CreateDebate


Debate Info

27
47
He is right Denial
Debate Score:74
Arguments:48
Total Votes:97
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 He is right (19)
 
 Denial (29)

Debate Creator

Debater101(48) pic



Microevolution vs Marcoevolution

He is right

Side Score: 27
VS.

Denial

Side Score: 47

NOTE: I do not agree with everything Hovind says in his talks, but he is certainly right here.

I think it's funny that evolutionists compare the two and claim Micro is the same as Macro just over a long period of time. This view is overly simplistic and isn't consistent with natural selection.

Here is an example of micro evolution: A dog with the genes for long fur breeds with a dog that has the genes for short fur. They have puppies, some have long fur, some have short fur. A particularly harsh winter comes about and all the dogs with short fur die from the cold while the puppies with long fur survive, thus the entire local dog population has long fun, wheres before it may have been predominantly short hair. That is Micro-evolution. Please note that if the dog with long hair hadn't added his genes into the gene pool of the local population, none of the puppies would have had long fur, but because this genetic material was added the species evolved.

Macro evolution, however, claims that all life on earth came from one or a few single celled organisms. In order for micro evolution to occur there would have to be genes added to the gene pool. If they aren't added then the species doesn't advance. This is what makes macro evolution ridiculous, it claims creatures get more and more advanced yet it never answers the question "where does the genetic material needed to change in a positive way come from?"

At this point, the evolutionist may bring up mutations. However, with 99% of mutations being harmful and 100% of mutation being a lose of genetic material "although this lose is helpful on rare occasions) the species would quickly die out.

In a nutshell, he is right!

Side: He is right
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

"where does the genetic material needed to change in a positive way come from?"

Mutations. BOOM! Headshot.

Side: Denial
1 point

Once again, mutations are almost always harmful and are always the lose of organized information in the genome, please prove how random copying mistakes in the genome can cause the genome to become more advanced when mutations are almost always harmful.

" BOOM! Headshot."

With a Nerf gun maybe...

Side: He is right
1 point

Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: He is right
Thejackster(517) Disputed
1 point

Thats like saying that I can drive 1 mile in a car, but not possibly drive 100 miles, micro evolution leads to macro evolution, his understanding of biology and natural selection is so innacurate its hilarious.

Side: Denial
1 point

You do know that if you get a cat and shove a fish up his ass , you got yourself a catfish , bet you didn't know that?

A creationist told me so it's true ...

Side: Denial
0 points

"Thats like saying that I can drive 1 mile in a car, but not possibly drive 100 miles,"

Your analogy fails since micro-evolution is limited to the current genes in the genome, I would encourage you to re-read my last comment since I already refuted what you just said. For example, saying a small mammal in it's coarse of breeding produces variations of the same kind of small mammal and concluding that that mammal can evolve into, lets say, a bird is a huge assumption that cannot be verified. The genome in the small mammal allows for changes because other small mammals of the same kind have slight variation in things such as fur colour, but none of the mammals in the population have the genes to produce feathers or the lungs or skeleton of a bird.

So your analogy is valid if you take into account that the car has only enough fuel to drive one mile. The genetic 'fuel' of the mammals only allows it to change so much, as is possible within the genome of the mammal.

"micro evolution leads to macro evolution"

The big assumption in evolutionary thinking that is backed by no facts. You cannot verify this statement by anything but wishful thinking.

Side: He is right
3 points

Same exact things, different time scales. If micro is true so is macro. Once again, hovind is a moron. Stop listening to his bullshit

Side: Denial
2 points

If you want to learn about evolution, go to an evolutionary biologist. If you want to learn about the Big bang theory, go to a theoretical physicist. If you want to learn about being stupid, go to Hovind. Don't believe me?:

(While Hovind doesn't appear in the video, he is the one who proposed this hypothesis)

Epic Creationist Fail
Side: Denial
1 point

Honestly, if creationists spent time studying and developing their own theories, instead of just trying to attack the competing theory, they would probably get somewhere.

When's the last you saw an article about creationism that doesn't mention evolution? This should be a good read for you (third paragraph, specifically):

Supporting Evidence: Creationist Rant... by a Creationist (deinonychusempire.deviantart.com)
Side: Denial

I am thinking of an animal - can you guess which one?

It eats,

breathes,

moves,

poops,

has sex,

sleeps,

produces red and white blood cells,

and can feel fear and pain

 

It has:

a body with a head, torso and appendages

a brain with a memory

eyes that see in color

ears

taste glands

sense of smell

sense of touch

spinal chord

vertebrae

ribs

jaw

teeth

esophagus

stomach

intestines

gonads (testes/ovaries)

kidney

bladder

spleen

liver

pancreas

four chambered heart

skin

 

 

well... ? 

 

 

 

Hint: you can even sometimes find them in a school...

 

 

 

It's a fish.

Whenever people start rambling about how major changes can't happen, I wonder if they realize that major changes haven't... Just lots of little changes over *lots of time.

Side: Denial
1 point

Perfect evidence that the same Creator created the fish and the human, thank you for supporting our point!

Did you also notice that that animal doesn't has arms, legs, totally different breathing system that, if incomplete, would kill the animal, different bone composition, less and smaller teeth made of cartilage, a digestive system made to digest different things, different muscles, and different psychological behaviour. Your argument is truly irrelevant.

Side: He is right
3 points

Perfect evidence that the same Creator created the fish and the human, thank you for supporting our point!

Since fungi and humans took vastly different evolutionary paths, would that mean they had different creators?

Side: Denial
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Did you also notice that that animal doesn't has arms, legs, totally different breathing system that, if incomplete, would kill the animal, different bone composition, less and smaller teeth made of cartilage, a digestive system made to digest different things, different muscles, and different psychological behaviour.

Proof that there wasn't a creator. Thanks for proving our point.

Side: Denial
1 point

the same Creator created the fish and the human

indeed, evolution created them both.

Did you also notice that that animal doesn't has arms, legs, totally different breathing system that, if incomplete, would kill the animal, different bone composition, less and smaller teeth made of cartilage, a digestive system made to digest different things, different muscles, and different psychological behaviour.

I didn't say that fish are people - just that they are very similar in many respects and that through a series of small changes (which we see evidence of in the fossil record), something more and more akin to us emerges.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_04

Your argument is truly irrelevant.

The debate is about microevolution vs macroevolution so your argument that they have the same Creator is the irrelevant one here.

Side: Denial