as the velocity approaches absolute zero, we become more and more certain of that velocity, but must necessarily also become more and more uncertain of its position, each atoms wave function spreading out until it overlaps with its neighbors until it is totally indistinguishable from its neighbors forming a singular blob of matter. But this is only verified by experiment, which is the only and best test to be used by the scientific method, which can only truly be used to reject a hypothesis. That said, a hypothesis may be accepted, but not scientifically, but for all intents and purposes may be treated as absolute truth, baring any contrary evidence; as occums razor would point out the simplest hypothesis which explains the phenomenon is the most likely, again baring any contrary evidence. But when that evidence cannot be explored by conventional methods of observation ie: through the senses directly or indirectly relating to the physical and tangible world, then such a theory cannot be honestly and objectively analyzed or compared to the princeps of our understanding of the world and its phenomenon; it is detached from them. Surely such a word is a word apart from other words in the world of words such a word is subject to suspicion and castigation for being as it is a word not of the other words but another word of that which cannot be known by what other words are known knowingly it is known that what cannot be known cannot be be said while being said to be known for that which is known to be known was already said, or implied, the implication being that the knowledge of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as it was written by the word in words and communicated thusly; by words, cannot be known by the same token, for the token has two sides, each side opposite the other, and each side opposing the direction of the other, without either side facing the other, but rather facing away, as it is when two sides face away from one another but do not look at each other directly. So it is that the argument, whether by proof of evidence or scientific method or any other method, that the theory cannot directly oppose its opposite argument, but can only be described from an outside observer who does not stand and look outwards only from one side or argument. One that holds the token cannot stand upon it. For one cannot at the same time support one side of an argument, and also observe objectively between arguments. Neither can the word be subdivided or separated without losing the intended meaning of the whole. But without deductive reasoning we are lost. But without inductive reasoning we cannot make general statements about the world. But without particulars the general cannot be described. But without apriori knowledge of the general, we cannot be sure of its particulars. And so the scientific method, while a tool used to disprove but said to prove cannot prove but only disprove and then only if the subject is implicitly accepted, and the method of test also being accepted in its general power to come to particular conclusions of what is known to be not true. That the evolution of the scientific method has developed is proof enough that such a theory cannot be disproven. Or has it?

| Side: It has not
1 point

By way of the scientific method, it cannot be proven in this day of age. It is still a theory.

| Side: It has not
6 points

That is actually not true. The term theory is the same term used to describe many other scientific ideas that are widely accepted. For example, atomic theory; any scientist who said that they disagreed with this would be laughed out of any reputable institution. Also, to give you a more common example, the "theory" of gravity. It is a theory because almost nothing in science is proven beyond completely resonable doubt. As for the statement that it can't be proven, this too is inaccurate because people have conducted experiments in which they have witnessed microevolution of simple organisms. There has also been domcumentation of the speciazation of numerous animals in recent history. If you would like to know more or doubt what I am saying go to youtube and search the user "thunderf00t." He has made an entire video series called "why people laugh at creationists." (I apologize about the spelling)

| Side: It has
josiahlibbey(2) Disputed
1 point

True , but there again ,atomic theory and the the theory of gravity though we can't directly observe them , we are able to test and prove using the scientific method.Just because something is widely accepted as being true does not give it status as a theory.To do so opens the doors to make the same mistakes as has been done in countless years past. As for calling variations within a species "microevolution" as though that has anything to do with evolution, any scientist should be ashamed to cover under that sham.

| Side: It has not
Frankiarmz(4) Disputed
1 point

I thought science had proven the weightlessness of space and low gravity on the Moon? Wouldn't that give more evidence to the theory of gravity, beyond that of evolution?

| Side: It has not
anotherguy34 Disputed
1 point

Widely accepted... That dose not mean SHIT! why? because if it is accepted doesn't mean its the truth. Louis Pasteur proved that bacteria was the cause of disease when everyone thought he was a mad man.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOTlNNsBqbA

| Side: It has not
5 points

True.

The wording of the question betrays an underlying misunderstanding of science. ...which seems to be the reason people think evolution is legitimately doubtable in the first place.

Or maybe it was an honest mistake.

| Side: It has not
E223(189) Disputed
2 points

Just like Pluto orbiting the sun completely and gravity! They're theories, but in the scientific way of using the word

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
3 points

Aha! Exactly! And we now know that pluto is a PLANETOID! Not a planet.

Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh were blind fools! - to think they discovered a planet! Now, thankfully from the perspective of 20/20 hindsight we can arrogantly scoff at the error of their ways, for we now know that pluto is a PLANETOID, and that Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh's contributions were actually counterproductive to the advancement of what we today call science...Thanks to the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) decision Pluto is a dwarf planet! Modern reality is defined not by the insane direct observation of physical reality by individuals peering into a tube, but decided upon through CONSENSUS of the GROUP. Certainly the individual mind has no value in todays society, and only the GROUP MIND can come to any real conclusion in the modern sense. And if you disagree and look up at the stars and think you see an object, that is just your personal opinion.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Exactly what I think

| Side: It has not
1 point

Is it not absolutely without a doubt flawlessly claimable, therefore, to be truly proven, absence of doubt must be the case.

| Side: It has not
lieutenant24(11) Disputed
6 points

You are calling into question the very nature of certainty. The question asks whether it has been "scientifically" proven, not whether it is "absolutely without a doubt flawlessly claimable."

| Side: It has
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

No, but i do call into question the nature of your uncertainty.

Consider yourself Disputed.

| Side: It has not
lupus6x9(10) Disputed
2 points

If what you say is true, then nothing at all is scientific fact. If even one person doubts, unreasonably or not, even the most fundamental laws of physics are only theories.

| Side: It has
1 point

No, it hasn't been proven. Until you can take me back in time, there is no way to prove it, just like the theory of gravity.

| Side: It has not
geoff(741) Disputed
6 points

It not only has been utterly, and incontestably proven, but it is logically sound. In case you don't understand what is meant by biological evolution, here's the definition: "The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.". You only have to run through the thought experiment of two tribes interbreeding over generations to convince yourself that it happens.

| Side: It has
xaeon(1073) Disputed
5 points

I think you'll find it's the law of gravity; and next time you drop a brick and it floats, call me.

| Side: It has
1 point

If evolution was true, then i pose one question to all of those who agree with the Darwhin(sp?) theory. You look at every other type of evolution, teradactyls to birds or something like that. when the teradactyls evolved, they themselves went extinct. If we came from monkeys, and we have been around for thousands of years, then logically wouldn't the monkeys be extinct? When they supposedly evolved into us then wouldnt they themselves died out? But obviously they did not because their population only started to go down when we started to poach them. I challenge anyone to posed a better argument on the fact that we did come from monkeys

| Side: It has not

Actually, I'm not sure it's been proven. I do think that human evolution is what scientists say it is, in that we evolved from primates, but it hasn't been proven.

| Side: It has

No, evolution has yet to proven. Evolution consists of an organism who progressed into a more complex collection like animals, then into homosapiens,then into what we are today. If this were true, why has the evolution process ceased, why arent there half monkey,half men walking around who have just entered the middle cycle of evolution, why aren't we evolving to some strange terrestrial body? These questions obviously can't be proven. So no, evolution has not yet been proven.

| Side: It has not
debrikishaw(4) Disputed
1 point

Evolution has not "ceased" in any animal. I think you are a little delusional on the subject. Let me clear this up for you:

The transition of "ape" to homo sapiens is not a process that occurs through one generation.

"why aren't we evolving to some strange terrestrial body"

For the same reason, the whole transition to a "new species" is not a transition that occurs on one generation. And what do you mean by some "strange terrestrial body"? You mean something different than what we are at this stage? For the same reason, it is not a one-generation process. Why would you not cause us a strange terrestial body today?

and "why aren't there half monkey half men who have just entered the middle cycle of evolution"

Evolution has no scripture that is followed. There is no one path that all species must mutate with, which is the reason why chimpanzees still exist to this date.

And by half monkey half man I might interpret that as a neanderthal, and those coexisted with homo sapiens for some time. Also if you want to see a half human half monkey today, you're gonna have to have sex with a monkey (although i am unsure if that would work out).

| Side: It has
1 point

You ever notice how each of us make logical statements, and get down voted, and no responses are given to our arguments, except mockery and ridicule, or no response at all? This is because we are right. We REASON with them, but they do not reason with us. It leads me to the very illogical question of whether they came from primates in truth!

| Side: It has not
1 point

Maths is the only branch of science that offers 100% proof of its arguments. Evolution while backed up by a massive amount of evidence could never be proved beyond all doubt as there is always the chance that evidence has been misinterpreted. People used to believe that the world was flat and look what happened to that idea!

Ok so science has come a long way since then but we still have huge bias in the fossil record and gaps in our knowledge that will probably never be filled. We will never be completely sure.

| Side: As close as science can do
1 point

evolution has never been proven and will never be proven because it never happened. on that note you also can't prove creationism ever took place because it just happened. there is nothing intelligent about the thought you evolved from hydrogen gas or any other non living thing.

| Side: It has not
parrishwest(5) Disputed
2 points

idiot.

please tell me why telomeric DNA exists at the center of the 2nd chromosome.

| Side: It has
1 point

Although I firmly believe in evolution, it is only a theory, and even though theories have evidence and are backed up with facts, they are not 100% true and can probably never really be proven, like the Big Bang Theory. But just because something is a theory does not mean people cannot believe in it; I personally believe in both evolution and the Big Bang.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Why is it more reasonable to conclude common descent rather than common design from the similarity we see among species. I would argue that common design is far more reasonable. Here is why. This is a quote from the article and the full article can be found at the link below.

Conclusion

The methodology for inferring common descent has broken down. Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption and view that they are not willing to jettison is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. This shows that evolutionists treat common descent in an unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific and ideological, fashion.

Meanwhile, as far as the data is concerned, the New Scientist article admits, “Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth,” but because “different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” the notion of a tree of life is now quickly becoming a vision of the past — as the article stated, it’s being “annihilated.” Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. For those open-minded enough to consider it, common design is a viable alternative to common descent.

Supporting Evidence: A Primer on the Tree of Life (www.ideacenter.org)
| Side: It has not
1 point

It's all a theory. Scientist don't have a clue when there trying to figure out how life actually got started. Another debunked remember Ida it was supposed to be the missing link and they gave it a huge media plug telling the whole world this is it. Well today they went back on it and said that it's not even close it was some kind of cat. Just like on National Geographic 30 years ago when they showed an ape like skull on the from cover only to find out later that it was a hoax, and it was sold that this is it. It has to make you wonder if there is a agenda behind it.

| Side: It has not
1 point

There is more than one area of evolution.

1. Microevolution (smaller changes throughout the life time of an organism through environment)

2. Macroevolution (large changes in species)

Macroevolution has not stood the test of time with its testing. It is propaganda for the most part.

Microevolution has stood the test of time and is an obvious reality.

There are hypotheses, theories, and proven facts/laws...

Microevolution seems to fit each category, but macroevolution is an hypothesis, and possibly a theory at best.

| Side: It has not
1 point

I have a few questions for all you evolutionist. Do you have any proof that evolution is real? Is it true that Dinosaur bones are millions of years old? How can a random event create a life that is too complex for us to understand. Why is it possible for our proteins to our cells together? What method do they use? How can you prove evolution without any solid evidence that is rock hard. How can you form a rock with nothing except a big explosion. I am totally sure that God made the universe.

| Side: It has not
parrishwest(5) Disputed
2 points

I have proof that evolution is real. It's called telomeric DNA on the 2nd chromosome.

You should learn some very basic grammar. Your mind needs to evolve.

Trust me on this.

| Side: It has
1 point

Not until the governments allow scientists to tell the truth, it has not. Until it is publically admitted that the missing link is not of Earth origin, we will continue to complexify a very simple equation for the sake of money and power. If the Earth were to accept and realize a purposeful past of genetic mutation, and man were to realize our origins and full potential there indeed will be a shift in the elements of capitalism...perhaps it's existence completely...NO...TELL THE DAMN TRUTH

| Side: It has not
1 point

I'll post in the 'No' list but actually the answer is yes and no. Micro evolution is a scientific fact, macro evolution is completely unproven

| Side: It has not
1 point

May I ask, how does a scientist, whether evolutionist or creationist, examine a fossil according to the scientific method? I am supposing everyone knows what the scientific method is. How can he scientifically prove that his dating is accurate up to millions of years or that God did it? How does the fact that there were dinosaurs prove evolution or disprove creation? Of course scientist likes to think that they are arriving at their conclusion based solely on the evidence with out any previously biasing ideas. The truth is, if an evolutioni¬st finds evidence that seem to indicate creationis¬m, they will always suspect and look for other evidence that will explain away the first. Just the same a creationist will look for explanations of any findings in the light of intelligent design. How is one justified and the other not acceptable?”

| Side: It has not
1 point

no it has not we cannot journey back in time and see. yet it has not been proven wrong it is an opinion and it will continue to be that way

| Side: It has not
1 point

As I read through your post it is obvious that most of you are well read and have put a lot of thought into your statements, but you all are running around in circle as have the scientific community since the age of Enlightenment. After the Dark ages, in which the Catholic Church had ruled most of the known world, and had committed many atrocities in the name of God. Man decided that they did not need God and have been trying to explain their existence without a maker. Through many theories from evolution to the Big bang theory and many more. The Big Bang Theory, supposedly billions possibly trillions of years ago that space was void of all matter, in other words nothing. Then a giant explosion happened and from that matter formed and so on. The Question is what caused the explosion? There was nothing there, no gases no molecules atoms nothing to cause any kind of reaction. So that implies that something or someone had to put things into action. Evolution _The theory of evolution has many problems. No one can argue that all things change over time that is fact. Humans have changed over the centuries from hair color, skin color, height , strength and intelligence and so on but we are still human. To say man came from apes is contradiction of the evolution theory. The purpose of evolution is to improve survivability. The harsh conditions of the Earth would have dictated otherwise. Apes went from having a nice warm fur to having to kill other animals just to make clothes to keep warm, this does not make since. But let us get back to the real argument. These theories are nothing, but mans attempt to prove that God does not exist so they can do anything that they want and not feel bad. Without God there is no right no wrong it is survival of the fittest. Remember Man has been trying to prove this sense the end of The Dark Age. You would think that after a few hundred years of this we would except the facts, God does exist. You can’t take dead matter and make life it is impossible. So the only logical explanation is that we have a creator.

| Side: It has not
1 point

We may share some genetic similarities with other species, but where is the proof that we evolved from any other life form? How can science account for the reproduction that would be necessary for one species to evolve into another, such as egg laying birds and reptiles into live birth mammals? I can understand a species adapting to it's environment, but not evolving into a totally different life form.

| Side: It has not
Cuaroc(5369) Disputed
1 point

how can science account for the reproduction that would be necessary for one species to evolve into another, such as egg laying birds and reptiles into live birth mammals?

Quite easily actually, say a reptile was born with a mutation that allowed to to keep eggs within it's body until they are ready to hatch. This mutation will increase the chances of the eggs hatching and the offspring will also have the mutation causing that line of reptiles to be more successful in surviving so over a long period of time eggshells won't form anymore causing live birth.

And I just wasted time on debating one of those people who make 1 argument and leave didn't I.

| Side: It has
Frankiarmz(4) Disputed
1 point

I appreciate the intelligent response which explains how a species can theoretically adapt, or evolve it's reproduction. I apologize for wasting your time, but that does not explain how such a species would evolve into a totally different species. Correct me if I'm wrong but are their birds and lizards that give live birth? Has science documented such a dramatic evolution wihtin a species? I guess for me the jump from adapting to evolving into a completely different species is just not something I accept any longer. Why do people who profess to be well educated require such a condescending tone? The therory of evolution may have strong supporters, but certainly does not have the same evidence as gravity.

| Side: It has not
1 point

I don't have a religious agenda for questioning the theory of evolution as it relates to one organism evolving into another. I just don't see how given limitless time, such different species can evolve rather than somehow otherwise come into existence. I think about human reproduction and anatomy as remarkable in the contrast between the internal and external, and I wonder how such reproduction could take place in transition over time? I'm more prone to believe it had to be the result of some sort of spontaneous event, very specific. I completely accept the evolution and adaption of living creature, it's the jump to something totally different that has me at odds.

I can't offer a plausable explanation in my defense, only my doubts on evolution.

| Side: It has not

You can't. Like all scientific theories, you can never fully prove it as you can not remove all external variables from the study.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Evolution has no answer for the origin of life. Spontaneous generation - the only way the theory of evolution could get off the ground, by taking the supernatural being out of the equation-has been disproved 120 years ago."There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. ''That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) Evolutionists are guilty of believing in MAGIC! What does a mixture of chemicals transforming into life sound like to you?! (spontaneous generation) If you can believe in evolution in its full true sense, then you are more delusional than you believe Christians to be. God's creative energy was manifested through the ''big bang'' evolution in the sense scientists are speaking of is clearly false..

| Side: It has not
1 point

I CHALLENGE ANY OF YOU SILLY SHEEP TO CHALLENGE THE INFORMATION PRESTENTED HERE IF YOU CAN!

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

| Side: It has not
1 point

''Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith.'' http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

| Side: It has not
1 point

of course it is proven. You guys never play Pokemon?

You evolutionists just spout a bunch of hot air, and its been a long time you ape breeds responded to any of my arguments...

| Side: It has not
1 point

Theory is theory i suppose. However, the idea is really hard to deny.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Evolution and Creation have one thing in common, they can't be proven and both are matters of faith alone.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Evidently not otherwise I guess we would be calling it the "Law of Evolution". Though I happen to whole heartedly believe in evolution, there is still a lot science needs to find.

| Side: It has not
0 points

nope, just how gravity wasn't.

it's still just a theory.

| Side: It has not
xaeon(1073) Disputed
3 points

Yeah, next time you drop a brick and it floats, call me.

| Side: It has
ThePyg(6751) Disputed
2 points

i guess you don't get the point i was making...

| Side: It has not
clapsintowaz(2) Disputed
1 point

In a space ship orbiting earth it will float

If it is dropped into a bath of mercury, it will float.

| Side: It has
0 points

If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes? To evolve is to change and the ape didn't. Evolution, only an atheist's delusion.

Things evolve, but evolving doesn't prove evolution. Just that over time creatures adjust to their surroundings. The one thing that has remained the same for thousands of years is that women still want Neanderthal man. Despite the gain of knowledge, time didn't even change this. Why didn't the mind of a woman change? The bad boy still desired.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolution has no better answer than creation.

| Side: It has not
parrishwest(5) Disputed
1 point

"If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes?"

Your argument is written in Neanderthal. Please learn English before you try to debate science.

"If you master the language you can do anything."

| Side: It has
Cuaroc(5369) Disputed
1 point

If man evolved from apes, then why is there still apes?

Wow it's hard to believe you have ever written an argument that idiotic.

| Side: It has
0 points

That is exactly what I always thought. Who are they to 'believe' in a theory? How can you believe in 'theory'? Religion is a set of doctrines, which one either has faith in or not. Evolution, however, was only the theory thought up by a man so stupid he got kicked out of the seminary. Some will chastise me for calling evolution a 'religion', however, it is my opinion (debate IS the name of the game) that evolution is more faith than fact.

| Side: It has not
0 points

IT HAS NOT, AND FUTHERMORE WILL NOT, BE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE!NOR HAS CREATION BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY, WHAT IT REALLY ALL BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT WE ARE ALL FINITE HUMAN BEINGS AND THEY BOTH RELY ON FAITH TO BELIEVE IN, A FAITH IN ONE OR THE OTHER AND ALL SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE AFTER ALL MAN'S OPINIONS SET OUT TO BE PROVEN BY MAN, AND IN MANY CASES MAN HAS COME TO A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION,SATISFYING OTHER MEN, BUT IF MAN'S FINITE INTELLIGENCE COULD EVEN HALF FATHOM WHAT THERE IS TO KNOW AND WHAT IS THUS KNOWN EVEN THE MOST CELEBRATED SCIENTIST WOULD HANG HIS HUMBLE HEAD IN KINDERGARTEN SHAME AND AWE. FACT IS THOSE SET OUT TO PROVE EVOLUTION WOULD LIKE TO PROVE IT AND WORK HARD TO DO SO, DISCOUNTING ANY ARGUMENTS AGAINT ,AND VICEA VERSA,LEAVING ONLY THE FACT TRUE AND PROVABLE THAT MAN MUST HAVE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE UNPROVABLE AND THAT EVEN SO-CALLED PROOF OF THE PROVABLE CAN PROVE ,FROM ANOTHER SCIENTIST OR PERSPECTIVE TO BE PROVED WRONG! WE ARE ALL SMALL CREATURES WITH LIMITED KNOWLEDGE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE ARE GIVEN AND THOSE WHO THINK THEY HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT AND LAUGH AT THOSE WITH DIFFERING VIEWS, ARE THOSE WHO ARE THE SADDEST AND MOST DECIEVED.

| Side: It has not
0 points

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

| Side: It has not
-1 points

I have not seen any animal turning into another recently to be honest...

And I'd rather prefer not to think of myself as coming from an ape. Not too regal you see.

| Side: It has not
-2 points
xaeon(1073) Disputed
7 points

I think the problem we're going to have here is how to define what is fact and what is theory. Fact is observational. Theory is how to explain your observations. In this sense, evolution is proven (observed, documented and a fact) and natural selection is the theory (how we explain our observations of evolution).

| Side: It has
7 points

Correct. Evolution is a fact and natural selection is a theory put forward by Charles Darwin. Not only is natural selection screamingly obvious, but it has an ocean of evidence supporting it so much so in fact, that most new discoveries in biology only make sense in its light.

| Side: It has
munificent(48) Disputed
5 points

You're a little mixed up in your terminology here.

"In the strict sense of the word 'proof', it has not been proven."

Incorrect. Hypotheses in science are proven when the scientific body as a whole reaches consensus. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that evolution is proven. There is no stricter sense than that in science. Wide consensus + much other subsequent science based on it = proof.

"All scientific facts have at some base level axioms - statements that are either accepted or rejected but not provable."

You're confusing math with science here. Mathematical theorems are based on axioms. Science is based on repeated observations of the real world, experiment, consensus, etc.

| Side: It has not
-5 points
xaeon(1073) Disputed
3 points

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula. A theory is the highest scientific title that something can be given. Don't try to use semantics to prove your argument; evolution is fact.

| Side: It has not
wontonotnow(3) Disputed
2 points

Again, we hit walls of diction, but it's a great debate and I'm on your side (evolutionists). I want to see the blood and guts of what constitutes "proof", however, and I find that blind faith goes in multiple directions. In other words: I've seen evangelists of science as blinded as their christian counterparts. Loops/fractals in math, nature, logic, and many other scientific methods give me the idea that 2 opposing viewpoints can be equally true, just as a segment of light can be seen as a particle or a wave, depending on the method. Quirky? yes. Contradictory? yes. Tell me what 0/infinity could mean, and my answer is: Both. Thinkaboutit.

| Side: It has
-2 points
munificent(48) Disputed
3 points

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??"

You're confusing causality with mechanical force. Newton's third law has nothing to do with causality because it states those two opposing forces occur simultaneously.

"Why would we evolve into two sexes??"

To protect against disease and other "enemy" organisms. The reason we can fight off infection is because when we have a cold, all of the bacteria in our bodies are exact clones. Once our immune system can fight off one, it can fight them all off.

The same thing is true in the larger world. Sexual reproduction makes a collection of organisms more diverse, which equips them to survive a changing environment.

Besides, not all organisms reproduce sexually.

"If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through."

The liner. Do a little reading.

| Side: It has

You seem to think that evolution happened very rapidly when in fact it took place over billions of years. Your questions show your ignorance on the topic, but, if you don't mind, I will do my best to answer them. Your first question was why are there two sexes when we started out with one. Single cell organisms reproduce by mitosis in which the chromosomes in the nucleus of the organism split apart eventually resulting in two separate cells. This method of reproduction actually is used by cells in the human body to reproduce. Unfortunately, mitosis only works for individual cells. More complex organisms must come up with different ways to procreate. In the case of most modern animals, this is through sexual reproduction. I hope that you know what sex is so I'm not going to go through the details, but in short the offspring created in this process share the genes of the mother "and" the father. As opposed to mitosis in which the DNA will be an exact replica (except for mutations) for both organisms. This combination helps to protect the offspring from certain harmful mutations and thus gives it a better chance to survive and create its own offspring. This is why there is a male and a female.

Now if your expecting an answer to your second question I'm not going to give it. "Because there is no answer?" you ask. "Because you've pointed out the one flaw that scientists have overlooked for years." Well before you pack your bag to go receive your Nobel Prize, let me just tell you. No. I'm not answering your question because I am a high school junior who has take one year of human biology. Just because I cannot answer this question does not mean there is no answer. Did u try asking an actual scientist before you posted? I doubt it. Trust me, if you were to talk to an evolutionary biologist you would definitely get an answer. So please next time you have an opinion, let it go.

| Side: It has
-2 points
-4 points
xaeon(1073) Disputed
8 points

Evolution is an observed, documented scientific fact. Facts are observations, theories are the mechanisms used to explain the observations. As I said, evolution is an observed fact; it's the mechanism by which it works (natural selection) which is the theory (although, a pretty sound one at that).

Supporting Evidence: Wikipedia article explaining the differences between the facts and theories of evolution. (en.wikipedia.org)
| Side: It has
Loudacris(913) Disputed
4 points

What are you talking about? Evolution has been both observed and recreated. You need to read up on the Peppered Moth:

"Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees."

Supporting Evidence: Peppered Moth Evolution (en.wikipedia.org)
| Side: It has
2 points

This debate needs to be redefined. There are so many different types of evolution, including, but not limited to microevolution, macroevolution, stellar evolution, species evolution, and much more.

Microevolution (according to the Pearson Biology AP textbook) is the change in frequency of an allele in a population's gene pool. This has been clearly observed as in the Peppered Moth evolution, where the allele of melanism was favored by the environment and predation and thus increased in frequency, shifting the general color of the peppered moths into the darker direction. Species evolution has also been observed, and is even caused by the artificial breeding of different types of animals. These definitions of evolution have indeed been scientifically been proven.

However, stellar evolution and macroevolution have never been observed or repeated. We did not see nothing blow up to make something, and we cannot find a "common ancestor" between the rat and the squid. Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven.

Therefore, in a way, the debate question is phrased in such a way as to cause confusion. Some people are talking about the Big Bang theory while other are citing Peppered Moths. They may be right or wrong in their views of evidence, but we can't really debate on terms like these.

| Side: It has not
nrh21208(30) Disputed
-1 points

This is not evolutions..thats called extinction. One species died, correct? Peppered Moths dead and melanic moth lived???? That sounds like extinction, or strongest survive. The pepper is gone...it did not evolve.

| Side: It has not
jade127(8) Disputed
-5 points
-5 points
xaeon(1073) Disputed
6 points

A lot has happened since Darwin noticed evolution occuring, and to claim that the theory of evolution is in any way lessened by Darwin not completely understanding the evolution of the eye of quite frankly nonsense. We're well aware how the eye evolved.

The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Also, I'd like to point towards a study that recently found what I would consider absolute proof that we evolved from primates. In the video link, Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2.

Human Chromosome #2

| Side: It has not
Understudy(41) Disputed
0 points

1. Wrong. Scientific review of evolution is still ongoing. New evidence has been introduced continuously for the past 150 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

2. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Learn that evolution is not astronomy. The human eye is perfect example of evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1xd2qbYiZo

This is a simple example but there are plenty more.

This one page on this site brings forth more than 5 scientific references.

| Side: It has
-5 points
dude2288(38) Disputed
8 points

Ever heard of fossils?

| Side: It has
xaeon(1073) Disputed
4 points

The origin of new species by evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). Also, please find the link for a very inclusive and detailed list of observed evolution.

Supporting Evidence: Evolution Observed (www.talkorigins.org)
| Side: It has
E223(189) Disputed
2 points

Evolution has been observationally proven because we've witnessed it in scientific studies. Scientists have actually witnessed speciation happen in rapidly reproducing species such as mayflies

| Side: It has not
1 point

Charles Darwin and other naturalists have been observing new species emerge for a long time. New species emerge every day and the process can be replicated in lab.

| Side: It has
cybrweez(53) Disputed
1 point

What about new kinds?

| Side: It has not
-5 points
4 points

The reason that you find your girlfriend so attractive is because of evolution. Only those species who found the opposite sex attractive would mate with each other. According to you reptiles and monkeys mate with each other despite the fact that they are ugly. In reality it's because they look beautiful to each other. To them your girlfriend probably is hideous. Ever heard the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?"

| Side: It has
Zack(3) Disputed
0 points

I'm sorry but your beautiful girlfriends great great great great great great great ancestors had much more hair than she does now.

| Side: It has not
1 point

Heck -- his girlfriend HAS more hair than she has now, even as we speak.

Have you ever seen an unshaved man or unshaved woman nude in their early fourties?

THAT ALONE is evidence that we're all apes.

| Side: It has not


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.