CreateDebate


Debate Info

72
44
Yep. Nope. Chuck Testa.
Debate Score:116
Arguments:93
Total Votes:122
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yep. (50)
 
 Nope. Chuck Testa. (33)

Debate Creator

Dremorius(861) pic



We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.

Unrebukable evidence #1: We have the remnants of what used to be a tail, located on our coccyx. Uncontroversial as you can observe it on yourself. 

Yep.

Side Score: 72
VS.

Nope. Chuck Testa.

Side Score: 44
5 points

And what's up with all the useless hair? Not talking about the one on the head even though it is useless also.

Side: Yep.
nummi(1435) Clarified
2 points

You could use it as a mop, although takes a while to grow. So... there's a use.

Side: Yep.

Useless hair? Without hair head banging wouldn't be nearly as great!

Side: Yep.
2 points

Don't forget the appendix the third eyelid and the pinkie toe.

Side: Yep.
1 point

I love the title because it makes the retards who think we evolved from modern apes consider their stupidity.

Side: Yep.
Lysenko(38) Clarified
4 points

If anyone has any proof that evolution is false then submit it for peer review and collect your nobel prize and eternal recognition.

Side: Yep.

I don't consider myself as having a common ancestor with apes but..., yeah..., I can see where some people are direct descendants from apes

Side: Yep.
1 point

People get "evolving from apes" and "sharing an ancestor" with them mixed up.

They are two different things, we share a common ancestor with apes (evidense we share 98% of DNA with them) but we did not directly evolve from them. This fact was twisted by religious groups against evolution

Side: Yep.
1 point

According to the DNA analysis , human and ape share common number of DNA chromosomes . DNA doesn't lie , right ? Thus, both species can be ascertained that poses identical ancestor inheritage .

Despite the spiking wit in human, ape and human exhibit most of common structural and behavioural fashion . Human travels on two feet , mimics others actions , four-limbs , so as to the ape . Even the internal structures of human and apes have the closest match .

So , "YES" , human and ape share an identical ancestor !!!

Side: Yep.
1 point

scientists have proved that we share a common relationship with apes

Side: Yep.
2 points

I definitely disagree we still have apes today howcome they aren't turning to humans and how did the apes get here anyway I dont think so

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
4 points

imagine this:

There are many of groups of apes in several areas of Africa millions of years ago. Over time there is a shift in climate - an ice age is beginning…

For some groups of monkeys food is becoming more scarce; some groups even go extinct. A few groups have enough food if the men go out foraging for food during the day and bring back what they have to share with the women and children apes.

Some days there aren't enough leaves and things to bring back, so they start eating berries, fruit, and sometimes left over carcasses that were the prey of other animals. They learn how to fend off the birds that are competing for those carcasses and how to avoid the predators. The apes that can do this best - walk far, coordinate with others, avoid predators, etc. are the ones that survive the longest and have children who generally share those same traits (passed on through their genes). Since more and more children of the group are from the apes that are successful at living long and having lots of kids, over time many children share the genes that make for successful apes in that environment. (Notice that apes in other environments haven't had to change and adapt because their food has not become scarce - they may have had different changes affecting their group.)

Imagine one of these groups is in an environment where lots of sweat glands make apes lots more successful - they can walk further with less exhaustion, etc. Lots more sweat glands also means more but thinner body hair and lessens the need for panting to regulate body temperature. Less panting allows for better vocal communication. The new diet which now includes meat uses less energy for digestion - this allows the apes to be thinner and apes who use that extra energy for cognitive functions are more successful.

You would now (over many generations) have come to a group of apes that seem very different to the initial apes - they walk further, are skinnier and more upright, have thinner body hair and more sweat glands, use more brain functions including for communication. Starting to sound familiar?

A few changes in genes go a long way (we are still about 96% genetically the same as apes today even though they have changed to their environments as we have.)

This is not meant to be the definitive version of how humans evolved, just something to give you an idea of how evolution works. I'm sure others on here could do a better job than I have, just wanted to take a stab at it.

It is hard to see evolution taking place on a large scale because of the time it takes for the groups to be affected, but you can see changes in humans today - different countries have much different average height (5'2" in Indonesia vs 6' in the Netherlands), differing skin colors, eye shapes and colors. Genes are largely are inherited from parents, but can be changed based on your environment (diet, UV rays, amount of work/sleep, weather, air and water quality, etc.)

Smaller scale changes are more easily observed within a small time scale - like drug-resistant bacteria - see also

Hope this helps.

Side: Yep.
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
3 points

Perfect example on how much most Christan's understand evolution.

Side: Yep.
1 point

You do know that the tail bone is used to support muscles that are necessary for reproduction and excretion, correct? It is not vestigial.

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
Dremorius(861) Disputed
3 points

-_- -=Silence=- -_-

Side: Yep.
mrsci999(41) Clarified
2 points

Awesome debate picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yep.
GeneralLee(134) Clarified
1 point

How do you know that it actually is a tail remnant and it's not just scientist "pretending" it is in an attempt to "prove" evolution? And, AND you still need to show me one of those "partially evolved" fossils that should be everywhere. We have monkey fossils, and we have human fossils. Why can't you show me a fossil of a half evolved human?

And why is genetics a loss of information??!?!??! If we started out with less DNA then, some how end up with more, why don't we see that today? Why is all genetics a loss of information??

Side: Yep.
GeneralLee(134) Disputed
0 points

Silence... Funny eh?

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
Dremorius(861) Disputed
1 point

Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant.

What is relevant is how a damn tail used to be hanging from there. And how it evolved into how we use it today, after we left the trees.

Side: Yep.
nummi(1435) Clarified
2 points

after we left the trees.

We left, it followed. We tend to have a forest growing between our legs, unless it's lumber season.

Side: Yep.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Your argument was that this was proof that we had tails at one point. I rebuked it by showing that it proves nothing.

You have no proof that we had tails at one point in our ancestral lineage.

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1 point

Well only parts of the body like fingers, and other stuff

Yah Fools

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
Dremorius(861) Clarified
1 point

Surely you can see the deep implications given by these evolved body parts. Such as how we used to use our tails to hang from trees thousands of years ago.

Side: Yep.
1 point

To prove evolution scientists used micro-evolution as an example. However, the could not evolve the micro-organism into a different species from which derived from the original micro-organism, because they could not change the factor of how many genes an organism's species has. All humans have the same amount of genes as all other humans. Same with dogs too. The change in a species's genes are impossible, therefore neither is evolving from one species to the next.

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
1 point

To prove evolution scientists used micro-evolution as an example.

Partly, yes. Macro evolution is essentially lots of micro evolution.

Not only that though, we have already observed speciation occur. We have already witnessed species evolve into different species.

All you have to do is do the research, and you will find that evolution is a perfectly sound theory. Virtually no one in the scientific community disagrees with evolution. The theory is no longer up for debate. It has already met its burden of proof and been proven with mountains of evidence.

The change in a species's genes are impossible, therefore neither is evolving from one species to the next.

This would be false. How else is there genetic variation, if change in genes is impossible?

Side: Yep.
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

To evolve into a different species you must first have a different number of genes. Pretty much every gene varies, the number however, with the corresponding species, does not. And there is no proof of a witnessed species evolving into a different species. And monkey to human is indeed a change in species. The species may have changed in certain aspects, but they have not changed into a different species. For example, many people have different shaped skulls. There are small differences. But all of us are still considered human beings because the skulls are essentially the same.

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
0 points

We don not share a common relation with them and we did not evolve from them.

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

Yeah because 2 fully grown humans just popping into existence makes much more sense then evolution.

Side: Yep.
1 point

nope god created them they did not pop out of nowhere they popped out from Gods hand

Side: Yep.
Dremorius(861) Disputed
1 point

So then... how come we have the remnants of a tail?

Seriously? You are completely ignoring facts I have given.

Yah fool...

Side: Yep.
KillerBee(480) Disputed
1 point

remnats are you talking about a skeleton are you bone chemist

Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.