EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1476

Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

(PRO)
WINNER!
3 points
(CON)
0 points
JDSFDSFfsaJDSFDSFfsa (PRO)
.Thanks to Kbub for accepting.
In this debate, I will attempt to prove that both micro and marco evolution are well supported by scientific evidence.
Point 1: Fossil Evidence
The logic of my argument will be presented in this form:
Premise 1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see transitional fossils.
Premise 2: We see transitional fossils.
Conclusion: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for Premise 1: Evolution states that organisms can change over time. Those organisms can be, sometimes, fossilized. If species X has the ancestor species A and is the ancestor of species B, then X shares some traits of both species and a fossilized X can be considered a transitional fossil.

Justification for Premise 2: Transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates to humans have been found. [1] In fact, there are no known gaps between dinosaurs and birds. [1] This falls in line with the predictions of evolution. Also, if we assume evolution to be true, then every fossil is a transitional fossil, between two or more species. However, the transitional fossils do line up, even if we do not assume evolution to be true.

The conclusion follows from premises 1 and 2.

Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)

Definition of a species: "Related organisms capable of
interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

The logic goes like this:
P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.
P2: We see new species forming.
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for P1: Evolution predicts that new species can form.

Justification for P2: Two examples of new species will be listed.

1. Goatsbeards
Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced. They interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2]

2.Drosophila paulistorum
Drosophila paulistorum, a type of fruit fly, had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.

The Conclusion follows from the premises.

Point 3: Observed Microevolution


P1: If evolution is true, then microevolution should happen.
P2: Microevolution happens
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Justification for Premise 2:

An experiment, done by professor Lenski over 20 years, found that a population of E.coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, despite the fact that E.coli were normally unable to do so.[3] A later study done in 2012 isolated the exact mutation that caused this, proving that no contamination has occured. [4] This is, by definition, microevolution, as no new species has been created.

Conclusion:
Observed Marco and Micro evolution, as well as fossils proving that evolution has happened in the past, means that the case for evolution being supported by scientific evidence is strong.

SOURCES
[1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
[2]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
[3]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair#Background
[4]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair#Conclusion

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-24 07:22:00
| Speak Round
kbubkbub (CON)
Unfortunately, I accepted this debate on accident, thinking I would be pro for some reason. I'm sorry to have wasted my time and encourage a vote in her/his name.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-30 05:41:12
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-04-06 05:52:04
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: JDSFDSFfsa
Reasoning:
Sigh. Another forfeit.

Feedback:
Con: if you make a mistake like choosing the wrong side of the argument, (been there!) ... Put your big girl pants on and argue your case anyway! What do you have to lose? Might as well go down with a fight than go out on a forfeit.
Arguing the opposite side can be a great learning curve too.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-04-08 23:06:50
cooldudebroJudge: cooldudebro
Win awarded to: JDSFDSFfsa
Reasoning:
FF

Feedback:
Look more carefully next time.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-04-10 14:29:10
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: JDSFDSFfsa
Reasoning:
Forfeit
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 3 days
Burden of Proof on Pro. No trolling.