CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
7
Factual Scientific Information theory, no merit or evidence
Debate Score:29
Arguments:30
Total Votes:30
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Factual Scientific Information (22)
 
 theory, no merit or evidence (7)

Debate Creator

Rick_Zeta5A(357) pic



You won’t get banned in my Evolution debate, no matter how badly I want to.

Please talk amongst yourselves and make your most valid, heartfelt arguments.  The winner will declared in a one weeks time, good luck.  

Factual Scientific Information

Side Score: 22
VS.

theory, no merit or evidence

Side Score: 7

Well, 19 to 5 for the position, a fun and lively, if somewhat lopsided debate. Thank you to all who participated, and I will leave it open for continued discussion.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

Historical facts are facts from history. speciation from natural selection is a scientific model from which we can devise a plan to understand how it was that we came to be on this planet in our current form.

May I ask what competing model is in place to refute the findings of evolutionary biologists and archaeologists across the globe.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

Direct observation

evolution
Side: Factual Scientific Information

Observation of the constituent parts: mutation, heredity, and selection

natural selection
Side: Factual Scientific Information

DNA.

homologous genes, observation of beneficial mutations and growing genome.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

The geologic column.

Fossil layering, animal and fossil radiation to available areas (compared to continental drift, etc.)

Side: Factual Scientific Information

Vestigiality

humans: wisdom teeth, plica luminaris, arrector pili, etc.

also - cave fish with eye sockets and no eyes, etc.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

Atavisms.

humans - tail, extra nipples, etc.

also - horses with extra toes, etc.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

levels of (fertile) hybridization (mule, grolar bear, etc.)

Side: Factual Scientific Information

comparative biology:

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 bilaterally symmetrical body

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.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

Experimentation:

Hypothesis: if evolution, the geologic column, etc. are true, then we might be able to find a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapod in rocks of the right age.

Experiment: Explore rocks of the right age

Observation: Tiktaalik

http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/its-a-fishapod

Side: Factual Scientific Information

If wolves and dogs belong to the same 'kind', then adaptations/mutations can change: body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc.

If that level of change is accepted within a 'kind', then:

isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?

isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?

isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?

isn't Tiktaalik the same 'kind' as Acanthostega?

isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?

isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?

If all of the above are true, then Coelacanth is the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton - and a sea animal is the same 'kind' as a land animal.

Side: Factual Scientific Information

long term selection experiments: e.g. Fox domestication:

In less than 20 generations, foxes changed to have floppy ears, curly tails, piebald coats, shorter muzzles, rounded skulls, higher seratonin, lower corticosteroid levels, and exhibited barking. ref

Side: Factual Scientific Information

This debate seems oddly vacant if refuting positions. This is weird. I said I wouldnt ban anybody for any reason and the response is nothing, no opposition.

I’ve already been banned in like 3 debates because I was making insanely good points but I didn’t answer the question. But not one of those little Peter puffers is here to refute our positions. Looks like we won by a landslide, not a surprise but definitively an indication of real life attitudes.

Side: Factual Scientific Information
JustIgnoreMe(4334) Clarified
1 point

Yea - you would think it would be ripe troll-bait.

Side: Factual Scientific Information
1 point

What evolution are we talking about?

"Evolution" is too broad of a subject. It can refer to many things that are evident and other things which are not so evident.

Side: theory, no merit or evidence
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Come on! Too broad. This isn’t hard to understand. There are people who don’t believe in the historical fact of speciation due to natural selection. Come on, I expect slightly better than that.

Side: Factual Scientific Information
TzarPepe(792) Disputed
1 point

"speciation due to natural selection"

Ok, so this is the evolution that you are talking about, eh? See, now we are getting somewhere. You shouldn't be so presumptuous. Besides that, when you insult me for not getting something you take as being easy to understand, that is just as much a reflection of your ability to communicate as it is my ability to comprehend.

You claim that speciation due to natural selection is a historical fact. What does that even mean?

Side: theory, no merit or evidence

Seems like the first cell or cells evolved by chance:

The most important things for a cell are oxygen in order to respire and Glucose, also for respiration. This is used in a process called glycolysis where the cell makes a chemical called ATP which is basically our energy. But then in order for the cell to live and make all its components and proteins and release hormones etc you need lots of essential amino acids (there are 20 in total and put together in the right order they make almost all of you) The cell also needs water because that is what all the chemical reactions take place in. It needs fats because it is surrounded by a fatty membraneto protect it and it needs small amounts of metals because most enzymes have a metal atom at the heart of it and enzymes do all the cutting and gluing and controlling of us. So basically a cell needs lots to stay alive.

The prefect environment for a cell to survive can't exist by chance. Also a cell can't adapt if the environment lacks one of these ingredients. Eventually, it will die which means it cannot evovle in order to adapt with the lack of one of the ingredients.

This is Science ladies and gentlemen. And how life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory: It is an unfalsifiable theory.

Falsifiability:

"Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of testing or observing it to showcase how false or how true it is. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them and in the corollary, conceive of an observation or an argument which proves them. Thus, the term falsifiability is synonymous to testability."

Now here is the best part:

"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is UNFALSIFIABLE is classified as UNSIENTIFIC, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is PSEUDOSCIENCES"

Ok I admit it's not a theory; It's something worse :p

Side: theory, no merit or evidence
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

I would agree with you except for all the evidence. You know all that falsifiable information collected by thousands of scientitst over hundreds of years and across multiple scientific disciplines. You can’t go to a philosopher and be like so what makes everything untrue? And he says well all information is biased by the interpretation of the evidence and everything is just an opinion that is falsifiable by other with differing opinions. And then use that philosophical position to refute actual scientists. These people that use thier brains to think and come up with new ideas, if they had to listen to your demarcation argument would just laugh and turn away because there is no point in arguing with an idiot because they will just drag you down to their level.

Side: Factual Scientific Information
1 point

The mistake you make here is in concluding that the complexity equals impossible complexity.

"The 29 observed reactions include the formation and/or interconversion of glucose, pyruvate, the nucleic acid precursor ribose‐5‐phosphate and the amino acid precursor erythrose‐4‐phosphate, antedating reactions sequences similar to that used by the metabolic pathways."

http://msb.embopress.org/content/10/4/725

"We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry."

http://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.2202

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space"

https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratory

"The results demonstrate that the initial dissociation of the formamide molecule could produce a large amount of highly reactive CN and NH radicals, which could further react with formamide to produce adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil."

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/3/657

One of the reasons we don't know yet how life originated on earth, is that there are so many ways that the processes can happen - ice, clay, space, hydrothermal vents, etc. etc.

If you would like to falsify abiogenesis - name the process that can't happen - nucleotide formation (check), lipid-based membranes (check), metabolism (check), self-replication (check), etc...

Side: Factual Scientific Information

It's NOT a fact! Unlike the Big Bang theory which can be proved at any time through the expanding universe. So it became a fact!

Side: theory, no merit or evidence
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

It’s a fact, sorry to say, thank god who doesn’t exist it’s not 1500 years ago, because if I was a scientific person, and you were a theological person, chances are you would hold some sort of world view that would allow you to attack and kill me.

As it is mostly a godless supposition that allows someone’s mind to fully understand speciation from natural selection, I don’t expect a good portion of the population to even read the associated data pertaining to the scientific discoveries of evolutionary scientists.

Fortunately, an incredible amount of data now exists in the form of genetic expression models, and ring species characteristic identification from these models. The archeaological data must be taken into consideration, as well as blood protein synthesis, superfluous organs, and cell morphology. The list is really endless when it comes to the interpretation of genetic diversity and speciation, making it in my view one of the most difficult predictive scientific models that has ever been devised by humans.

So I can see why some people would have trouble with it, and if semantics are your thing, and you can proport that evolution isn’t factual because of x y z, than your just another one of the 4 billion people on earth that have a worldview that extols theological teachings, but forgets or ignores the FACT that science doesn’t give a flying fig about opinions or viewpoints, and simply doesn’t require them in order to be true.

Side: Factual Scientific Information
Salah-Eddine(12) Disputed
1 point

Scientists said before that the universe has no beginning. And it was considered as a fact. But now we know the Big Bang which was proven as a FACT through the Expanding Universe. This clearly shows how scientists were clearly wrong with confidence back then. The evolution theory is only supported by atheists so as to support their belief. Same thing for the universe without beginning.

Side: theory, no merit or evidence