The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Is Evolution Real?
in Religion
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: years of doubt    articulate explanation   gospel writers   160AD  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Erfisflat Tell me about what you've learned buddy? I find all this light stuff fascinating, .. but can be real confusing also at times because of all the "illusions" that light can create coming off things, and by going through the slightest temperature differences even through air.
What do you have that can help us defend the truth?
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.1  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 21%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you been debating on and off switches, .. lol So, to get back on track, .. is evolution real, or not? And I don't mean breeding poodles into Great Danes either. I mean Darwin/Dawkins type evolution!?
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.54  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: years of doubt    articulate explanation   gospel writers   160AD  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
The question is can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing. This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurdle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns, these hurdles get higher and higher.
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: simple fact    building blocks of life   only way evolution   building blocks  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now they'll tell you that: "Hey dummy, we are apes!" But yeah, if they can point out "vestigial organs", then where are all the new growth organs? Boy, I sure could have used a couple of eyes in the back of my head growing up in Detroit, .. you know what I mean?
But nooo, I don't have anything growing back of my head that would even remotely resemble new eyes?
Oh, but they claim Darwin watched finches growing longer beaks, .. woopsidoo!?
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.42  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
GOOGLE is not a university.
DO YOU know what the dewey decimal system is?
@Evidence
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: decimal system    degree   dewey   bible  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then this debate is over as the title only mentions "evolution" not speciation.
By the way, as I mentioned, we have actually seen speciation. We created domesticated pigs for example( Which are a different species from the wild boar we used to create them). Or anything that is domesticated, really. Artificial speciation is a thing.
Also, speciation is the logical consequence of evolution. If you accept evolution but reject speciation, you need to explain what exactly prevents evolution from causing speciation. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.62  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
Consider this,
My question to you, can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing. This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurtle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns makes these hurdles higher and higher.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: simple fact    building blocks of life   second hurtle   only way evolution  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
1- Learn how to make logical arguments.
2- Learn physics.
3- Learn biology.
What you have just written is complete nonsense and it is very clear that you have no idea what evolution even is.
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical arguments    physics   biology   idea  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Fossils    evidence      
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Attended between 1956 - 1968, .. and Graduated from Srvive.U in 1968, then went right into: MyLIF.U and got my Masters in Survival, World Religions, and Googling.
Education in: MyEarthIsFlat, and MyGodNASA.lies as taught by Professor @Erfisflat which I passed like, three years ago? I forgot, I'll have to request a certificate of acceptance to the "Flat Earth" from my good professor.
Why do you ask?
mickyg said: GOOGLE is not a university.
Of course not, it's a student-info/aid. YouTube is the University, taught by many different University professors.
mickyg said: DO YOU know what the dewey decimal system is?
The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), colloquially the Dewey Decimal System, is a proprietary library classification system first published in the United States by Melvil Dewey in 1876. - Google
mickyg said: When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??
Yes, anonymous because the writers did not want to take credit for the content. Unlike Evolutionists, who first present all their credentials like; Dr. Stephen PhD, CBD, THC, so you will listen, and believe them when they tell you that; you're an evolving ape.
mickyg said: .....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??
History as we know it today has been tainted, altered, corrupted, .. you name it, by the Religion that took the books of the Bible and created a Religion out of it. We today know them as "Christians". The name came from the Gentiles who mocked the early Believers by that word, and they suffered greatly by it, until Peter mentioned it:
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as (called) a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.24  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hello again my friend AlexOland
4,000 years after we were created on this earth, from the dust of this earth, Gods son Word came to earth to help us evolve in spiritual wisdom, so we could come to know ourselves, and our Creator, and understand the information we get through our scientific observations.
What Satan did was teach man dumb things like: Now that you know how lightning is created, you can create it yourself, so you don't need God anymore.
Then once he seen that man took the bait, he made them believe they are evolving apes, and also made them create a new heaven and earth of his design, .. not Gods the one we have been a part of all our lives.
The Big Banged sci-fi universe, and Human Evolution stories are Satan's version of creation, and he used his loyal minions to create a World Religion called NASATAN, but most evolving apes see it only as NASA.
OK, I gave you a brief history, now let's see what evidence you have of this Evolution?
No, a pig is a pig no matter how domesticated it is. That's not speciation.
What prevents evolution to cause speciation? Gods design does. God created man in His own image, He doesn't want to see a man running around with a goats head, monkeys tail, legs of a frog, wings of a chicken and breasts of a woman.
For those of you who are Christian, please notice the "torch" above Baphomets head:
The Lord is calling you: "Come out of her my people", come back to "the Way", the Truth and the Life
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.92  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: evolution    courses   enlightenment    
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.74  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: video    micro evolution   bacteria   resistance  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bacteria mutation research does not prove evolution. Read Lönnig's research:
The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
Mutations stay within the species. After 100 years of study they could not cover the 3rd hurdle. Now there are new rules causing the hurdle to get larger. When scientist press the issue of crossing the hurdle the formula resets. Nevertheless, if scientist were able to get pass the hurdle they inadvertently create the first hurdle.
Lets take your video for example. Who built the petri dish? Who setup the 9 bands? Who poured the agar? If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
The further you push the one hurdle you raise the bar to impossibility on the other two hurdles.
Now lets consider the probability of a miracle, which is 1 in 125,000,000,000,000,000 chance.
Very very high chance.
On the other hand, five histones are involved in DNA. The probability of forming even the simplest of these histones by chance is one in 20^100 (20 with 100 zeros) a number larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes. That is for only one of the histones, I couldn't even fathom five of them. But its like taking a number of silver dollars, then cover the world [197 million square miles] to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blindfolded person wander the whole world and bend down to pick up one coin, those are simular odds that one of the histones came about by chance.
Mind boggling chance.
Then for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together, DNA, RNA, and proteins.
So believing in Creation is way more believable than Evolution.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Bacteria mutation research    years of mutation research   Lönnig's research   particular enable scientists  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bacteria mutation research does not prove evolution. Read Lönnig's research:
The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
Mutations stay within the species. After 100 years of study they could not cover the 3rd hurdle. Now there are new rules causing the hurdle to get larger. When scientist press the issue of crossing the hurdle the formula resets. Nevertheless, if scientist were able to get pass the hurdle they inadvertently create the first hurdle.
I wanted to explain the three hurdles so it will not confuse anyone:
Can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing. This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurtle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns makes these hurdles higher and higher.
Lets take your video for example. Who built the petri dish? Who setup the 9 bands? Who poured the agar? If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
The further you push the one hurdle you raise the bar to impossibility on the other two hurdles.
Now lets consider the probability of a miracle, which is 1 in 125,000,000,000,000,000 chance.
Very very high chance.
On the other hand, five histones are involved in DNA. The probability of forming even the simplest of these histones by chance is one in 20^100 (20 with 100 zeros) a number larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes. That is for only one of the histones, I couldn't even fathom five of them. But its like taking a number of silver dollars, then cover the world [197 million square miles] to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blind person wander the whole world and bend down to pick up that marked coin, those are simular odds that one of the histones came about by chance.
Mind boggling chance.
Then for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together, DNA, RNA, and proteins.
So believing in Creation is way more believable than Evolution.  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Bacteria mutation research    years of mutation research   Lönnig's research   particular enable scientists  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
Bacteria mutation research does not prove evolution. Read Lönnig's research:
The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
Mutations stay within the species. After 100 years of study they could not cover the 3rd hurdle. Now there are new rules causing the hurdle to get larger. When scientist press the issue of crossing the hurdle the formula resets. Nevertheless, if scientist were able to get pass the hurdle they inadvertently create the first hurdle.
I wanted to explain the three hurdles so it will not confuse anyone:
Can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing. This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurtle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns makes these hurdles higher and higher.
Lets take your video for example. Who built the petri dish? Who setup the 9 bands? Who poured the agar? If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
The further you push the one hurdle you raise the bar to impossibility on the other two hurdles.
Now lets consider the probability of a miracle, which is 1 in 125,000,000,000,000,000 chance.
Very very high chance.
On the other hand, five histones are involved in DNA. The probability of forming even the simplest of these histones by chance is one in 20^100 (20 with 100 zeros) a number larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes. That is for only one of the histones, I couldn't even fathom five of them. But its like taking a number of silver dollars, then cover the world [197 million square miles] to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blind person wander the whole world and bend down to pick up that marked coin, those are simular odds that one of the histones came about by chance.
Mind boggling chance.
Then for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must come about by chance and then work together, DNA, RNA, and proteins.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Bacteria mutation research    years of mutation research   Lönnig's research   particular enable scientists  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
"No, a pig is a pig no matter how domesticated it is. That's not speciation."
Not very good at biology, eh?
Species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
Meaning if our newly created species cannot interbreed with the species we created them from, we have created a species. And therefore, this is speciation.
As I said, artificial speciation is a thing. Look it up.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Bacteria mutation research does not prove evolution."
Did the bacteria gain new useful traits? Yes. Are these traits stored in the genome, meaning will the bacteria pass these traits on to their offspring? Yes.
Then this is by definition, evolution.
What you are objecting to - my friend - is speciation, not evolution. Which is impossible for anyone to object to as artificial speciation is a thing. The only difference is that there is an artificial selection going on instead of a natural one.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: fact         
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
@AlexOland said: Not very good at biology, eh?
Is this biology, .. or has anything to do with biology?
If it is, then I'm pretty up-to-date.
AlexOland said: Meaning if our newly created species cannot interbreed with the species we created them from, we have created a species. And therefore, this is speciation.
Lord, if you won't allow us to evolve/speciate, then by the gods we will do it ourselves, but We Will Have Evolution with, or without you! Here is 10 amazing, .. in your own words: "newly created species that cannot interbreed with the species we created them from" Just remember that these are not bacteria, but apes:
https://www.lolwot.com/10-amazing-before-and-after-transgender-transformations/
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.8  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules."
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: idea of evolution    higher intellience   person   nature  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here is 10 amazing, .. in your own words: "newly created species that cannot interbreed with the species we created them from"
Of course there are exceptions to this definition like sickness or removing your ability to pass on your genes. But, as I just said, these are exceptions which we can understand clearly from a biological viewpoint. We know that, naturally, those transgender people were able to breed. And we know that people who have a sickness regarding this issue are just exceptions and we can also see that they actually have genitals even though these do not function properly.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=L_rwZ1yEQM8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA17&dq=species+biological+definition&ots=gEmCNBwY2B&sig=EcD6niJgqPUnWHWCVrR-_qdOkq4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
If you are not satisfied with this, check "The Evolutionary Species Concept" part in the link I have given. I really do not think you want to take this route where you object to the definition of "species" but - ultimately - its your choice.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
This is the definition.
The other part:
"It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules."
Is not a part of the definition. It just explains what this process did.
Therefore, this definition of evolution also agrees that the video shows an example of evolution.
"My arguement destroys this definition"
No, it does not. What you have written is nonsense. There are no appearant logical connections between your sentences. It is like this: "I have apples. Therefore, the sun is probably blue."
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
@AlexOland
So if I debunk one definition of "Evolution", you'll provide another, right? Until you have a definition so twisted and complex that it can fit in both creation and Darwin-Evolution. Sorry, but Darwinian evolution should be proven by scientific observation, and not by definitions.
I ask again, show me one YouTube video of one specific species turning into another species? We waited 2.5 billion years, surely there should be at least a million changing/mutating or giving birth to another species, right?
But the fact is that out of 8 million different species, after 2.5 billion years starting from amoeba there should be billions of evolving species walking around. Some dying out, some in process of growing lungs and legs and only coming out of the water briefly to see if they can get enough oxygen, then crawl right back in the water, evolve those stub-for-legs some more, .. like that. This would go on for a few million years as the lung and legs develop. There should be evidence of these "evolving creatures EVERYWHERE, we'd have to have bulldozers pile up all the dying ones so we could function in society.
And the stench, well that would be another story, because as we know: "Evolution stinks".
Take care my friend, I'm still seeking
Evidence?
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.12  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
It, indeed, takes a lot of intelligence, you are correct. That is why we, scientists, spend decades researching mind-boggingly difficult subjects in order to make just a tiny bit of progress in the collective scientific intelligence. And that is why those who do not possess such intelligence pursue easier, less rigorous domains, offering instant gratification - such as, for example, religion. You bow to the god a few times, your life improves - much easier that working on evolving mankind, is it not?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: dietary supplements    dental services   day   instant gratification  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
1. First of all, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is independent of it. Whatever you think about the Big Bang, evolution still is present.
2. "Survival of the fittest" is a oversimplification of the general principle that the species developing mutations that better adapt them to their environment will gradually become more dominant. It does not mean that only one, the fittest ever, species is going to survive.
Nor does it mean that such "fittest" even exists. We evolved from apes, but we live in a different environment than apes. Apes are the apex predators in their domain, and we are the apex predators in our domain. We do not really compete against the apes, hence there is no reason for either of us to eventually perish.
3. Evolution is a very complex phenomenon, taking hundreds millions years. You should not be surprised that some species evolve better than others; it is a random-based process, and mutations do not occur according to any known pattern.
4. What do you mean by "we cannot cross-breed"? There are countless cross-bred animals, both domesticated and not, that we ourselves cultivated. Ever heard of the hybrid of a donkey and a horse? Read about hinnies.
Apes and humans, actually, also can cross-breed. It is not a popular subject to talk about, for the obvious reasons, and nobody has ever documented experiments with that - but the African folklore suggests that apes sometimes force themselves on human women, so there could be a certain biological drive for that.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 20%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you don't have a Big-Banged globe-earth, you have no planet and water to Evolution from? How is Evolutio "present" without the globe?
That's like a Disciples of Christ saying: "Even if God doesn't exist, Jesus is present."
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now you lost me completely. Do explain how the particular shape of Earth and the history of how it can to be that shape is required for evolution to take place.
You think, say, on a pyramidal Earth that came to be as a result of a devious experiment of some programmer that coded our Universe animals would not evolve over time? Mind explaining why?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: particular shape of Earth    pyramidal Earth   result of a devious experiment of some programmer   history  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say.....
My reply .....why should you conclude this? Which god Allah? , Woton? , Zeus?
You say ....The idea of evolution proves God's existence.
My reply ....It doesn’t , tell me of one peer reviewed paper that states gods existence has been proven by Evolution?
You say ....Man cannot evolve another man from nothing.
My reply ....Whos saying this? How does god create a world from nothing?
You say .....He still doesn't know how.
My reply ....know how what exactly?
You say ....It will take more intelliance
My reply .....Surely you mean intelligence?
You say ......The person with higher intellience who did evolve man from nothing is God.
My reply .....So your whole argument is ..........nothing can come from nothing unless it’s god creating man from nothing ......
when you prove there is a god I might give your arguments some credit , incidentally if Evolution was somehow proven to be incorrect it still does not prove a god exists
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: God exists.My reply    god Allah   gods existence   idea of evolution  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well, first of all, we are not debating about evolution anymore. Remember? You already admitted that evolution happens. What we are debating about is speciation.
Secondly, I did not change the definition of speciation. I first provided you a simpler version of the definition. But when you objected to it - I am still very surprised you chose to take that path - I provided a more elaborate and scientific definition. You are just trying to strawman my arguments.
"I ask again, show me one YouTube video of one specific species turning into another species? We waited 2.5 billion years, surely there should be at least a million changing/mutating or giving birth to another species, right?"
This line clearly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Speciation does not happen after just one generation. Creatures cannot give birth to another species (maybe, theoretically, they can but it is so small of a possibility that we can ignore it), that is not how it works. You cannot watch a video on Youtube that records speciation because it is not a short process.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/
You claim that there should be clues of evolution everywhere, and there are clues of it everywhere. The reason you are not able to see them is because you do not know what to look for. What you need to understand is that creatures do not have an objective to evolve into this one thing. A micro organism does not have an objective to evolve into a fish, this is why you do not get that "half fish, half bacteria" kind of species you crave to see so much. I would suggest you that you learn what evolution is before trying to refute it.
https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: FINISH HIGH SCHOOL         
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
Globe - planets - gravity - aliens from outer space - planet seeding - evolution - no purpose - man=insignificant ape
Flat earth down - Heaven up - good and evil at war - demonic possession - Creator/designer as described in the Bible - son of God - man created in the image of his Creator - has purpose
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.02  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: particular shape of Earth    pyramidal Earth   outer space   demonic possession  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
@AlexOland said - Well, first of all, we are not debating about evolution anymore. Remember? You already admitted that evolution happens. What we are debating about is speciation.
Amazing to what level Evolutionists will steep down to? So because we go to school, or learn new things aka evolve in wisdom, so now evolution is a fact, right? You sound like Dawkins.
AlexOland said - Secondly, I did not change the definition of speciation. I first provided you a simpler version of the definition. But when you objected to it - I am still very surprised you chose to take that path - I provided a more elaborate and scientific definition. You are just trying to strawman my arguments.
Yes, thats what I was pointing out: "definition evolution ad nauseam till it's so confusing, it's undebatable".
AlexOland said - This line clearly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Speciation does not happen after just one generation. Creatures cannot give birth to another species (maybe, theoretically, they can but it is so small of a possibility that we can ignore it), that is not how it works. You cannot watch a video on Youtube that records speciation because it is not a short process.
How is my question of the 2.5 Billion years of evolution "one generation"? When, and where did I mention "one generation"? Do you consider 2.5 billion years of evolution as "one generation"?
In the 2.5 billion years, one generation had to speciate into another species, or you have NO evolution/speciation.
AlexOland - You claim that there should be clues of evolution everywhere, and there are clues of it everywhere. The reason you are not able to see them is because you do not know what to look for. What you need to understand is that creatures do not have an objective to evolve into this one thing. A micro organism does not have an objective to evolve into a fish, this is why you do not get that "half fish, half bacteria" kind of species you crave to see so much. I would suggest you that you learn what evolution is before trying to refute it.
Oh please, no Evolutionist knows what evolution is, .. not one agree.
Fish grew leggs correct? Was that overnight, or did it happen in your 2.5 billion year long generation? Oh yeah, speciation doesn't happen in one generation.
Reason? Because speciation NEVER happens. "I would suggest to you that you learn what evolution is before trying to defend it."
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
You probably forgot that you said this:
These are your own words. You accepted that evolution is a fact after that bacteria video, remember?
---
You are being dishonest. I did not change the definition. I provided the basic version. And when you have shown that the definition has exceptions, I provided the scientific definition of it.
---
Dishonesty again.
You said this. "giving birth to another species". You said that we were supposed to observe an organism giving birth to another species. And I explained that organisms do not give birth to another species, it does not work like that.
---
Stub being stubborn and look at that link that explains evolution.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
Everything you have said had absolutely nothing to do with my question. It is irrelevant with regards to how the world works whether humans have some inherent purpose, or whether they themselves create that purpose. Humans themselves even are not important in the discussion of the subject.
What is important is whether animals evolve and why. And you will easily see, if you think about it some, that the answer to both of these questions is completely independent on all of these cosmological considerations.
Which, mind you, you also got terribly wrong, but, again, it is not relevant to the topic.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: cosmological considerations.Which    discussion of the subject.What   humans   inherent purpose  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 60%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.48  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: FINISH KINDERGARDEN         
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Evidence
#1 I don’t even think I mentioned the Big Bang theory. To clarify my viewpoint, I was saying in order to prove that there is not an intelligent designer behind life, scientist perform experiments, and observe the reactions. They use this as proof that man evolved from apes. Nevertheless, in these experiments scientists always represent intelligent designer. Call him God or whatever you want to call him.
There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution.
There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution.
There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution.
I place it in bold because I want to emphasize that point. All the previous experiments have to be thrown out! Because all experiments have scientists performing the experiment they represent an intelligent designer. When something evolves it evolves without the assistance of intelligence. These mutations has to have a catalyst, if the catalyst is intelligent then the catalyst represents God. To prove God is not involved you cannot perform an experiment. Evolution has to be only observed. And if it takes millions of years to happen then it cannot be observed. If it cannot be observed then it is not real science.
#2 If we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? There was a catalyst to evolve from. The way you explain evolution it is like the lottery. Some get it and some don't. The reason to evolve is to survive the environment or adapt to a life threatening situation. If some evolved and others did not, then there was really no threat to their life. I agree we have different environments, but at one time we had the same environment as the apes. This environment changed tremendously for one group of apes, humans are not a small change from apes. It is a big one, one that made it impossible for humans to reproduce with apes. If anything that threatens life or the continuance of it. What threat to life would prevent humans from reproducing with its closest species?
#3 Random and no known pattern, how is this science. The way you describe evolution it is like magic. If it happens over millions of years then it happens to all. Complex, randomness and no pattern. If it is random and has no pattern then there is no science. I think you mean it is so complex we do not know the pattern. (Taking random out of the equation)
#4 I admit my mistake in saying crossbreeding is impossible. Nevertheless, I meant no crossbreeding with different species. That is why I provided the example of the whale. Why does it take millions of years? From what point does this happen? Shouldn’t it be a million years for some group of people? Out of the billions of people on the earth shouldn't we see one group of people changing now into another species, unable to reproduce with humans?
When one group does something different from another group, there is a reason. If one group of apes became human, there is a reason. If that reason has intelligence then it represents God. If it does not have intelligence, then it should be a natural occurrence that can be observed. If it takes millions of years to observe it then it cannot be observed. If it cannot be experimented or observed then it is not real.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: group of apes    group of people   different environments   experiments scientists  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sorry @Evidence    information      
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
Evolution, as a science, is very similar to history or criminology. You cannot actually observe the events happenning. You can only observe the clues left by the events.
That being said, there actually ARE experiments that can be done to prove evolution. Have you forgotten about that bacteria video? That is, by definition, evolution.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bacteria video    nbsp   evolution   clues  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: intelligent scientist    experiment   petri dish   answer  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: evolution    man   God    
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: wrong people    science   statement   wrong conclusion  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
My objection to your first argument:
You are confusing "evolution" with "the theory of evolution" while not understanding what the theory actually suggests.
Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Evolution is the name of the process. The theory of evolution is what scientists think this process did. Therefore, even if we assume that the theory is trying to refute a god, evolution does not.
But the theory of evolution does not / is not trying to refute a god. You can claim that a god helped those creatures evolve, this does not contradict the theory.
My objection to your second argument:
We did not evolve from apes.
You refuted your own point. If the apes were separeted into two environments, that would also suggest that they were at different places, correct? Now, ask yourself, can you have sex with a person in London from Paris? Exactly.
My objection to your third argument:
Natural selection is not random. Therefore, evolution is not random. You are just proving that you have no knowledge on the subject.
My objection to your fourth argument:
The only argument in your first paragraph is when you say: "should not some people evolve into different species?".
You touch on an interesting issue: people who live in the UK and people who live in the USA do not share the same environment. Shouldn't they evolve into different species? The answer is no. Because for evolution to happen, there has to be selection. And a man living in the USA can easily move to the UK and not die. The environment is not a proper selector in this case because it does not kill off organisms that do not adapt to it. You can be a 200 kg obese man and you would still survive.
Can we experiment the existence of Ottomans? Well, then they do not exist.
Can we experiment what happenned during a murder? Well, then we cannot catch murderers.
As I said, evolution as a science is very similar to history or criminology.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wrong. The scientists did not help the bacteria evolve. All those things were set up so that they can observe the experiment.
You like throwing the word "god" on everything without even thinking what it means. No, setting up an experiment does not mean that you represent god.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
I meant that they were similar in the way that they examine evidence. Evolutionists have much more certain evidence than historians or criminologists do. In criminology, there is the possibility that a witness might be lying and the possibility that the criminal left little evidence to observe. The biology of the organisms cannot lie and biologists do not have a shortage in evidence.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: biology of the organisms    science   little evidence   criminology  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: word random    MayCeasar      
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: MayCeasar information         
  Relevant (Beta): 26%  
  Learn More About Debra