CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It is the best explanation of the origins of life we've come up with. In my mind that makes it effectively true.
It is a shame that there is such a small cost to believing that life snapped into existence at the command of some magical turtle or sky god. How can we argue against magic? Any evidence brought forward to these people can be explained away because they can just say the supreme wizard created the world that way. We observe evolution today? Well the almightily wizard made all the animals 6000 years ago then let them adapt. Fossil Record? Well either mr. wizard is reusing worlds or he created dinosaurs beside humans and decided they were a mistake. Not only that, fossilization apparently only takes a few thousand years to complete. Silly scientists must have their math wrong.
Think about how absurd that is. They are willing to believe a book written 2000 years ago over a community of intelligent people who have dedicated their lives to the study of geology. Why do they believe this book? Well the book claims it is the word of god. If that is good enough for you then why are you debating this? If the way you evaluate the truth of a claim is through checking the bible and not through observation and measurement then of course evolution is false.
I can not believe we live in a world full of idiots spreading lies and outrageously defending that evolution is false !!! I have studied and still studying science for the past 7 year both at school and university. It strikes me the most that people who negate evolution DO NOT ACTUALLY understand the MEANING!!! go read about evolution and then debate your ideas. And by the way, I DO BELIEVE in god. I have studied the bible for years, and other religious scriptures like Koran and others. I only take the morals and basic principles from them, "the GOOD ONES" but I never mix religion with science. for those who are religious, please do not use religion against evolution, the two DO NOT MIX! like oil and water. but if you start debating against evolution using other SCIENTIFIC theories, then you are welcome. I have seen, TOUCHED, and studied true evidence supporting evolution. From fossil records, to actually doing experiments with microorganisms . Nobody in this world can tell me that what I saw and studied is WRONG. there are millions of others enlightened everyday as schools are expanding their teachings to include evolution in high schools. and to be honest, I think not allowing our children to study evolution is a CRIME. we are depriving them of the most basic knowledge, like 2 and 2 make 4. yes they can study religion, and I think they should. Morals and life principles are essential, otherwise what is the point of living. But we should teach religion in a way that does not contradicts real science, and science should not disprove religion.
While I generally agree with you, this... isn't reasoning. Replace the word 'evolution' with 'creationism' and it turns into an equally unreasoned unsupported theist argument.
We were not created, we didn't appear out of thin air? we evolved over millions of years, and were still evolving slowly now and will continue to do so until there is no more human race.
I don't disagree with you. I am just pointing out your argument contains no reasoning whatsoever and is simply a statement, and a true one when the basic premises you are coming from are accepted. Swap out the word in question, and it's more or less identical to what religious individuals would consider a true statement, given the basic premises that they operate under.
Its a simple statement because its a simple truth we are living proof of evolution, you don't need to add much to that? im not going to spout scientific studies and research and its doesn't require swapping words.
And it is far from the religious premise, there theory on our creation compared to evolution is opposite ends of a scale! there more or less identical? how have you come to that conclusion?
Its a simple statement because its a simple truth we are living proof of evolution, you don't need to add much to that?
From reasonable premises, yes. From a creationist perpsective and the premises they adopt, humans and all other life are living proof of the power and glory of their God.
im not going to spout scientific studies and research and its doesn't require swapping words.
If you're unwilling to either cite sources or explain your line of reasoning, you aren't debating- you are just arguing. One most wonder what you're doing here if you aren't going to debate.
And it is far from the religious premise, there theory on our creation compared to evolution is opposite ends of a scale!
I'm aware, and that's one reason I find it so problematic to make an assertion in support of evolution that a single word swap can change into a theist argument without needing to adjust the reasoning in the statement whatsoever.
how have you come to that conclusion?
I've detailed that here already. What exactly are you objecting to? Are you stating that acting under the premise of creationism, a theist could not present humans as evidence of the power and glory of his or her god(s), while remaining every bit as consistent within his or her differing premise as you are within yours?
I'm more than happy to debate that's why im here!!, but if you think that you require reams and reams of scientific proof, research or clever play on words as you do to debate then your very narrow minded! you can debate a point of view from your own perspective and thought process.
The creative perspective lacks and substance and explains nothing, I understand what your saying but it holds no relevance to the question of this debate!
and again a simple word swap doesn't make it problematic at all, evolution is the process of species adapting to there environment to prosper and survive, creation is creating something from nothing by a god, there totally different in there reasoning, so if a simple word swap creates a problematic problem for you then I think you need to go away and look into this a bit before debating a point which holds no substance.
you can debate a point of view from your own perspective and thought process.
As I already noted, you noted no thought process here, you merely stated that because X, Y, with nothing whatsoever regarding the thought process and perspective that brought you to that point.
The creative perspective lacks and substance and explains nothing, I understand what your saying but it holds no relevance to the question of this debate!
It certainly does. Your answer was little more than "yes." The idea of a debate is not to ask a yes or no question, it's to examine the thought processes and any available evidence for either side. The failure of one party to satisfy a burden of proof does not eliminate any burden of proof the other side may have.
if a simple word swap creates a problematic problem for you then I think you need to go away and look into this a bit before debating a point which holds no substance.
The word swap itself is not the problem, it is used to illustrate the problem of making claims without providing any kind of evidence or reasoning or the slightest inkling of the thought process used to arrive at that position. Your post here did not constitute a debate point, and despite the fact that I agree with you as to its factual veracity, it's no more valid a claim insofar as debate is concerned than any a theist might make, and is a valid recipient of the exact same criticism directed at common theist debate points for the exact same reasons.
If you're going to participate on this debate site, you need to cover the bases. If you really believe your original statement constituted debate in any way, you're not going to be taken seriously by most here- and what, then, is the point of debate at all?
the debate is about evolution, not creative perspective and meaning so it has no relevance end of!!
my initial point was we humans are living proof of evolution, there's not much you need to add to that, it was a simple point of reference about evolution,
and my post wasn't posted to constitute a debate because it doesn't require debating, its a simple fact of life there for us all to see, and the word swap is a problem because it serves no purpose to the debate, and ill participate on a debate site how ever I choose to, so keep your opinion to yourself, you don't govern me or the site!
the debate is about evolution, not creative perspective and meaning so it has no relevance end of!!
The relevance is solely to the fact that your point contributed nothing to the discussion whatsoever. There is no point to debate there, any more than would be the case of the equivalent theistic argument.
my initial point was we humans are living proof of evolution, there's not much you need to add to that, it was a simple point of reference about evolution,
And your point is circular reasoning. Do you understand what that is? "Humans are living proof of evolution" is equivalent to saying "Evolution is true because humans evolved" is equivalent to saying "Evolution is true because evolution is true."
Even if your position is correct, your post is not valid because the only statement it makes is a logical fallacy. The exact same logical fallacy employed by most theist arguments.
and my post wasn't posted to constitute a debate
And you are on a debate site, hence my wondering exactly what you're trying to accomplish here.
my point may not have contributed to you, but it may have contributed to others so you cant say it didn't contributed, you cant speak on everyone else's behalf!
I know what circular reasoning is, the way you have taken my statement is all wrong, its obviously confused you, perhaps I should have said look at thousand different types of birds in the world, fish, monkeys, dogs, cats, insects all different kinds of species which share the same genetic line, but due to there different environments they have adapted and EVOLVED into what you see today and will continue to adapt should there environment change, just like humans as you can see the different types of humans black, white, Asian there body's are best suited to the environment they EVOLVED in, is that simple enough for you or would you like me to rewrite it with clever phrases or word swap for a pointless point! and ill ask you the same question what exactly are you trying to accomplish because you have come up with nothing of relevance to this argument?? your quick to question me but you have you brought to the table??
my point may not have contributed to you, but it may have contributed to others so you cant say it didn't contributed, you cant speak on everyone else's behalf!
Your point contributed nothing, because it amounts to just answering 'yes' to the question, as the 'evidence' offered does not in fact prove the point in question as written unless the point is already assumed to be true by the reader. "Humans are proof of evolution" = "Evolution is true because humans evolved" = "evolution is true because evolution is true."
I know what circular reasoning is, the way you have taken my statement is all wrong, its obviously confused you, perhaps I should have said look at thousand different types of birds in the world, fish, monkeys, dogs, cats, insects all different kinds of species which share the same genetic line, but due to there different environments they have adapted and EVOLVED into what you see today and will continue to adapt should there environment change, just like humans as you can see the different types of humans black, white, Asian there body's are best suited to the environment they EVOLVED in, is that simple enough for you or would you like me to rewrite it with clever phrases or word swap for a pointless point!
Yes, this would be just fine- this is actually presenting reasoning and evidence for the debate beyond blatant circular reasoning. If you're still insisting it was not circular reasoning, explain how the statement "evolution is true because humans evolved" can be, in and of itself, held to be true, without assuming the conclusion (evolution is true) to be correct prior to examining the 'evidence' offered.
A poor argument isn't necessarily wrong, nor is a good argument necessarily right.
your quick to question me but you have you brought to the table??
My questioning actually got you to post a point with actual reasoning and evidence, in the quote I'm posting here. So, among other things, I brought your argument to the table, where you yourself failed to do so.
Why don't you do a search on this site for the word 'evolution' and look through the dozens (if not hundreds) of debates regarding this exact subject for your answer?
If you mean 'this specific instance of the evolution debate' then no- but presenting arguments for one side or another is far from the only way to participate in a debate- questioning, criticizing, and rebutting the arguments of others are every bit as important.
For that matter, it would be hypocritical of me to see you post that and not call you out on it, as it's the exact type of non-reasoning I call others out on. I can't hold the other side of any debate to a higher standard than I hold my own and still take myself seriously.
It's not a habitual thing for me, it's just this specific topic and how many times I've posted largely the same argument on it that gets me.
I think if you stick around here for a while you'll likely find yourself as generally exhausted with the evolution and abortion topics as many of the older members, and might see things a bit differently. I haven't been here all that long myself, and I'm all but sick of them! Stating and restating the same thing gets quite, quite old.
I make you right there, even in the short time I've been here im already tired and debating is something I enjoy! I prefer to do it face to face as transferring it from brain to finger tips isn't my strong point as you have noticed!
I understand what your saying with regards to participating in debates and I agree there are important, but I was referring directly to the continually back and forth points we were making to each other.
Well, fair enough, that didn't really contribute much to this particular debate (except for goading you into further expanding upon your initial claims), but I'd like to think you'd give it all some thought and we'll have a better debater out of you for it should you choose to stick around.
defiantly you have made me think a lot more about responding instantaneously and without enough substance to back it up! the next time we meet on a debate I hope im more prepared for you!!
Its a simple statement because its a simple truth we are living proof of evolution, you don't need to add much to that? im not going to spout scientific studies and research and its doesn't require swapping words.
It's a simple statement because it's a simple truth we are living proof of creationism, you don't need to add much to that? I'm not going to spout scientific studies and research and it doesn't require swapping words.
That is not childish, it is the entire point of this thread: The arguments you are making can just as easily be made about creationism, as can be proven by repeating your claims but replacing the word evolution with God or Creationism.
All thousandin1 was saying is that one could just as easily postulate, "We humans are proof of creationism, let alone all other species, so to argue for evolution is to question the human race."
We all agree with you that evolution is the truth, just your argument was weak and lacked any evidence to back you up.
What thousandin1 is pointing out has no relevance to evolution and that's the question! creationism is a totally different debate perhaps he should start that debate up??
and to say my argument is weak is very shorted sited you clearly haven't thought about what I said very much and never has thousandin1, and what more evidence do I need to produce, look in the mirror you should see an evolved human!
If you're going to argue on the side of something with scientific proof, all you need to do is provide one piece of evidence to back your claim. Creationists say that evolution doesn't exist because all the species on earth are so diverse, and your argument kind of alludes to that on its own. Literally all you need to do to make a convincing argument about evolution is back it up. Mention the fossil records. Mention the fact that humans and chimps share about 96% of the same DNA sequences. Mention microevolution. Mention natural selection and give examples.
Because this debate isn't even about opinions- it's about our side being right and trying to convince the other side, with scientific evidence, that we are correct.
Debating is about opinion, but I agree sometimes opinions require backing up with evidence, but not all the time sometimes you can just voice you opinion and escalate it from there dependant on the response you receive?
Debating is usually about opinions, yes, but providing either logic or evidence is paramount to actually win the debate. Otherwise, it's just two people going back and forth with no progress. When the question is "is evolution true?" and you don't provide any evidence to back your claims, you make a weak argument. Even in other debates about more opinionated topics, people provide evidence to enhance their arguments. All we're saying is that next time you participate in a "debate" about science, use science to solidify your arguments.
With all due respect, it wasn't logical. I proved that in my first argument when I quoted your entire argument but replaced the word "evolution" with "creationism". True logic would not have allowed me to do that.
Claiming it did nothing does not make it so. Your argument, logically speaking, is exactly the same when you replace evolution with creationism. Additionally, neither are ideologies, any they are both relevant to each other as they are opposing origins of humanity.
Allow me to reiterate: "We humans are proof of creationism, let alone all other species, so to argue for evolution is to question the human race."
This statement has the same exact logical weight as yours. There is no substance to it. All I had to do was change evolution to creationism and the entire statement was reversed to support the other side.
I don't see how you can sit here and say that evolution and creationism hold no relevance to each other as they are both possible answers to the same question: the origin of man/species. It just so happens one school of thought has mountains of scientific evidence while the other one has a bible.
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation." For young Earth creationists, this includes taking a Biblical literalism to the Genesis creation!
Evolution
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Origin is the only similarity, you've made me understand your point now on the word swapping I cant deny that.
"What more evidence do I need to produce, look in the mirror you should see a divinely created human"
It's pretty easy to see what they are saying. You are providing arguments that can just as easily be made about Creationism, which is unnecessary when there are so many good arguments regarding the existence of evolution.
Again, they are not ideologies, they are beliefs (well, one is a scientific theory) pertaining to the origin of our species. In that way they are related.
Origin is the only similarity they have, but from there onwards there opposite ends of a spectrum! ok ideology may have been the wrong word, but one is a continuing ideology and the other is a scientific theory.
One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious belief, but they both are about the exact same thing. That is the only relevance they need to have for the comparison to be made, and to point out that you are arguing in favor of evolution in a way that can just as easily be used to argue in favor of creationism, which is unnecessary when there are so many easy arguments in favor of evolution.
In spite of what evolutionists would have us believe, there is no evidence to support the theory. The fossil record is a joke. Even some evolutionists admit that. There is also scientific evidence that suggests that it's impossible to add new DNA, which would be required for descent with modification. Every example we've seen is either a lateral or downward shift, or devolution.
There are lots of ways information is added to the genome:
- duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence)
- asymmetrical chiasma
- Trinucleotide repeats
- polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage)
- nucleotide and amino acid insertion
- frameshift mutations
- virus insertional mutagenesis
- polyploidy
Polyploidy has been found in the Red Viscacha-Rat, some frogs and toads (e.g. African clawed frog), salamanders, flatworms, roundworms, leeches, and brine shrimp, and many fish (goldfish, carp, neopterygii, trout, salmon, etc.) refrefrefrefref
frameshift events originate new gene segments: ref
observed formation of de novo genes in fruit flies: refrefref
Moreover, you get an additional fail for not knowing that answersingenesis.org completely contradicts your claim that "it's impossible to add new DNA".
"a wide range of mutations can be shown to provide a beneficial phenotype to an organism"
"Subsequent genetic analysis of some of these E. coli mutants found that they possessed insertion sequences (IS elements; a small segment of DNA that can insert into numerous sites of the chromosome)."
"Another mutation of E. coli facilitated amino acid catabolism under starvation conditions, enabling the mutant to outcompete the parental wild-type.53 This increased catabolism resulted from a genomic rearrangement (Figure 3). The first step of this rearrangement was insertion of an indigenous IS5 element between the promoter and a CRP-binding site (catabolite regulatory protein) of the starvationinducible cstA gene.54"
"Several of these mutants contained at least one duplication near the 2.85 Mb position on the chromosome."
"Hence, certain environmental conditions seem to favor bacteria with specific genes duplicated. This may have provided the organism a temporary increase in gene expression of those duplicated genes, which apparently helped the organism cope with the higher temperature."
"When confronted with antimicrobials, such as antibiotics, bacteria frequently will develop resistance to the compound. While this resistance often results from horizontal transfer of pre-existing resistance genes, a significant number also result from point mutations."
"Polyploidy can lead to reproductive isolation, new morphology, and characteristic traits, so is considered at least a potential mechanism for speciation"
"are the result of an intracisternal A-particle (IAP) insertion."
"The sixth allele (sienna yellow, Asy) is also the result of an insertion, in this case of a novel sequence upstream from exon 2"
"Bultman et al. (1994) identified an 11 kb insertion in the a allele prior to codon 2."
"A 190 kb tandem duplication involving the ASIP gene is responsible for the white phenotype found in domestic sheep, a trait that is highly valued and characteristic of many sheep breeds."
"This appears to have resulted from homologous recombination between two SINE sequences."
"pseudogenes, genes inactivated by an insertion or deletion;"
"Repetitive DNA sequences form a substantial fraction of the genomes of many eukaryotes" "We now know that at least some of these sequences carry out important functions."
"DNA transposons, or 'class II transposable elements', move from place to place by replicative transposition (that increases the copy number) or by a simple cut-and-paste mechanism. Though in general not as common or in as high a copy number as retroelements, they are still found in most organisms. Examples are the Drosophila P elements, bacterial transposons such as Tn10 and Tn7, the Mu phage, and the ubiquitous mariner/Tc1 superfamily of transposons. The mariner/Tc1 family is the most widespread, being found in most insects, flatworms, nematodes, arthropods, ciliated protozoa, fungi and many vertebrates, including zebra fish, trout and humans.43 Copy number varies from two copies in Drosophilasechellia, to 17,000 in the horn fly Haematobiairritans, accounting for 1% of the genome."
"short terminal inverted repeats. They were first found in plants, but have also been found in nematodes, humans, mosquitoes and zebrafish."
"transposition can disrupt genes by direct insertional mutagenesis"
"There can even be an exchange of DNA between non-homologous chromosomes: such as was seen in maize, in this case mediated by the recombination of one complete and one partial copy of the Ac (Activator) transposable element."
"Vertebrate retroviruses do have a general preference for insertion into regions with an open chromatin configuration."
"From 50-85% of all spontaneous mutations seen in the fruit fly are due to transposon insertions."
"Although retrotransposon sequences, for example, are seldom found near genes in animals, recent analyses of plant mobile element insertion sites have revealed the presence of degenerate retrotransposon insertions adjacent to many normal plant genes that act as regulatory elements."
"Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)-retroviruses that have become part of the human genome in the past by insertion into the germline cells."
"Pseudogene-a gene that has been inactivated in the past by an insertion or deletion of DNA."
"Processed pseudogene-a gene that has been apparently reverse-transcribed from its mRNA back into DNA and reinserted into a chromosome. It thus lacks its introns, has a poly-A tail, and often is bounded by the characteristic direct repeats associated with transposition."
"Triplet codon-three nucleotides in an RNA or DNA that signal the insertion of a particular amino acid or termination signal; e.g. AUG would be the 'code word' for methionine."
"Hybrids may be diploid, triploid, tetraploid, or pentaploid. Polyploidy in vertebrates is unique and unisexual populations consisting of females are a result and may include the following species;"
"African clawed frogs are twice the size of dwarf clawed frogs, have eyes on the tops of their heads, and have pointed snouts. Polyploidy characterizes Xenopus and interspecific hybridization has been documented."
Polyploidy characterizes Xenopus and interspecific hybridization has been documented."
"Another mutation of E. coli facilitated amino acid catabolism under starvation conditions, enabling the mutant to outcompete the parental wild-type.53 This increased catabolism resulted from a genomic rearrangement (Figure 3). The first step of this rearrangement was insertion of an indigenous IS5 element between the promoter and a CRP-binding site (catabolite regulatory protein) of the starvationinducible cstA gene.54"
In spite of what evolutionists would have us believe, there is no evidence to support the theory. The fossil record is a joke. Even some evolutionists admit that. There is also scientific evidence that suggests that it's impossible to add new DNA, which would be required for descent with modification. Every example we've seen is either a lateral or downward shift, or devolution.
And what have you proven ?? haha on you. yes we have proven a lot. you just do not want to accept it . open your eyes and be more open minded. PLEASE. do not just say lies about evolution and discredit years of study and proofs. what more do you want.