Instigator / Pro

Lazarous

1538

rating

debates

75.0%

won

Topic

#1457

The Damage Inbreeding Causes Demonstrates Evolution Can’t be True

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Lazarous

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 09.27.2019 04:14AM
Last updated date: 10.27.2019 02:49AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 4,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

RationalMadman

1702

rating

574

debates

67.86%

won

Description

Premise: The genetic code of organisms is breaking down over time not being developed and enhanced over time as required for molecules to man evolution. I am using inbreeding as an observable example of deterioration of the genome and am ready to expand my position in the debate to follow.

Rules: Quote your sources and be respectful.

Definitions:

Inbreeding: The Encyclopedia Britannica defines inbreeding as, “the mating of individuals or organisms that are closely related through common ancestry, as opposed to outbreeding, which is the mating of unrelated organisms. Inbreeding is useful in the retention of desirable characteristics or the elimination of undesirable ones, but it often results in decreased vigour, size, and fertility of the offspring because of the combined effect of harmful genes that were recessive in both parents” (https://www.britannica.com/science/inbreeding).

Macroevolution: The gain of additional new genetic information through mutations. If the resulting change in the organism is not determined to represent a net gain in genetic information it falls under one of the next two definitions.

Microevolution/Speciation (for purpose of this debate I will use the term speciation): The process by which animals pass on or fail to pass on genetic traits to their offspring. As John D. Morris, Ph.D. explains, “The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group” (https://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/). This process never results in new genetic information but frequently results in loss of genetic information. For example, dogs with short hair genes in a cold climate are likely to freeze to death resulting in only the dogs with long hair genes remaining. Rather than gaining new genetic code for log hair this dog population has lost the genes required for short hair. Mutations good or bad do not fall under this definition.

Genetic Entropy: As defined by geneticentrapy.org genetic entropy, “is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations” (https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy).

Round 1

Lazarous

09.28.2019 05:21AM

Pro

I would like to thank RationalMadman for accepting this debate.

Introduction: The premise of molecules to man Evolution requires that mutations create a net increase in genetic information over time. Genetic entropy refers to the net deterioration of the genetic code over time. Since these positions are in direct contradiction with each other, which position does the scientific information better support. For the purpose of this debate, I am not claiming that there is no such thing as a mutation that is both (a) beneficial and (b) increases the genetic code. What I am asserting is that, even if mutations adding genetic information exist, they are not statistically frequent enough to overcome the numerous mutations resulting in informational loss.

Inbreeding: It is well known that inbreeding weakens organisms over time. The miniature poodle for example suffers from a wide range of eye related issues including glaucoma, cataracts, progressive retinal atrophy, and abnormal eyelash growth. All of these issues can ultimately lead to blindness (https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/the-15-least-healthy-dog-breeds.html/). As Lita Cosner puts it, “’Mutts’, or even crossbred dogs, have a much lower chance of having these diseases, because many are genetically recessive—a healthy copy of the gene will override a diseased gene” (https://creation.com/parade-of-mutants). In order for the evolutionary process to take place Inbreeding is inevitable and likely to occur repeatedly. Once the first heterosexual organisms develop the population would be very small and inbreeding would be inevitable.

Genetic entropy: The trend of accumulating mutations (genetic entropy) is not limited to inbreeding. The select few mutations that might be considered both beneficial and gains in information as required for macroevolution are massively outnumbered by detrimental mutations. In the article, ‘From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis’ Dr. J. C. Stanford says, “Within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise” (https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis). The net result of mutations is one step forward followed by thousands steps back. This will only result in deterioration of the genetic code over time. As Botanist Alexander Williams puts it, “Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales” (https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end).

Natural selection, our savior?: Now we must consider if natural selection is capable of saving the process. In the book, “Genetic Entropy” (pg. 89) Dr. J. C. Stanford says that, “Based upon numerous independent lines of evidence, we are forced to conclude that the problem of human genomic degeneration is real. While selection is essential for slowing down degeneration, no form of selection can actually halt it…. The extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the death of organisms, the extinction of stars, and the heat death of the universe.” Science supports that mutations will ultimately result in man to molecules devolution. The very premise which evolution is built upon directly defies the scientific data.

Closing: Macroevolution and genetic entropy directly contradict each other. We see genetic entropy occurring in inbred populations. If observed in small populations then (a) why wouldn’t the inbreeding of the first life form result in ultimate extinction through genetic entropy, and (b) why would a larger population serve to do anything except slow the process of genetic entropy?

RationalMadman

10.01.2019 04:51AM

Con

There is nothing in Pro's post about why evolution cannot happen with inbreeding. This debate's resolution is not even about if evolution is true or not, but if it can be.

The concept of incestuous breeding leading to deformities and genetic decay doesn't disprove evolution in any way whatsoever. Note that it most commonly happens when the mother is extremely young (think your stereotypical redneck Alabama situation or whatever).

Inbreeding's 'decay' and 'damage' are not even that strong with cousins. Entire villages of India are built on cousin inbreeding and yes, it is linked with strange ears, some people having six fingers and such (but that could also be the radiation as they have a lot of pollution there).

Macroevolution is about the idea that over time, beings change within species and eventually the begins on 'one side' of a species and the other extreme of that species become more and more different to a point where a mutation in even just one of the people who has sex with others there means that group of children can't produce fertile offspring with the other 'end' of the species but probably can/could with the end they came from. It could be a being so extremely tall and unlike many other races of human, dog, ant that the shorter variant, especially those who are so severely different to it, end up incapable of producing fertile offspring with it. In the same way that horses and zebras, as well as donkeys, can produce infertile offspring, this being would be something that mutated enough from one side of an evolving multi-breed formation that couldn't reproduce with the 'other side'. If you're curious about species having this happen to them, even though their defining feature is that all within them of one sex can produce fertile offspring with the other (or that they reproduce asexually) then perhaps you should pay attention to inbreeding and what that would mean for the 'offshoot'.

It is actually due to the damage that inbreeding leads to that makes it so that when there's an offshoot, if they reproduce with themselves, they do indeed decay over time and go extinct. However, if they reproduce with the breed of the species that the 'mutated one' reproduced with, they can produce more and more offspring that are varied enough from each other to begin making a breed so different from the old species that over time (especially due to the fact that only those who are very different can produce fully virile and healthy offspring), it means that the species doesn't stay similar enough to their intermediary form after a while.

We can then ask 'but why didn't the intermediary offshoot keep reproducing with both species?' the answer is they probably did, but due to inbreeding leading to unhealthy, deformed and/or infertile offspring, it severely hampered the chances of the 'intermediaries of the intermediaries' lasting for long. In other words the very idea that macroevolution is impossible due to inbreeding is the complete opposite of the truth; it is only considered probable and true due to inbreeding explaining why the 'in between' beings die off.

Round 2

Lazarous

10.02.2019 02:06AM

Pro

Inbreeding:Each offspring receives one set of chromosomes from each parent. Any mutated mistakes passed on to the child from one parent will hopefully be overridden by correct coding from the other parent’s DNA. Since the gene pool is not as diverse in inbred populations, the chance of getting a duplicated mutation from both parents is greatly increased. If your fruit salad isn’t well mixed, you’re likely to come up with two lemons.

· First, inbreeding provides an observable example of how organisms have a deteriorating genome over time.

· Second, under the evolutionary model, once the first two heterosexual organisms develop they will have to inbreed with each other. Naturally it is quite reasonable to assume these initial organisms will suffer from the exact same genetic deterioration process we observe in inbred populations today.

Mutations:The mounting scientific evidence supports that all genetic code is deteriorating over time. Mutations possessing both (a) a net beneficial effect and (b) an increase in the genetic code are extremely rare at best and perhaps nonexistent.

· Beneficial Mutations: Mutations possessing the characteristic of being beneficial are quite rare. As the quote from Dr. J. C. Stanford in my last post points out, on average thousands of damaging mutations occur for every one beneficial mutation.

· Mutations Representing an Increase in Information: Do any of these rare mutations that represent an increase in genetic information create a net increase in information? As Dr. J. C. Stanford says, on page 17 of his book ‘Genetic Entropy,’ “There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial, but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it…. Information consistently decreases.” Dr. Lee Spencer said, "In all the reading I’ve done in the life-science literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied in the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it." So it is highly questionable if the sorts of mutations required in abundance for macroevolution to occur even exist at all.

Limitation 1 of Natural Selection: In order to prevent extinction, natural selection can’t occur too rapidly. In general, less than one third of each generation can be selected for elimination in order to avoid extinction. Each human passes on about 100 or more mutations to the next generation. If we take a human population of 6 million people and assume that 1/3 of them don’t have children this will still result in an estimated 400 million mutations created per generation. If we consider two thirds of these mutations to be neutral and the other third harmful, the result is 133 billion new damaging mutations passed on per generation. These calculations summarize work done by Dr. J. C. Stanford, and the calculations are actually quite conservative. The rate at which natural selection can work is quite limited. Natural selection is incapable of keeping up with the high rate of damaging mutations as observed by science.

Limitation 2 of Natural Selection:Now let’s sprinkle a couple of miracle mutations into this population. Again these are mutations that are both beneficial and create an increase in information. Mutations can’t be selected individually by natural selection; rather, each organism is an inseparable package deal. In our example above each lucky lottery winner of a miracle mutation would also get approximately 33 negative mutations piled on that. It is incredibly unlikely that even a single cherry-picked specimen would receive a net increase in beneficial information through this process.

As Botanist Alexander Williams puts it, “Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction.” (https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end).

RationalMadman

10.04.2019 10:16PM

Con

I probably will lose this debate but at this point I have zero idea what Pro is arguing. Pro has seemingly given up debating that evolution can't happen with inbreeding's damage to genes being present.

The argument in general focuses on macroevolution and how over time a species should go extinct if it's too similar to other within it, genetically. I don't see anywhere that Pro attacks this.

In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection.
The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species? are related and gradually change over time.
Evolution relies on there being genetic variation? in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism.
Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.

- https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution

Nowhere in this is inbreeding's damage to genes incompatible.

Round 3

Lazarous

10.05.2019 05:12AM

Pro

The broader parameters of my position indirectly counter Con’s position. Inbreeding causes genetic deterioration within that population over time. This is empirical science. This raises two questions:

1) How could evolution have occurred considering that at one or more points the first heterosexual organisms would have to inbreed?

2) If smaller populations experience quick genetic deterioration why should we expect a larger population to do anything except slow this deterioration process?

In order for Con’s explanation to be tenable, the evidence needs to support that, only under specific circumstances, the genome of each creature deteriorates. The evidence I provided above shows that:

1) Empirical science clearly demonstrates that organisms in large populations also have a deteriorating genome over time.

2) Natural selection is utterly inadequate to save the day. Even under the most generous statistical models natural selection falls desperately short. Natural selection is simply incapable of removing negative mutations from a population at a high enough rate to protect the odd beneficial mutation.

3) In order for macroevolution to work, it is not enough for a mutation to be beneficial; these mutations must also result in a net gain in genetic information. The probability of such mutations occurring range from highly unlikely to nonexistent (evidence provided in my last argument). If all retained beneficial mutations result in no change or a decline in the quantity of genetic information, all organisms would experience a continual reduction in complexity. This is not the recipe required for molecules to man evolution.

This establishes that the problem of a deteriorating genome over time is not limited to inbred populations. This counters Con’s primary argument, since his position requires that the long term net deterioration of the genome be isolated to inbred populations.

Nothing in the biological definition Con provided identifies whether the organism becomes more complex or simpler over time. If by evolution Con means change, then yes, I do believe that the genome of organisms changes over time; however, empirical science does not support that these genetic changes will result in a net increase in genetic information over time. As stated earlier, a perpetual decline in genetic information will not result in macroevolution. Although not explicitly stated, this definition does imply that evolution is capable of adding information to the genome over time. Inbreeding and empirical science contradict this implication.

Again, there are two objections that inbreeding raises against macroevolution:

1) Why should we expect the first heterosexual organisms supposedly produced by evolution to avoid the genetic deterioration empirical science observes in inbred populations?

2) Since the genome deteriorates in smaller populations why would a larger populations serve to do anything but slow the rate of deterioration? This position is now supported with evidence that the phenomenon of genetic entropy affects all organisms not just the inbred populations.

RationalMadman

10.08.2019 05:12AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

Lazarous

10.10.2019 03:14AM

Pro

Considering that there is no further rebuttal, I rest my chase upon the weight of the evidence already presented.

RationalMadman

10.13.2019 02:49AM

Con

I fully explained. They mate with those on the end of the genetic spectrum of the species they evolved from. Their children then have cousins etc and can mate with second-cousins in the next generation so on and so forth, only one generation has to have proper incest going on.

crossed

09.30.2019 09:30PM

#34

"Contrary to what Dr Gingerich had imagined, there was no blowhole, there were no flippers (only hooves), and there was no whale neck (just a neck typical for land mammals). Even so, Dr Werner reveals that the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Natural History Museum in London have not stopped using the falsely-reconstructed skull that shows a blowhole (see figure 1)."

crossed

09.30.2019 09:28PM

#33

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_T-vNByT03qc%2FTRzkT1TTHfI%2FAAAAAAAAACk%2FmH4bU_OWMq0%2Fs320%2FHaeckels%252Bfetus.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 01:25PM

#32

“The reason why the whale fossil are fraud is because a scientist called them out.”

No: a creationist deliberately distorted and misrepresents the evidence. To try and convince the gullible.

“There model had a bunch of parts in which they did not discover yet. There was a blow whole flipper and other body parts even though no flipper or blowhole was found.”

The form is transitional because of key bones related to the ear and jaw that were like both undulates - and whales.

Whether an artist embellished what was found, to include elements that the complete skeleton did not have - does not change the fact the remains have features that are part ungulate - part whale: this is the dishonest omission made by creation.com

“They had bone parts even though they did not discover any bones. They had a couple bones and they drew an entire animal.”

Again - artists drew their impression of an animal : the scientist claimed the transitional form was transitional form as the bones (and subsequently more examples discovered) contained a mosaic of traits between ungulates and whales.

Secondly - this is again dishonesty trying to undersell what was found: stating it’s just a few bones completely ignores the fact that pathologists are able to tell whether a potion of femur found in the ground is human, what sex that human was and how old: bones can tell you a substantial amount, and it’s obvious when large portions of bone look like two different families of organism.

“Secondly Ramshutu claim on similarity is false They should have more similarity then given.”

Why? Because you want it to?

Transitional forms are when an animal that appears to be of one group acquires specific traits that are diagnostic of another. Whales evolved from ungulates; which means that - scientifically - a transitional whale can appear to be an ungulate - with a single trait that only whales have. That’s how transitional forms have.

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 01:10PM

#31

-->

@crossed

So despite your false claims to the contrary - this was most assuredly exposed by science - at the time.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Haekel.html

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 01:09PM

#30

And you’re pretty much spelling out why creation.com is completely dishonest.

Science test books, evolution and all literature teach that vertebrate embryos also through similar phases early on: a key example is that fish embryo develops neck ridges that subsequently develop into gills - mammals develop almost identical neck ridges that then develop into ears (among other things).

This is an unassailable fact demonstrated by embryo images, and photos, and is not once - not one single time - challenged by creation.com.

Instead of —showing— that the organisms don’t show the patterns of similarity evolution says they do, creation.com insinuates it ; by pointing out someone who embellished (he didn’t explicitly invent the whole image), to support his own pet theory.

They important thing is that the differences are not actually that far off from what embryos actually look like, and what other scientists drew - and certainly the photo images and molecular phylogeny demonstrate the common origins and the evolution principles involved better sources Han the original drawings ever could.

However - creation.com does bother to attempt to show embryos are dissimilar, or to use relevant context here - this website is interested only on attacking a scientific theory that shows the evidence is at odds with their religion - rather than being accurate or honest.

Hell, even the accusation of fraud is completely overstated; by sounding like the images are completely different, the deviations were subtle, some similarities embellished, and differences were ignored a nuance ignored by creation.com

Likewise, what’s also ignored or glossed over is the - fact - that Haeckel was discredited by scientists in the 1870s, the recapitulation theory was junked in favour of Baer - which is what we see in embryos today; and is a demonstration of how science is self correcting. William His was most instrumental, as was Rutimeyer - a zoologist - who examined Haekels work

crossed

09.30.2019 03:23AM

#29

-->

@Ramshutu

The reason why the whale fossil are fraud is because a scientist called them out. There model had a bunch of parts in which they did not discover yet. There was a blow whole flipper and other body parts even though no flipper or blowhole was found. They had bone parts even though they did not discover any bones.

They had a couple bones and they drew an entire animal. Secondly Ramshutu claim on similarity is false They should have more similarity then given.

crossed

09.30.2019 03:12AM

#28

Firstly The reason why we know Mr heckles was a fraud is because thanks to hospitals we can see an embryo if you just get a girl pregnant and take her to the hospital. Secondly 99 percent of scientist lied about this. It took someone to leak real photo of the embryo to prove it false. out of all the scientis only 1 or 2 were truth

"Despite the controversy, textbook authors and teachers of evolutionary theory keep on using these diagrams, or versions of them,3 in order to convince students of evolutionary truth, even in the 21st century!4 In 1997, a ‘bomb’ exploded in the face of all those evolutionists who so fondly kept on using this evolutionary ‘icon’, when embryologist (and evolutionist) Dr Michael K. Richardson and his colleagues published a variety of real photographs of the relevant embryos.5 These drawings of Haeckel were later compared directly to the actual photos, and they were found to be far more different than everybody even thought. Richardson also published photographs of species additional to those which appeared in Haeckel’s popular embryo plates. This showed that Haeckel conveniently used those which tended to look more similar, while ignoring those which were different."

Heckles drawings were frauded by other scientist to spread the evolution stuff. Out of all the scientist only a couple were truthful. They have so many lies they are worst then politician. You know how they say never trust a politician. There may be some good ones. But the reason why you don't trust them is because most of them lie. Same with evolution scientist. I used the Hitler card because liberals use it all the time. Everything i said was true though.

Google image dr heckles drawing then google image human embryo
https://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven
https://www.mamapedia.com/article/how-early-can-an-embryo-be-seen-in-an-ultrasound

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 02:53AM

#27

-->

@crossed

Moving on - the whale claims are dishonesyz

Pakicetus Is not a whale, it is a transitional form. This means it has traits of an ancestral species with some additional traits of a descendent species without being that species. The article implies it cannot be a transitional form because it has traits dissimilar towhales: this is a dishonest misrepresentation of what a transitional form is.

Reality 5: creation 0.

It also claims that the artists impressions and artistic reconstructions made by artists are from the scientists and are wholly presumed to be accurate and peddled by science to misrepresent the data / this is just made up nonsense. The reality is artists often get the science wrong - as they are artists.

Reality 6: creation 0.

Also Pakicetus does actually have a sigmoid process / despite assertions to the contrary.

http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/cetartiodactyla/protocetidae.html

There are also plate features - as this species is transitional, it has a mixture of traits.

Reality 7: creation 0.

This is exactly how creation.com dishonestly misrepresent the data. They use simplistic pseudoscience that completely fail to understand the science and key data - omitting the context and key information, such as what a transitional form means, what it must have and what it can’t have; oversell errors, and undersell accuracy.

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 02:30AM

#26

-->

@crossed

So let’s start out with some basic logic.

Evolution is either an accurate description of life, or it isn’t. What Hitler believed, or didn’t, what he misrepresented or didn’t; cannot have any impact or influence on whether evolution is accurate or not.

This is an example of an appeal to emotion; trying to get you to dislike evolution due to what a psychopathic dictator believed - this is a pretty dishonest and completely unscientific premise, and has no impact on the validity of evolution. The fact that it is included in the website shows that the purpose of the site is to attack evolution, not to obtain clear facts about reality.

Reality/science 1: creation.com: 0.

Hitler also said this about evolution: “nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state” - it doesn’t appear as if he believed in evolution.

Reality 2: creation.com: 0

Secondly: Heckles drawings were discovered as false by scientists. Scientists confirm and double check others work, and given that they discovered the fraud demonstrates that they are interested in what is accurate rather than what is convenient. This key omission from creation.com is dishonest - as it paints science as fraudulent - rather than the reality, that science roots out fraud.

Reality 3: creation.com: 0

Thirdly : Hackles fakery wasn’t done to prove evolution - it was to provide evidence for his own theory that embryos develop progressively through their evolutionary history: recapitulation theory. This theory isn’t correct, and has known not to be correct since actual embryos were studied by other people. But saying this, embryology does show key similarities that support evolution - this is why creation.com shows no images of “real embryos” that differ from what any textbook shows - they simply imply that the modern view of embry

Reality 4: creation.com: 0

crossed

09.30.2019 01:07AM

#25

-->

@Ramshutu

If we are talking about which is more reliable. Creation.com wins by a landslide.

Hitlers idea's were influenced by Spencer and heckles fraud. Remember heckle went out of his way to lie about and create false embryo drawings And he actively tried to hide it.Evolution is why Hitler thought tall blond males were genetically superior to other races.He tried to kill out other races
https://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust

Evolution today still do this stuff. The fake whale fossils etc

https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Creation.com is more reliable because they do not fake bones and such coff coff lucy.

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 01:03AM

#24

-->

@Lazarous

All humans are biased, the scientific community, including evolutionary biologists, frequently and repeatedly challenge orthodoxy, do not hold any premises as sacrosanct, and evolution as we know it today has changed substantially over the last 150 years as new data and information has been discovered.

So in this respect, they are far less biased than creation.com - as they do not hold key premises sacred.

Lazarous

09.30.2019 12:19AM

#23

-->

@Ramshutu

You seem to think that evolutionists don't have bias. This is a blatantly false premise. Heathenism has popularized the idea of evolution; because, if there is no God then I am not accountable to him. This means I can do whatever I want. The agenda here is clear.

I have examined the evidence and will continue to do so. The pattern that is emerging is not the one you claim.

Ramshutu

09.30.2019 12:04AM

#22

-->

@Lazarous

I have given you an explicit, demonstrable reason as to why their website is biased: that they trying to find evidence to fit their conclusion rather than the other way around.

What you’re doing, is now using vague, unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of bias to claim I’m just as bad. If you have specific reason for claiming I’m biased, go ahead: but as I’ve explained - there is genuine reason to doubt their Claims.

Secondly, and importantly: you can use cold hard facts to refute their arguments, and there are multiple websites dedicated to doing just that. What happens, is that you should explore and independently validate examples one after another until you a pattern develops - that each link misrepresents or distorts the data. However, what invariably happens, is that those who view the site will continue to believe it unless every link is disproven.

Lazarous

09.29.2019 11:31PM

#21

-->

@Ramshutu

The bias exhibited through the atheistic scientific community is just as prevalent if not more so. You are guilty of the very bias you accuse this website of possessing. If they cheery picked their data then it should be easy to demonstrate this with cold hard facts. Your method of dismissal implies that you can't dismiss their claims scientifically, and therefore debase methods must be employed. As it turns out, this website frequently sites scientific studies performed by evolutionists. The evidence is not bias. Your objection is unscientific by design.

Lazarous

09.29.2019 11:24PM

#20

-->

@RationalMadman

Since you have accepted the debate RationalMadman, I am not going to debate you in the comments. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I am waiting for your developed argument on the debate itself. We can discuss our positions and objections there.

Ramshutu

09.29.2019 11:20PM

#19

-->

@Lazarous

Genuine scientific websites, and the scientific process requires you to draw a conclusion based on the evidence: creation.com, as mentioned, rejects any other conclusion and the goal is simply to make the facts fit their assumes conclusion.

That is not scientific; that’s apologetics.

Scientific truth is not about finding evidence that agrees with you - but searching for evidence that disagrees with you very hard and not finding any. Creation.com is shoddy science as conclusions are incomplete, unexplored, and are mostly attempts to distort or misrepresent evidence in order to arrive at their preferred conclusion with almost no focus on falsification.

As a result of all of this, and the fact that the affirmation of faith basically states up front shows this is not a credible source, and is inherently unscientific by design.

Lazarous

09.29.2019 11:04PM

#18

-->

@Ramshutu

This website bases its evidence upon the weight of science, not bias. You are saying: don't use science because someone who is not an evolutionist is using it. First of all, since this websites scientists base their conclusions on science, the appropriate way to counter such evidence would be with science. Their scientific clams can be verified by science from secular sources. Second, this website is developed and managed by well accredited scientists who are usually speaking within their field of study. To reject this website on such a flimsy argument shows blatant bias. Rather than using a fallacy structure to defame a website, back your case with cold hard evidence. This line of reasoning is akin to me saying 'you’re clearly bios because you are an atheist,' With this statement, I just summarily dismissed all of your evidence without actually possessing any of my own.

Ramshutu

09.29.2019 06:36PM

#17

-->

@Lazarous

I would recommend not using a website that explicitly claims it will not change it’s mind no matter what the facts are as a valid quasi scientific source - the website explicitly states it is inherently biased - and thus it’s conclusions cannot be trusted.

Lazarous

09.29.2019 03:39AM

#16

-->

@crossed

I appreciate your assistance on this. I think that my opponent and I would both agree that negative mutations will cause some organisms to struggle and even go extinct. Where we disagree is the extent to which this is true. I would encourage you to read this article. I think you will find it enlightening as to just how deep my position goes:
https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis

I always welcome constructive criticism. And no, any wise guy comments I get to this do not count as constructive.

crossed

09.28.2019 11:05PM

#15

Canine purebreds threatened by infertility.
inbreeding caused infertility
http://www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/Canine-Infertility-Disease_Andrews-1011.asp

The only ones immune to inbreeding are the Rothchilds

crossed

09.28.2019 11:02PM

#14

Gene mutation leads to infertility not evolution

crossed

09.28.2019 11:00PM

#13

I am pretty sure after a couple generations of inbreeding the offspring comes out infertile. Because mutations cause infertility

crossed

09.28.2019 10:11PM

#12

-->

@Lazarous

If i were you i would focus on how people who mutate to much can not breed. It is why a mule can not breed. Plus GMO food. Plus gene mutation leads to infertility
https://mthfrgenehealth.com/miscarriage-infertility-is-mthfr-the-real-problem/

RationalMadman

09.28.2019 09:05PM

#11

-->

@Lazarous

I am not simply going to say 'duh, it happened anyway.' I promise you that it's due to this that the intermediary species died out. This supports macroevolution, it's a key ingredient in the theory.

Lazarous

09.28.2019 07:40PM

#10

-->

@dustryder

I understand the premise of your conjecture. Keep in mind that thus far we have only been discussing the definitions not whether they represent something that is tenable or not.

If the net long term affect of mutations results in a build up in genetic code, macro evolution is true.

If a net loss in genetic information over time is true then genetic entropy is true.

Speciation, in and of itself, is simply a selection process (sometimes random sometimes determined by natural selection) by which genetic code is passed on or not passed on. This process, in and of its self, does not encompass mutations (even though mutations do happen). This process, by its self, will result in no net change in genetic information at best and great loss in genetic information at worst.

After applying the genetic change caused by genetic entropy or macroevolutions with speciation we will gain an understanding of whether genetics are building up or in perpetual decline.

dustryder

09.28.2019 07:09PM

-->

@Lazarous

1) You seem to be fundamentally missing the point that these inherited traits are typically mutations that have persisted and been selected for in the population over time.

2) Sure. But the loss of a particular hair gene is not a sufficient change for speciation as this change is still reflected in the overall dog gene pool. In that particular local population you've mentioned there would have to be a succession of mutations that have been selected for which are not reflected in the overall dog gene pool. And this would lead to speciation.

3) If you simply mean that the offspring did not receive the gene for longhair in that particular group, you are certainly correct. However this does not change the gene pool, as these animals are still dogs and both the genes for long hair and short hair remain in the gene pool for dogs.

4) Boxers aren't a species. When boxers are bred with a long-haired dog variety, long-haired puppies will result

Lazarous

09.28.2019 04:47PM

-->

@dustryder

1) You are appealing to a common evolutionary argument to confuse the issue through trying to hash everything into one definition. In reality, we do see how speciation uses natural selection to select certain inherited traits at the expense of losing other traits. This selection process simply removes certain genetic traits from a population (information is lost). An extreme example of this is when breeders breed dogs. We can also observe this in indigenous populations.
2) My example used one dog to provide a simple illustration, and I expanded that explanation to show how a short hair gene could be naturally selected within a regional god population.
3) The gene pool for the dog population did change in my example. The gene for short hair was naturally selected and therefore the long hair gene was lost.
4) The boxer when bred with other boxers will not have long hair. The long hair gene has been lost. We do observe loss of genetic information here and this is not due to a mutation.

dustryder

09.28.2019 08:15AM

-->

@Lazarous

A species can be defined as a group of individuals that can interbreed. Hence speciation occurs when two groups of individuals have a sufficient number of genetic variation such that they can no longer interbreed and become distinct species in their own rights. This genetic variation is caused by successive generations of populations in which a selection of mutations have persisted, typically by natural selection.

The example you gave cannot be sufficiently be described as speciation. This is for several reasons. One, because speciation is predicated on evolution which occurs over time. Two, because speciation occurs over a group of individuals and not just a single pair of dogs. Three, because the gene pool for the dog species has not changed. Four, because genes related to hair are typically passed on recessively regardless of whether they are actually expressed in the phenotype.

Lazarous

09.28.2019 05:58AM

dustryer & That1User

Microevolution/Speciation: Each organism has two sets of genetic code; one from each parent. Speciation occurs when certain genetic traits are not passed on to the next generation. For example, two dogs possessing one long hair gene and one short hair gene respectively have a child who receives the short hair gene from each parent. That offspring has lost the genetic code for long hair. This is microevolution/speciation. Clearly, no mutations occurred in this example and genetic information was lost. This process will never result in macroevolution since the best possible outcome is that all the original genetic code continues to be passed on through generations. If these dogs lived in a hot climate natural selection would select the short haired dogs and the long hair gene could possibly be completely lost in the local dog population. Mutations and macroevolution have nothing to do with the premise of speciation.

dustryder

09.27.2019 10:57AM

-->

@Lazarous

Mutations are small changes in the genetic code. Evolution occurs when many mutations are accumulated within a population over time. Speciation is just the formation of new species which is driven by evolution. Hence mutations cause speciation via evolution

That1User

09.27.2019 06:51AM

-->

@Lazarous

"These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however." A mutation is any change in the genetic code, even loss of genetic code

RationalMadman

09.27.2019 06:08AM

-->

@Lazarous

Is it actually due to this that the intermediary species die out, this is actually the very thing needed to debunk creationists.

Lazarous

09.27.2019 05:03AM

-->

@That1User

Actually speciation has nothing to do with mutations.

Speciation refers to the narrowing of genetic traits in certain populations resulting in creatures that appear unique. These creatures have simply lost the genetic code for traits their parent’s original possessed however. To put it another way, these organisms simply didn’t get a particular genetic trait passed on thorough the generations; therefore the code for that particular trait has been lost.

Mutations, on the other hand, refer to the net effect of damage and any failed attempts at repair of the genetic code in an organism. Genetic Entropy and the conjectures required for evolution to work are the terms that refer to mutations.

That1User

09.27.2019 04:25AM

-->

@Lazarous

"Microevolution/Speciation (for purpose of this debate I will use the term speciation): The process by which animals pass on or fail to pass on genetic traits to their offspring...This process never results in new genetic information but frequently results in loss of genetic information. For example, dogs with short hair genes in a cold climate are likely to freeze to death resulting in only the dogs with long hair genes remaining. Rather than gaining new genetic code for log hair this dog population has lost the genes required for short hair. Mutations good or bad do not fall under this definition." This loss of genetic information from the parents to their offspring is a mutation. A mutation is just a genetic change.

Ramshutu

10.25.2019 03:44AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro introduces the concept of genetic entropy; and elaborates that’s the issue with Evolution is that it introduces so many negative or deleterious mutations that must necessarily accumulate in populations.

Cons response was mostly to simply ignore the entire thesis offered by saying it’s not a problem. Without a rebuttal that explains why pros premise is wrong, or without a source to confirm the limited impact of mutations - the point is unrefuted. The remainder of cons first round is mostly just an explanation of evolution - rather than specifically addressing the premise. Even if I accept cons explanation as true - the detail pro gave is unrefuted.

Pro goes on to elaborate in the next round: Specifically going into detail by explaining that seed populations would be subject to massive inbreeding, the sharing of damaged gene copies to the point of genetic deterioration - and pro explains the premise of this pretty well. Pro explains the premise of how natural selection cannot weed out deleterious mutations, which allow the negative mutations to accumulate over time. Most of this is a restatement of the round 1 argument, but dives into much more detail of the specific mechanics.

Cons R2 again ignores this whole argument from pro.

Pro repeats the claims about genetic deterioration venturing into the position of genetic information ; to be followed up with con forfeiting and then claiming victory in the last round - claiming that he had addressed the key point.

Pros main thesis is wholly unaddressed. Con has to defend the issues of genetic deterioration that were well explained - imo this is a low bar as con could have sourced the many examples of organisms not deteriorating over time today; or provided an explanation of why such deterioration doesn’t actually occur.

Given that pros case is wholly unaddressed other than a simple throwaway unsourced denial in R1 by con - arguments to pro:

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Sources: no one is ever going to earn a source point from me citing creation.com. Ever; the source is too biased.