That countries should make the pope persona non grata outside until the Vatican signs extradition treaties with those countriesn

Pinkie (PRO)

Resolution: Macro Evolution is Super Factual

In this debate I will be arguing that macroevolution is super factual.

Genetics:

What is DNA? “DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecule that makes up an organism’s genome in the nucleus of every cell. It consists of genes, which are the molecular codes for proteins – the building blocks of our tissues and their functions.”

Now why is that important? DNA is a code that shows our genes. What do genes show? The answer to that question is who we are related to.

“While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%.”

This quote shows that “humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.”

Now I have proven that Homo sapiens have evolved from primates and are distant cousins and ancestors and have evolved.

Here is a picture of the evolutionary tree regarding how the timeline goes:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium_banner_520px_height/images/landscape/primate-family-tree-780x520_0.gif

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-09-11 02:48:26

| Speak Round

cooldudebro (CON)
Okay, first off, no topic was displayed for me! -_- I'm against macro evolution anyways, so I'll give it a shot. Note, I'm not arguing for macroevolution, I'm arguing for microevolution.

Case 1: Just doesn't fit

Let's just go along with what the Darwnists say. Let's pretend all life sprung up from one lone bacteria. Seems plausible with enough time right? Wrong. A simple bacteria can't evolve and change it's genome to evolve into a human. Here is a link from my first article.

"The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”

The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)" End quote.

For know, this is all I'm going to be posting. I really want to see if SpenceJoyage will be able to argue against her beliefs. Thanks!

Rebuttal 1:

You are simply arguing for micro-evolution with this link (Thank you. I'll use that link later. Please note I'll be arguing for micro-evolution. You have to prove how life originated from a small bacteria.

1. http://www.gotquestions.org/microevolution-macroevolution.html

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-09-11 10:38:57

| Speak Round

Pinkie (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2014-09-13 10:40:01

| Speak Round

View As PDF