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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
There is no scientific evidence for evolution.
If you disagree, you must provide scientific evidence that supports evolution. Good luck. There is a ten thousant prize for anyone who can provide this evidence. It remains unclaimed. And saying that the fossil record supports it, or similar DNA in life forms is not valid evidence. If you think about it, you'll understand why.
The biggest flaw in the evolutionary theory is The Big Bang. I have researched as much information as I could, but there is no science to explain how nothing could explode into everything.
That's like saying the biggest flaw with gravity is that you don't believe in electrons. The Big Bang and evolution are separate. They do not have anything to do with each other. Plus, there has never been any explanation that didn't involve nothing becoming everything. Name one explanation that doesn't have that problem.
I have not seen any scientific evidence for evolution yet. As stated, in the comments section, I asked those who disagree to provide evidence that supports the theory of evolution. No one has done so. So I ask you. Where is this mythical evidence that has so many convinced that it is true?
Evolution, as a concept, is effectively proven. It can be observed and measured. It is taking place right now, as we type here. Granted, this does not conclusively prove that all known species are the product of evolution, but it does prove conclusively that the theory itself is sound. If creationism is still to be assumed, then one must also concede that whatever god is responsible for creation has tried hir damnedest to cover his tracks and convince us otherwise. Not really compatible with a benevolent god, I'd say. #TrollGod
What you are referring to, is called adaptation. No new information is added to their DNA. This is an impossibility, from all that we know of genetics. It is also required, for evolution to be taken seriously. The error checking in DNA is almost foolproof. Every change we've seen is either lateral or downward. This is in accordance with the law of entropy. Something evolutionists prefer to ignore.
No new information is added to their DNA. This is an impossibility, from all that we know of genetics
You are incorrect here. Adding new information is not impossible at all. One of the forms that mutations can take is duplicating a portion of DNA. This is one of the key factors in successful mutation, as a duplicated section of dna means that this section can now mutate more freely without being innately detrimental due to disrupting whatever function that section of dna performed. This creates 'room' for more information in the genome- which later undergo changes via other forms of mutation, eventually resulting in new traits.
And this doesn't even begin to touch on the field of epigenetics (wikipedia link- you'll need to start broad to begin to understand it most likely), which would seem to be well beyond your ability to get into, given your understandings of both evolution and christianity. One would think you could at least get the Christian right...
I agree with thousandin1 this is what we were taught formally in biology.
No new information is added to their DNA. This is an impossibility
This is incorrect, an analogy would be of the human emotions; they can adapt and change within a person depending on their experiences.
The science behind it being: As a fertilized egg develops into a baby, dozens of signals received over days, weeks, and months cause incremental changes in gene expression patterns. Epigenetic tags record the cell's experiences on the DNA, helping to stabilize gene expression. Each signal shuts down some genes and activates others as it nudges a cell toward its final fate. Now, different experiences cause the epigenetic profiles of each cell type to grow increasingly different from each other over time. In the end, hundreds of cell types form, each with a distinct identity and a specialized function.
This is the case even in differentiated cells, signals fine-tune cell functions through changes in gene expression. A flexible epigenome allows us to adjust to changes in the world around us, and to learn from our experiences.
This is just a brief summary so you can understand what I mean hopefully....
None of what you just said causes any changes in DNA. All it does is determine what DNA expresses itself. When I said no new DNA is added, I was referring to the addition of new chromosomes in the DNA. There is not one example of this ever happening. The science of genetics actually suggests that such a thing is an impossibility, because of error checking. This error checking, btw, is so good at what it does that it's error rate is one in ten billion.
The number of chromosomes is actually not a great indicator of how much genetic information exists. Primates have an extra chromosome, but the same number of genes. The DNA could combine or separate in ways that cause the number of chromosomes to change. If the gene content doesn't change the offspring will be viable. Just a little FYI.
Did you even read the article you linked? The article mentioned duplicate genes, and rearranging DNA sequences...etc. But it mentioned that these often result in diseases. Genetic mutations are not beneficial. They are often harmful, or at best, neutral.
Your article on epigenetics does not support your position, either. It refers to genetic expression. Not alterations to the genetic sequence of DNA. You'll have to do better.
Did you even read the article you linked? The article mentioned duplicate genes, and rearranging DNA sequences...etc. But it mentioned that these often result in diseases.
The key word here being often. Not always. I understand that it is difficult to wrap your head around the timeframes involved- but you must understand that even a one in a billion chance becomes quite commonplace given sufficient iterations.
Genetic mutations are not beneficial. They are often harmful, or at best, neutral.
Incorrect. Genetic mutations are not frequently beneficial. They are often harmful, frequently neutral, and occasionally beneficial.
Your article on epigenetics does not support your position, either. It refers to genetic expression. Not alterations to the genetic sequence of DNA. You'll have to do better.
That is a general article on epigenetics. Epigenetics cover a field that allows for apparent short term adaptations to occur that enable lifeforms to survive significant changes in the environment. Epigenetics themselves are controlled by their own genetics and influence the expression of genes. It is this sort of thing that allows a species to survive in an environment they aren't very well suited for sufficiently long to adapt to it. Epigenetics is a key portion of evolution, and furthermore addresses one of the hugest concerns regarding evolution as adaptation to selective pressure.
To be fair, I did say it was above your head at the moment- I gave you the wikipedia link as a starting ground. You have a long way to go before you can learn how it all ties together.
I don't need to do better. You're grasping at straws, and doing a poor job of it.
You know what? I could dispute everything you said. I'm not going to do it. You say I don't understand the subject (I do) and then you insulted my intelligence, not once, but twice. I find your attitude insulting and dismissive. There is no use in continuing this discussion. This is where I say goodbye. I won't be hearing from you again.
You said mutations don't add new information. Now you are complaining that they aren't beneficial. This is like saying a sports team can't win a single game because they have lost a game before.
"Adaptation is evolution. There is virtually no difference (unless you're using a different definition of evolution)."
There is a big difference. Adaptation is merely the expression of DNA that already exists (unless you have a different definition of adaptation.)
"Seeing as how the Earth is not a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply."
Ask a REAL scientist, and they will tell you that there are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics. Also, adding heat energy actually INCREASES entropy. In order for your claim to be valid, you would need a means to direct that energy to a useful end.
BTW. The second law applies to both open and closed systems. This is also something a real scientist would tell you.
Your link only says that if the change in entropy is improbable it matters. The change in entropy for evolution needs to be demonstrated as improbable by you in order to violate thermodynamics. So, it still doesn't violate the second law.
I was initially going to respond by condemning the use of such a poor source full of straw-men and very little real argument, etc., however I had a change of heart. Instead I want to thank you for at least including a source and trying to base your opinion on something - this seems to be more and more seldom on here.
I decided to sift through some of the plethora of web responses to Dr. Sewells' claim and would initially point you to this one It does express some personal jabs at points (most rebuttals had significantly more), but it does deal well with the physics and is done by a credible source.
If you feel any significant part is left unaddressed, let me know and I will address it.
Ugh...the creationists view on the second law of TD...Here we go.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases, not that you can't make order out of it. The TOTAL AMOUNT of entropy of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. THAT's what increases. It means that if something was developed into order, something, or a collection of things, somewhere else in the universe, has to undevelop (if I can say that) into entropy. But it has to do that slightly faster than it would develop into order.
I'm guessing you disagree then. How about providing us with some of this evidence, like I asked. This is a serious discussion. I'm not a troll. The fact that you refuse to answer the question, just proves that you have no evidence. Instead, you call me a troll. I think we all know who the real troll is. So, do you wish to redeem yourself, by providing evidence? Or do you wish to remain a troll?
I don't think I could have put it better! You can't 'cherry - pick' your evidence and dismiss relevant data, that would be biased and therefore not give the whole picture.
How is the fossil record relevant? Even many evolutionists dismiss it as irrelevant. And similarity of DNA is also not evidence for evolution. All that science has been able to tell us, for certain, is that many life forms have similar DNA. They can't tell us why. That would require making a judgement without evidence. The same evidence could just as easily point to a Creator. The reason similar DNA exists is because most life has similar needs. The DNA that develops a muscle, or joint or even a nervous system would have to be similar. The reason I dismiss them, is that they are not real scientific evidence for descent with modification. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence for it. That's why NO ONE, in this debate has provided any.
Neither one is scientific evidence for evolution. The fossil record is nothing more than a bunch of dusty bones. There is not a single transitional fossil. Why else do you think evolutionists had to fake them? It doesn't meet the requirement of scientific evidence.
What does similar DNA say about life. All it says is that many creatures share similar DNA. This is not scientific evidence for evolution. Far from it. It doesn't say WHY they share some DNA. That's nothing more than speculation. Not science.
I agree with you on something. There is not a single transition fossil. There are hundreds, maybe over a thousand. Fossils are observable, they qualify as scientific evidence.
Evolution says we all come from a common ancestor. If we have a common ancestor we would have common DNA. Therefore, DNA is evidence.
The fossil record is nothing more than a bunch of dusty bones
And imprints, insects trapped in amber, shells, and so much more.
There is not a single transitional fossil.
What is your definition of a transitional fossil? Unless you have a clear idea what one is, how can you say none exist?
All it says is that many creatures share similar DNA.
Which is exactly what we would expect to see in evolutionary theory.
First level relatives have more DNA in common than second, and so on. Its not too much of a stretch to expand that (proven) premise to all life.
Why do we carry genes for previous lifeforms in our dna, genes that have no expression or impact on the current form, but were expressed in the early forms?
You're using Wikipedia as a source? Seriously? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There are no transitional fossils. Period! Why do you think so many fakes were created? Remember Piltdown man? One of many. And not a very good one, either.
What is funny is that there are cash prizes for disproving evolution. The catch, you have to provide something that wouldn't be seen if evolution were true.
The cash prize you reference for proving evolution is real as well, but the catch is that you have to have evidence that evolution is true, abiogenesis is true, and the Big Bang is true.
That isn't an award for proving evolution. It is a bet. In order to get the 10 grand you need to put up 10 of your own. Plus, that site conveniently has absolutely no instructions on how to win the bet, but a whole bunch of rules on how your money will be taken from you.
There is a ten thousant prize for anyone who can provide this evidence. It remains unclaimed.
I assume you're referring to Kent Hovind's challenge, in which case it was never claimed because he asked people to prove several things that had nothing to do with evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KentHovind#.24250.2C000offer
He can't prove his claim. How do you prove that no one has provided evidence? He is making your argument. He is saying that if we want to prove the claim of evolution we need to provide evidence. It doesn't make sense to then ask him for evidence that we haven't provided evidence.
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.
You talk about evolution like it's a scientific fact. I disagree. I don't care what kind of schooling you've had, or what research you've done. There are many scientists, who have done as much, or more, and they disagree with you. Some of them are theists. Some aren't. Most of them object because it just doesn't jive with their own research. The simple fact remains that there is no real scientific evidence to support evolution. By evolution, I mean the theory of descent with modification. That every living thing has a common ancestor. And I didn't use religion in any of my arguments. You, also, have provided no evidence like I asked. Could it be you have none? And your attempt to argue from a position of authority is quite laughable, btw.
There are very few scientists who disagree with evolution. Plus, you haven't used the religious argument because you haven't made any argument. All you say is that we are wrong with nothing to back up your claim. Why don't you provide one piece of evidence that goes against evolution?
You specifically asked for evidence of evolution except for all of the evidence of evolution you don't want to accept. The fossil record doesn't count, DNA doesn't count. Bacteria evolving in a lab doesn't count. What would count?
Of course, at least you represented your idea, and provided the evidence for it, oh wait, nothing.
