azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

The very first thing they teach you in science class . . every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??If evolution were true, there would not be male and female. Why would we evolve into two sexes?? If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through. One wouldn't have been around without the other.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the big-bang was the reaction, what was the action that caused it??"You're confusing causality with mechanical force. Newton's third law has nothing to do with causality because it states those two opposing forces occur simultaneously."Why would we evolve into two sexes??"To protect against disease and other "enemy" organisms. The reason we can fight off infection is because when we have a cold, all of the bacteria in our bodies are exact clones. Once our immune system can fight off one, it can fight them all off.The same thing is true in the larger world. Sexual reproduction makes a collection of organisms more diverse, which equips them to survive a changing environment.Besides, not all organisms reproduce sexually."If evolution were true, which evolved first, the acids in your stomach, or the liner to keep the acids from eating through."The liner. Do a little reading.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

You seem to think that evolution happened very rapidly when in fact it took place over billions of years. Your questions show your ignorance on the topic, but, if you don't mind, I will do my best to answer them. Your first question was why are there two sexes when we started out with one. Single cell organisms reproduce by mitosis in which the chromosomes in the nucleus of the organism split apart eventually resulting in two separate cells. This method of reproduction actually is used by cells in the human body to reproduce. Unfortunately, mitosis only works for individual cells. More complex organisms must come up with different ways to procreate. In the case of most modern animals, this is through sexual reproduction. I hope that you know what sex is so I'm not going to go through the details, but in short the offspring created in this process share the genes of the mother "and" the father. As opposed to mitosis in which the DNA will be an exact replica (except for mutations) for both organisms. This combination helps to protect the offspring from certain harmful mutations and thus gives it a better chance to survive and create its own offspring. This is why there is a male and a female. Now if your expecting an answer to your second question I'm not going to give it. "Because there is no answer?" you ask. "Because you've pointed out the one flaw that scientists have overlooked for years." Well before you pack your bag to go receive your Nobel Prize, let me just tell you. No. I'm not answering your question because I am a high school junior who has take one year of human biology. Just because I cannot answer this question does not mean there is no answer. Did u try asking an actual scientist before you posted? I doubt it. Trust me, if you were to talk to an evolutionary biologist you would definitely get an answer. So please next time you have an opinion, let it go.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

The most obvious argument is that it cannot be proved scientifically because we can't observe or recreate it.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Evolution is an observed, documented scientific fact. Facts are observations, theories are the mechanisms used to explain the observations. As I said, evolution is an observed fact; it's the mechanism by which it works (natural selection) which is the theory (although, a pretty sound one at that).
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

What are you talking about? Evolution has been both observed and recreated. You need to read up on the Peppered Moth:"Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees."
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

This debate needs to be redefined. There are so many different types of evolution, including, but not limited to microevolution, macroevolution, stellar evolution, species evolution, and much more.Microevolution (according to the Pearson Biology AP textbook) is the change in frequency of an allele in a population's gene pool. This has been clearly observed as in the Peppered Moth evolution, where the allele of melanism was favored by the environment and predation and thus increased in frequency, shifting the general color of the peppered moths into the darker direction. Species evolution has also been observed, and is even caused by the artificial breeding of different types of animals. These definitions of evolution have indeed been scientifically been proven.However, stellar evolution and macroevolution have never been observed or repeated. We did not see nothing blow up to make something, and we cannot find a "common ancestor" between the rat and the squid. Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven.Therefore, in a way, the debate question is phrased in such a way as to cause confusion. Some people are talking about the Big Bang theory while other are citing Peppered Moths. They may be right or wrong in their views of evidence, but we can't really debate on terms like these.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

i think this is completely correct...people here seem to be avoiding the difference between micro and macro evolution...seems like some people may not even be aware of or able to understand the differences between these.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

"stellar evolution"Not related to the theory of evolution."macroevolution"To posit a difference between micro and macro evolution, you'll first need definitions of both, and then an explanation of why there would be a line between the two, and then finally evidence in nature for the mechanism that causes that line."Therefore, because science must be observable and repeatable, those definitions of evolution have not been scientifically proven."You're confusing empirical and historical sciences. The emprical sciences such as chemistry and phyics are indeed founded on repeatable experiment. Historical sciences such as geology and archaelogy are based on "natural experiments".Evolution is both empirical (look up the many speciation experiments) and historical. Darwin's original theory of evolution posed a large number of hypotheses for natural experiments. For example, according to evolution, we would expect to find species with certain body shapes in certain strata of the earth. Later paleontologists consistently found the predicted forms.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

This is not evolutions..thats called extinction. One species died, correct? Peppered Moths dead and melanic moth lived???? That sounds like extinction, or strongest survive. The pepper is gone...it did not evolve.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Exactly - survival of the fittest is part of the theory of evolutionHere is the same link again, it has those details.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

No, that's the theory of natural selection - put forward to explain the fact of biological evolution.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Increase the timeline by 10 million years and, Viola, evolution.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

The peppered moth is an example of survival of the fittest, NOT evolution. Both types of moths were present at all times; one just flourished over the other for a while. No new species was created.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I think what you're showing here is a complete lack of understanding for what evolution is and what natural selection is. Natural selection (survival of the fittest, if you will) is purely a mechanism used to explain how evolution works. The peppered moth is a prime example of observational evolution.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Actually jade is correct in saying that the peppered moth does not indicate actual evolution in the sense that one species gave rise to another. It does indicate that natural selection does occur, and there is much more supporting evidence outside of this observation to support evolution. However I do not know of any definitive proof of evolution. The facts are strongly on evolution's side.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

I disagree, and the reason probably boils down to what we define evolution as. Taking this from Wikipedia:"Evolution is defined as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool",[3] an occurrence that causes a population's genetically inherited traits to change over successive generations. Evolution in the wild is chiefly caused by two mechanisms: natural selection, the process by which individual organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, and genetic drift, the statistical drift over time of allele frequencies in a population from random sampling effects in the formation of successive generations."Using this definition, we can clearly see that what happened with the Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right. I read the article and I don't see evolution taking place but I'm not a scientist. I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too.It goes back to the smoking gun post I left earlier. None of the mainstream science is touting this...wikipedia puh-lease.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate."I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.Whoa...this is so wrong on so many levels.You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's trueEinstein’s “Blunder” is Right, After All; Journal of Young Scientist © 2007 Falishia Sloan, Science JournalistWe are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits.Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dustedAre you serious? Look at the debate here. Mainstream science can make a lot of money on this subject and has made a lot of money on this subject. You don't think they would make a big deal about a definitive evolution 'smoking gun'?Just look at how much attention is paid to the numerous specimens vying for 'missing link' status since Lucy's discovery. I may not be the most science savvy guy but I do know what makes money and this subject is one of the few, in science, that captures the passion of the layman. This is a 'crossover' over subject if there ever was one.I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate.You have it backwards. Natural selection is a fact...your pepper moth article proves that. Hell the current size of an NFL lineman probably proves that. The theory of Evolution is not a fact."I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.Xaeon...don't mess with what I was saying...that's not nice. I stated earlier in this debate I believe in evolution. I was referring to the pepper moth article. The article itself said scientist don't agree on a lot of the points the author was making in that article.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

XaeonYou have a wiley habit of taking my quotes out of context. Please stop doing that.My first two quotes in your rebuttal refer to your statement... You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up You see lot's of them. You're wrong"We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits."So what? I entered "evolution is right" and got 144,000,000 hits. So what...reference above. This is an example of you taking my quote out of context and replying to something I never said.The point is not, who has the most quotes, the point is that you made a statement that is wrong. That statement is...You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up You do.In the next two quotes of mine you do the exact same thing again. Please read my post.Xaeon saysWhat money is there to be made by evolution being a fact? The money is understanding HOW evolution works and being able to take advantage of this (which, by the way, we already do with the domestication of animals).Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept.But once again you take a quote of mine out of context. We were refering to Nat. Geo., Smithsonian and other mainstream "publications" you switched my wording to "science" and for some reason I went with that. Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level? It is this sentence here that shows your misunderstandings the best. Evolution is what happens. Natural selection is HOW it happens. Evolution, as I've said so many times, is an observed fact. Science isn't in some kind of struggle with this as you are making out. Science knows this is a fact and that is that:Believe it or not I agree.The problem for me is that I assumed fact meant absolute certainty. It doesn't. The whole time I should have said evolution is not an absolute cerntainty.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

You misunderstood my Einstien remark. I was simply stating that we all know relativity happens, and no one makes a big deal out of it anymore. There may be an article or two pop up now and again about a very very specific feature of special relativity, but it's pretty much fact, and therefore no "big deal" is made out of it. We all know the guy was pretty much spot on. And my remark about the huge amount of hits was simply to try and highlight how you'd taken what I had said completely out of context and replied in a "Reductio ad absurdum"-esque manner. This is the same for evolution, and I'm sorry if the point I was trying to make was lost. There's no "smoking gun" type articles out there about evolution because it's simply a known fact. We don't need to constantly verify and trumpet it. So, anyway, we were both taking each other out of context and trying to be a bit smug about it, so let's leave that bit behind.Now in regards to your comment about money:"Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept."I wasn't taking it out of context at all. It was simply a false statement that I called you on. I'm sorry, but you can't discover evolution. It's been done. It's a fact. There's no money in trying to prove evolution. There is however, as I stated, money in proving natural selection as it has real world uses (many of which, such a domestication of animals, cross breeding of plants, etc, we already do). And as I've already stated, this is still theory and we are still investigating and experimenting (although, in my eyes, the findings in regards to human chromosome #2 are astounding... I would recommend you read about this for your "smoking gun" article on evolution. It pretty much proves a common ancestry between great apes and humans)."Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level?" Let's leave that talk for the playground, eh? Esepcially as you admit further down that I was infact correct in this matter."Believe it or not I agree."I'm glad, as this is the point I've been trying to make all along. There is absolutly no viable alternative, no alternate theory (apart from religious ones) to evolution. It's been observed, It's been documented, it's a scientific fact. We know it happens; we have for years.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Show me the document, approved by more than 5 scientific boards that there is proof. I'm sorry Wikipedia is NOT a source to be referenced. Only by amateurs is Wiki ever used as a source for information. Please allow this to be an intelligent conversation and lay the facts on the table.1. It takes several Boards of Science at Worldwide universities to agree of any new' facts' This has not been done with this so called Theory of Evolution.2. Darwin says "'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.' --later he writes and is unsure of 'absurdity' and claims evolutionism as his primary origin of life theory. Though if he understood the Human Eye in detail (Google : darwin eye) then he would be convinced that evolution is not possible.If those choose to believe we stem from primates and Spineless bacterium thats alright. I just cannot see that as being nearly a fact. It is simply fear mongering from the early 1920's where scientist strongly opposing Christian beliefs took into their own hands the idea of a big bang 'creation' of the Universe. Thats all, they had to have something to believe in to further justify their existence, so they "discovered" it through creativity and assumptions, not fact. I wonder how excited they were when someone suggested 'We come from apes, who came from Birds, Who came from Lizards, who came from fish, who came from plants and bacteria growing on a rock" OK. Thanks.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

A lot has happened since Darwin noticed evolution occuring, and to claim that the theory of evolution is in any way lessened by Darwin not completely understanding the evolution of the eye of quite frankly nonsense. We're well aware how the eye evolved. The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Also, I'd like to point towards a study that recently found what I would consider absolute proof that we evolved from primates. In the video link, Dr. Ken Miller talks about the relationship between Homo sapiens and the other primates. He discusses a recent finding of the Human Genome Project which identifies the exact point of fusion of two primate chromosomes that resulted in human chromosome #2.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

1. Wrong. Scientific review of evolution is still ongoing. New evidence has been introduced continuously for the past 150 years.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU 2. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Learn that evolution is not astronomy. The human eye is perfect example of evolution.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1xd2qbYiZo This is a simple example but there are plenty more. This one page on this site brings forth more than 5 scientific references.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

How can evolution be "observationally proven" when nature has only been observed and recorded for a couple of hundred years and the theory of evolution requires millions of years for organism state transition?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Ever heard of fossils?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

The origin of new species by evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). Also, please find the link for a very inclusive and detailed list of observed evolution.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Evolution has been observationally proven because we've witnessed it in scientific studies. Scientists have actually witnessed speciation happen in rapidly reproducing species such as mayflies
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

Charles Darwin and other naturalists have been observing new species emerge for a long time. New species emerge every day and the process can be replicated in lab.
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

What about new kinds?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

Can you provided a definition of "kind" that isn't a tautology?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has

what are 'kinds'?
Debate: Has evolution been scientifically proved?
Side: It has not

My girlfriend is so beautiful that there is no way evolution could have produced such a magnificent being.Just looking at her it is impossible to imagine that she could have been a descendant of some animal such as a reptile or a monkey.Her beauty is real evidence of the work of a superior being, GOD!