Evolution

'I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. What you believe - creationism- is part of a religion, what I believe - evolution - is scientific facts and evidence. ' Evolution is not based on fact for the reason that evolution is a theory. Your response is negated. -'Another ridiculous statement. A scientific theory, like gravity, is a theory with enough evidence to be considered a proven fact. Do you think scientists just decided one day 'I think we'll make up an explanation based off of nothing that says all species on Earth are related,' no, scientists base their theories off of hard evidence and observation. ' The reason why it is referred to as the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. Greek philosophers came up with the theory of evolution but Charles Darwin made evolution famous about 100 years before the discovery of DNA so he did infact make a theory based on no hard evidence. -Wrong. According to scientists the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. If you know the time frame of evolution you would realize that I was talking about the time life started to exist on the planet according to evolution which is about 550 million years ago. -Ah, the bogus creationist chance argument. First: this has nothing to do with evolution, you're referring to the abiogenesis theory; the origin of life. We're debating on whether or not organisms have evolved over time, not on how life originated. Second: Abiogenesis actually wasn't improbable, I embedded a video at the top explaining how abiogenesis happened. Third: Even if abiogenesis was improbable, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is no such thing as an impossible chance, statistics don't govern the universe. If I tile a large section of the Earth with one billion tiles and drop a ball onto the grid, each of those tiles has a one in a billion chance of the ball dropping on it. Does that mean it's impossible for the ball to drop on any of the tiles? No, chance is simply a label for the probability of something happening, it doesn't necessarily disprove something. You can't argue math. It be right if you were to say if you dropped a ball over 1000000000000000000000000000000000 titles and you had to land it on Florida then the chances would be so extreme it would be impossible, because even if that many people did do it that way the ball could land in the same spot multiple times. -Parent isotopes decay to daughter isotopes at a predictable rate. The age is simple calculated by the ratio of daughter to parent. But scientists measure the age of more than just the daughter and parent isotopes, they check the age calculation with the ages of isotopes from the same element and other minerals from the same pool of materials. The RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years.6 Two conclusions drawn by the RATE group include: 1. The single-sample potassium-argon dates showed a wide variation. 2. A marked variation in ages was found in the isochron method using different parent-daughter analyses. If different methods yield different ages and there are variations with the same method, how can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth? In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks! Are the dates given in textbooks and journals accurate and objective? When assumptions are taken into consideration and discordant dates are not omitted, radioisotope dating often gives inconsistent and inflated ages. -Obviously, my opponent didn't take the time to look at my sources in the previous round. I posted a link of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and I'll post a link of the 'missing link' between apes and humans that was found less than two months ago. mrkkid17, please look at my sources from now on before you post your arguments. Macroevolution has been observed, I posted a link of it observed in a laboratory in the previous round. Also, humans haven't been around long enough to observe macroevolution in nature. Using youtube as a credible source is pointless, because anyone can post a youtube video. Missing links have never been found because there are no findings of transitional species. You have negated evolution by proving that it takes intelligent life forms to decode DNA and manipulate organisms. You also just said that humans have never oberserved macroevolution nor have we ever observed any form of evolution. -False. There are typically .1-1 mutations per virus genome replications, .003 mutations per microbe genome replications, and 64 mutations per human genome replications. The numbers are most likely higher since smaller mutations are harder to detect False, . http://www.answersingenesis.org... -Again, I've already showed you that transitional fossils exist. You proving microevolution doesn't rule out macroevolution. Small mutations over a short period of time accumulate to large mutations over a long period of time, until the mutated species can no longer breed with the former species. This is not a fact for the reason it has never been proven. -Again, I've already showed you that transitional fossils exist. You proving microevolution doesn't rule out macroevolution. Small mutations over a short period of time accumulate to large mutations over a long period of time, until the mutated species can no longer breed with the former species. Transitional fossils do not exist. Scientists can make assumptions from what came from what but since genetics have not been decoded you can not compare anything to anything because you don't know there genetic make up. My opponent has failed to prove that there is even the smallest chance that evolution has occurred.