The Debate Club discussion

GIMME EVIDENCE AND SITE SOURCES PLEASE THANK YOU

OKAY MAH DAUGHTER

Um I feel like this is a very touchy subject and we really shouldn't have it....

https://www.livescience.com/474-contr...

Rhyleigh wrote: "Um I feel like this is a very touchy subject and we really shouldn't have it...."

Maybe not... idk

You don't have to join in, Rhyleigh! But this is a commonly-discussed topic in debate clubs, and I thought it was a good one to have here.

CrazyChickenGirl (aka Barnette) wrote: "You don't have to join in, Rhyleigh! But this is a commonly-discussed topic in debate clubs, and I thought it was a good one to have here."

Yeah that's true

Thanks for the useful link, Sky!

CrazyChickenGirl (aka Barnette) wrote: "Thanks for the useful link, Sky!"

THATS MOTHER TO YOU/jkjkjk your welcome

CrazyChickenGirl (aka Barnette) wrote: "You don't have to join in, Rhyleigh! But this is a commonly-discussed topic in debate clubs, and I thought it was a good one to have here."

okay I won't do this one then don't take it personally

Rhyleigh wrote: "CrazyChickenGirl (aka Barnette) wrote: "You don't have to join in, Rhyleigh! But this is a commonly-discussed topic in debate clubs, and I thought it was a good one to have here."

okay I won't do ..."

I won't take it personally! Join whichever debates you want, it's up to you :) we don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable, overwhelmed, or attacked.

Serious question (to anyone): is there any actual evidence AGAINST the theory of evolution? If so, I'd be really curious to know. Thanks!

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists

James wrote: "First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "..."

Agreed

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Sorry Y'all but you asked so i answered lol.

how long did it take you to type all of that???

Evolution normally takes thousands, even millions of years in some cases. That is why we have never seen it happen. But I could argue that we have indeed seen it when Charles Darwin traveled to the Galapagos Islands and discovered many kinds of finch, all of which seemed to be the species previously, but they adapted to their environment with their beak shape, food source, and how said source was captured.

Also, there is indeed lots of evidence of us evolving from primates, like skulls that are slightly different from human skulls today, as shown here: https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence#....

And again, the reason we haven't directly seen evolution occur is because it takes a very long time to happen.

Thank you, James! That was very interesting, I see you spent a lot of time on that. That's a great argument!

But, like Sky said, the reason we have not seen evolution happen in front of us is because it takes YEARS for people to be able to see huge differences.
There is a ton of evidence to support evolution, such as fossils, DNA, and comparative anatomy. This is an interesting read: https://www.paleosoc.org/evolution#:~....
Small changes within a species, such as the finches on the Galapagos or insects developing resistance against pesticides, ARE observable and make it easy to see the large-scale changes that likely happened.
The Theory or Evolution is not flawless - that's why it's a theory. But if it's not true, how can you explain the fossil and DNA evidence, and the small-scale evolution seen around us all the time?

Thanks for sharing!

Rhyleigh wrote: "how long did it take you to type all of that???"

You don't wanna know. 😜

Like Barnette said, Evolution is still technically a theory, but it has an immense amount of evidence supporting it, which is why it is taught in school. Just like the Big Bang Theory is taught in school.

Which actually would be a good other topic. Do some people also not believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Skybird (Nickname Sky) wrote: "Which actually would be a good other topic. Do some people also not believe in the Big Bang Theory?"

Hmm, I'll add that

kk

Personally i don't believe in evolution. Right now i'm getting facts right. While doing that i found some fun facts,

" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world" Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
The superior race he is talking about is the caucasian race. So according to evolution all humans are not equal.

"The idea of providing preventive healthcare, state sponsorship of healthcare and vaccinating citizens is contradictory to the basic principles of natural selection; as is supporting the weak and trying to protect the sick to ensure their survival" Herbert Spencer

So basically evolution says some humans are more evolved and hence more intelligent. And apparently Darwin's The Descent of Man has a section titled Difference in the mental powers of the two sexes. Darwin claims women are also less evolved than men and hence...

Looks like Darwin's The Descent of Man would be an interesting read. I would have to read it to see how his racist ideas are shaped as 'science'

Maryam, thank you for all that. I didn't know such content existed in the things that are supposed to be the greatest words ever printed, but based on the time period, I shouldn't have been surprised. However, I would still say that the theory of evolution is correct just because of all the scientific evidence pointing to it. And yes, helping the sick and stuff does interfere with natural selection, but on that note, so are building homes and roads and cars and grocery stores. If we truly wanted to live by the principles of nature, we would abandon everything and go to live in the forest.

The point I'm trying to make is that that's not what this theory stands for. The theory of evolution simply stands as a possible answer to the question of how all the species came to be. We aren't trying to be sexist or racist or interfere with healthcare, even if many of the great names in this field were. We just want to answer the same question that you're trying to.

Skybird (Nickname Sky) wrote: "Evolution normally takes thousands, even millions of years in some cases. That is why we have never seen it happen. But I could argue that we have indeed seen it when Charles Darwin traveled to the..."

I'm still going through the evolution theory but I have to say that on the link you provided for fossil evidence here, the first one is Lucy which had a baboon bone. They found it later. So how did that come there? And why didn't they recognize it when they first found it?

Jamesie wrote: "The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundam..."

Just read through this. Very interesting take.

Sai :) wrote: "Maryam, thank you for all that. I didn't know such content existed in the things that are supposed to be the greatest words ever printed, but based on the time period, I shouldn't have been surpris..."

But if this theory is true then it will be true some races be it humans or anything will be intellectually advanced than others. theory itself would be inherently racist. Yet the main question is still not answered. how did life originate?

Jamesie wrote: "First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "..."

To echo this, why aren't there any transitional species right now? Okay, it can take a billion years. Why don't we have at least one transitional species now to observe when we have millions of species out there? One that has been here for let's say a million years.

And there should be loads of fossils to indicate the millions of transitional species (as we have millions of species now)

Skybird (Nickname Sky) wrote: "Evolution normally takes thousands, even millions of years in some cases. That is why we have never seen it happen. But I could argue that we have indeed seen it when Charles Darwin traveled to the..."

fossil called Ardi in that link - https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/... it portrays it as ''one of the most complete early human skeletons'' which i think it was first 'thought' to be. later they found ''provides insufficient evidence of an ancestor-descendant relationship and exclusivity to the hominid lineage.'' https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s....

I really don't know why these sites that try to prove evolution continue to say things that were later found to be false.

Maryam wrote: "Sai :) wrote: "Maryam, thank you for all that. I didn't know such content existed in the things that are supposed to be the greatest words ever printed, but based on the time period, I shouldn't ha..."

for the racist part, not necesarily, since humans reunited (as in different races met each other) after not a very long time, and we were very protected by our civilizations and natural selection was halfway prevented, so there wouldn't be too much of a difference in anything between various ethnicities. and for the origin part, i would agree, that is one puzzle that is still being cracked. however, there is plenty of proof for evolution. once i find a good article or smth ill remember to share it here

Sai :) wrote: "Maryam wrote: "Sai :) wrote: "Maryam, thank you for all that. I didn't know such content existed in the things that are supposed to be the greatest words ever printed, but based on the time period,..."

What I am saying is there should be some differences as said by the ones who proposed this theory. Not that I believe in that. For me the theory itself is too flawed to be true.

Evolution says that random mutations led to one species tranforming to another. If that were the case, there should have been numerous mistakes before arriving at the species we finally end up with. It cannot be smooth transition if it were to be random.

There is also no recorded evidence of an animal changing from one species to the next. Darwin’s finches are not evolution but adaptation because their environment was changing. But they still remained finches. If evolution existed, we would at least see some evidence that a monkey per se is evolving into a human, but after thousands of years they’re still remaining monkeys. Also a key factor in the scientific process is observation, but it is impossible to observe evolution over millions of years because no one can live that long. Evolution is a mere theory not a scientific fact

Watch Evolution vs God hosted by Ray Comfort. It’s probably on YouTube but can also be found on livingwaters.com and answers tv

Evolution has been proved by fossil remains, by molecular biology and by observing traits in current animals. E.g. Studying horse hooves patterns

How? Just asking

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof toes fusing tigether due to the different grounds the horse ancestors walked on

Also we can very easily see evolution in action with bacteria and antibiotics

When you have antibiotics, the more the bacteria types become exposed to it, if you do not finish the course of antibiotics, not all the bacteria have died, hence they became exposed to the medicine without dying. They pass on the genes to the next generation of bacteria, forming multiple strains of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics, which is a major issue, and why new antibiotics are constanly needed. To put it simply

Thank you!
But did the horse change from one species to another? Because that’s simply adaptation about horses hooves. Adaptation is very common today so animals plants and humans can best survive in the environment. The Evolution theory is one species evolving into another. Is there possibly a skeleton of one completely different species evolving into a horse over time, like a timeline of a lot skeletons becoming one species to another overtime?

✧Emily✧ wrote: "Thank you!
But did the horse change from one species to another? Because that’s simply adaptation about horses hooves. Adaptation is very common today so animals plants and humans can best survive ..."

Yup, that is the diagram, the previous species no longer exist

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "

Here you can see the hooves...idk the name lol but the hoof toes fusing tigether due to the different grounds the horse ancestors walked on"

You have to first explain it. Whether all of those really existed and how and why it proves evolution

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "✧Emily✧ wrote: "Thank you!
But did the horse change from one species to another? Because that’s simply adaptation about horses hooves. Adaptation is very common today so animals plants and humans c..."



Evolution says that random mutations led to one species tranforming to another. If that were the case, there should have been numerous mistakes before arriving at the species we finally end up with. It cannot be smooth transition if it were to be random.

How would you explain this?

MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Also we can very easily see evolution in action with bacteria and antibiotics

When you have antibiotics, the more the bacteria types become exposed to it, if you do not finish the course of antibi..."

That is adaptation. Not evolution.

Maryam wrote: "MidnightButterfly ~ semi hiatus for exams til Feb! wrote: "Also we can very easily see evolution in action with bacteria and antibiotics

When you have antibiotics, the more the bacteria types beco..."

Thank you for pointing this out! I didn't want to nag...

Prof Eyad Qunaibi has a series disproving evolution.It is in Arabic but it has english captions. I'll link it here. Evolution is discussed from Episode 21 to..https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP...

I also just want to say that evolution does not say that the creation of one species leads to the others dying out

Let us imagine a case where a group of monkeys (idk, random animal) were geographically separated from another geoup of monkeys by, a natural barrier e.g. River. So the two geoups can no longer breed.

Lets say that the new climate is far hotter, so yes, adaptations would occur. But this is where evolution kicks in. The new monkeys would have less fur, for example. But. They would pass down to thier kids, who would pass down to thier kids. Eventually, the new animals a few thousand years later would be completely different do the old monkeys.

A new species devlops when two animals are unable to give birth to fertile offspring. So, if a human and monkey bred, no fertile offspring would come out. If a donkey and horse breed, a mule comes out, but a mule is not fertile so can't pass down thier combined genes.

The two types of monkeys are different species if they can not breed to produce fertile offspring, but both monkeys still exist. That is evolution