There was a prior, fundamental action, direction, and purpose in the creation of human beings.

1. The predecessors of humans are not monkeys.

2. When we read about "The Origin of the Species" by Darwin, we find that he justified the fact with the reasoning that historically one power conquers the world and forms a contemporary cultural sphere through the so called evolutionary principle that "the weak fall prey to the strong" and only the best of the best will continue to exist. So, what is the origin of the species? When we consider whether God exists or not, and if we consider, from today's philosophical viewpoint, the question of which came first -- consciousness or being (thought) -- there arise some big questions and big problems. What is the origin of man? Is the origin of humans from the monkey, or some other starting point? This kind of fundamental problem has to be solved and will hopefully be solved in this debate. :)

3. How did animals come to be before they became human? How did this world come about? How did all of this exist without being created? The human bodies are a place of mystery, so mysterious, in fact, that millions of medical practitioners and doctors of that sort still cannot figure it out completely. One can only answer the question of "How did your body come to be" with the answer of "It just came to be." Nature in itself is very scientific. Nothing could come about without a cause. In order for a being such as amoeba to move to a higher level, to adapt to the theory of evolution, while the amoeba engages in production, energy must be added, That energy is a plus, and the amoeba themselves cannot generate this plus power. They do not have that ability to add energy. In order to be moved to a higher level, greater energy must be added. If a common person were to engage with Mike Tyson in a boxing match would they be able to handle the man? In order to successfully handle him, they would need more energy, otherwise, they would not be able to pass onto that plane. Can a common person suddenly be able to take care of Tyson with sudden energy gained through a mutation? It would only be possible through some sort of injection, drugs, etc. so that they (the common person) can have the necessary dynamic energy. The logical conclusion to come from this scenario would be that myself cannot simply advance myself. I cannot generate that energy. 

4. Human life has an objective cause like any other life form that exists in our vast universe. Life forms have been created through the model of man. Evolution, is merely the viewpoint based on the outcome. Man is a purposeful being who was bound to be created from the beginning. From things as small as microorganisms,to higher animals, we were all created through a principled procedure. 

I thank my opponent for this debate, I hop pro we can have a good discussion about this! I will not go into great technical detail until I have seen my opponents rebuttal, and I will leave my own major rebuttals to the next round: whilst giving a broad outline of my position.

0.) definitions, meaning and burden of the resolution.

Whilst the phrasing of resolution has much to it, the core of this debate all boils down to intent.

The claim that there a prior action, direction and purpose to our creation strongly infers and implies that our existence owes itself to some intentional act or desire on the part of some external entity.

That’s what my opponent needs to be able to show: that there is an external purpose and meaning, that humans exist due to some external intention.

This leads to our ability to specify where the burden should lie: If my opponent can clearly outline positive evidence for his position to show humans are intended to be, he can prove his position. 

As the counter to this position is an absence of intent and absence of purpose, all my arguments must necessarily revolve around refuting claims that we have intent and purpose to our existence. This means that my opponent necessarily carries the burden of proof:

If there is no evidence of intent or purpose, or the evidence for intent and purpose is refuted - the resolution is negated.

1.) Humans weren’t “created”

Human beings, as species originated over time, having evolved from species that preceded us. We are provably related to our cousin species such as Chimpanzees; and we can confirm through a variety of different evidences. Our morphology is nearly identical[1], our DNA are closely related so much so that the difference between a human and a chimp is only about 10-40 times greater than between two average humans (depending on how you measure it) [2]; we have two Chimp chromosomes fused together[3], and have common traits and atavisms such as individuals occasionally being born with tails[4]. We can even isolate some differences between humans to the specific gene levels - the shape of our jaws being different due to a defect in the regulation genes PAX3/PAX5 [5].

We can trace human evolution through a series of progressively more human like apes over the last few millions years including a plethora of intermediate forms.[6]

None of these factual discoveries (most of which were specific predictions of evolution), need to be true if Humans did not evolve, but were created : all of them necessarily have to be true for evolution to be true.

2.) Humans weren’t indirectly created either.

There is much left to be discovered about the specifics of Evolution, but with the wealth of different transitional forms we know of between most of the major groups of animals: fish to amphibians [7], reptiles to mammals[8], reptiles to dinosaurs to birds[9]: all validated by subsequent genetic discoveries and analysis that demonstrates that all life shares a common ancestor.[10]

As a result, no organism we know of can be meaningfully assumed to have been “created” in any shape or form.

There is evidence and chemistry to suggest that the existence of life itself may simply the result of chemical processes acting over geological timescales.

The existence of our planet, sun and galaxy itself, appears is mostly a product of gravity and quantum physics.[11]

While we don’t know everything about the universe by any means; the evidence we have starkly points to our existence being the lucky, and quirky confluence of physical laws, rather than some divine or philosophical creation event.

3.) There appears to be no direction or purpose to our existence

Following on from (2) - While human beings are “special” - to the extent they are the self aware species of Ape to which you and I both belong, observations and understanding of the universe appears to show that we are merely an unintentional coincidence of physical laws with no meaning or inherent value outside what we give ourselves.

We appear owe our existence to the many events in earth’s history, prior supernovae that created the chemical elements that comprise our body, the earth being at the right distance from the sun, the properties of chemistry, the make up of the earth, a few errant asteroids to wipe out the dinosaurs. 

None of these appear to owe themselves to more than simple coincidence, or the inevitable consequences of the laws of physics.

One may say that the laws of physics themselves imply some sort of motivated purpose.

This is obviously flawed - the universe is not configured for us. The overwhelming majority of the universe is completely uninhabitable. We can never visit the majority of the universe as we can never expect to reach it, the universe appears in an inexorable march to a heat death where nothing will be able to survive.

Even on earth. We cannot live within the majority of the earth’s volume; only a thin 8km sliver of a 24000 mile circumference planet. Outside of which there is no known place within 24 trillion miles where there is even a theoretically possible location where a human can survive.

It is repleat with techtonics to wipe us out with volcanos and Tsunamis; viruses and bacteria to make us sick and kill us. We could be ended by asteroids, or solar flares - or just the life cycle of the star around which we live.[12]

There is nothing here that gives the appearance that we are more than a fluke, and mere blip arising from the laws of physics. 

While it is not pleasant to realize: there is no meaning or purpose or direction to our existence. 

We exist because and in spite of the universe we live. The chance confluence of the laws of physics, we are not intended, we simply are.

Conclusion:

As a result of the above point: the resolution is clearly negated. We were not created, directly or indirectly, there is no purpose and no direction to our existence.

Relax and enjoy life!

Sources:

[1] https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/the-history-of-our-tribe-hominini/chapter/primate-classification/ (ape classification)
[2] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
[3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380406/
[5] https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/09/scientists-home-in-on-origin-of-human-chimpanzee-facial.html
[6] http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species
[7] https://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/kitzmiller-v-dover
[8] https://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html
[9] https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
[10] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/
[11] http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Au06/Unit4/
[12] https://darkartsastro.ca/the-universe-wants-to-kill-us/

From what I can understand from your arguments, this is another scenario, albeit a rather more complex of "One can only answer the question of 'How did your body come to be' with the answer of 'It just came to be.'"

Let us compare the two beings, humans and monkeys. How does a monkey live? They simply make noise, eat, sleep, and reproduce. Are these monkeys shedding tears because of the loss of a mother of a father? Would they shed tears if they were to lose a brother or sister? The point I am making is humans and monkeys are fundamentally different.  Humans will cry if they lose a loved one; they will get together and discuss the actions of their ancestors and talk about whether there is a God or not. Can monkeys think about the world that may come after death, or other names like heaven and spiritual world? Humans are presumed to live centering on others and not centering upon themselves. They hope and live centered on a higher ideal. They do not hope and live on a lower ideal as the dimension is completely different! Humans upon creation have been worshiping Him or God. There are no tribes that do not worship God. They have been contemplating about God and they have been thinking how to make the universe better. Can a monkey think this with their brain? Monkeys cannot possibly achieve this even going through thousands of steps. How could this kind of great energy content enter into monkeys? It simply does not make sense. 

Can humans come from material? Does material have this kind of thought? No matter how much human ability one may have, everyone has a vision of harmony. The material within itself does not possess this ability. The Marxist dialect maintains that all material beings, including every part of the existing world is always developing and changing.[1] But to a higher ideal? A mind that is reaching after higher standards--is that changing and developing? Can this initial character be changing and developing within the past few days, the present days or many hundreds, or thousands of years into the future? Do you think it will change? One can even presume to speak of animals and claim that a monkey is a higher animal but can a monkey have this kind of thought?

For the past thousands, millions, actually hundreds of millions of years, has any energy been added to monkeys? Can a monkey have this kind of original character? We can logically conclude that unlike the monkey, an original, vast energy has been given to the human. The reason why an unchanging element, not changeable element, has been added into humans, is so they can become a substantial object to the unchanging Subject. This logic is correct! We have that kind of original character, which means that there must be a Subjective real being who also has that kind of original character. 

And thus, we can know the concept of an object and subject. Take for example me. I am in an objective relationship to the Subject and since that Subject has established that kind of original character, would this be for Himself, or would it be for the sake of a higher ideal? We can come to the conclusion that He invested whilst hoping for a higher level.

I can go on, but I am curious to what you have to say about this matter. In the next argument, I will state all of my points and completely summarize my thinking and final statement on this matter. Happy debating! :)

Sources:

[1] https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/new-zealand/nunes-marx-mao/nunes-dialectical.pdf

Also below, is the source I used for referencing Darwin and his theory in my opening remark for Round 1 

Evolution of Man

To start off with, in my opening round: the origin and evolution of human beings were covered with substantial Evidence.

We know humans evolved from other apes, we can see the progression of forms  in the fossil records, and these conclusions are corroborated by evidence from discovered predicted transitional forms, and genetic evidence: this was mostly covered in my previous round. 

This covers the majority of my opponents first round: Humans clearly evolved from some simian ancestor (IE: Monkeys), there is clear evidence that shows we evolved, and there is no evidence to indicate any of this or the events preceding it were purposeful or intentional.

My opponent is free to offer explanations as to specifically what part of the evolution of life on the planet is objectionable, or to offer which aspect of my explanation he challenge.

Without that, I extend all these arguments to the next  round:

Humans evolved; there is no evidence of any purpose or creation event.

This clearly refutes the resolution. 

Pros case:

It’s hard to unpack pros position - to work out what his specific issue with evolution and a naturalistic explanation of humanity is. I will try and unpack the overall points one by one.

1.) Darwinism is based on flawed social reasoning 

Darwinism is not evolution, and hasn’t been since the 1900s. Evolution is now the modern evolutionary synthesis, and comprises no just natural and sexual selection (Darwin), but population genetics, molecular biology, mendelivian inheritance, genetics, phylogeny and evolutionary development.

Pros objection to how Darwinism came about is the “genetic fallacy”, Evolution is validated, tested and confirmed accurate - and is no less accurate if pro objects to how the theory came about or not.

2.) Rejection of Evolution.

In addition, pro appears to reject evolution summarily and without good reason. The evidence in support for evolution provided in round1 covers this point.

3.) Energy

It’s not entirely clear what my opponent is attempting to argue here. It seems that he is pointing out that for animals to evolve they require additional energy. What is odd is the way this is described.

We get our physical energy from food, and plants get this from the sun. That is effectively where all the energy we have comes from.

Getting extra energy is not a problem in this regard - unless it is not available in the environment. Contrary to what is intimated by my opponent, being stronger, faster, or to have higher endurance is often down to genetic mutations:

ACTN3 and ACE genes, for example, have an influence of the type of muscle fibres your body produces and athletic performance. Indeed, genetic mutations and differences account for 30-80% of differences in two individuals athletic ability.[1]

So Genes can definitely make you unable to complete with Mike Tyson. The energy is just down to how much food you eat beforehand.

So this clearly shows pros objection to evolution is untrue and unfounded.

4.) Argument from Ignorance

Pro does not seem to offer any positive argument in support of humans either being created purposefully , or being intended. The argument seems to be boiling down to an argument from ignorance: that humans are complex, that aspects of them are not understood - therefore they were created. 

This is a poor argument and one akin to the God of the gaps - God invented to explain that which is not currently explained. Given the level of knowledge about human biology, evolution and the universe - these gaps keep getting smaller with time.

5.) Humans are fundamentally different from Apes

This is untrue. You and I are different. We are not fundamentally different. Humans and chimps are about 10-40 times more different than you and I as shown in R1.

The difference is not fundamental. 

Chimpanzees are not quite as intelligent, have slightly different shapes, and not as much complexity in their language as we do. That is not a fundamental difference.

Contrary to my opponents statement: Primates have indeed been observed mourning for goes over the death of a loved one. Showing they understand the concept and nature of death.

They have been observed going to war over long periods of time - mimicking human behaviour.[3].

They even have been observed with their own religious ceremonies - seeking to treat a particular tree as “holy”[4]

This demonstrates, measurably, that chimps and primates are incredibly close - affirming that we are very similar and evolutionarily related.

Whether they have a higher understanding of nature - is largely unknown - and unknowable. We can’t communicate well with primates in detail, so we cannot know what they believe. This extends to pro too - pro offers no evidence for how he is so certain about what Primates feel and what they believe.

6.) Can Humans come from the material?

Pro asks whether humans can come from the material. Pro asks whether we can be philosophical or “strive for higher ideals”, though it is not fully clear what means. 

Pro offers no positive evidence for his position - and relies on what appears to be an argument from ignorance again - there is no explanation for how aspects of humanity can arise - therefore God.

This is compounded by the fact there is an well evidenced explanation of how humans came from the material, and compounded by the fact that primates exhibit much of this similar “higher behaviour”.

7.) Humans have additional energy.

In the final part of his argument; pro states that energy needs to have been added to chimps to make humans.

Pro has no scientific basis for this, and it appears this is his own arbitrary conjecture. Pro needs to offer support for his position instead of asserting that such energy exists.

Fundamentally, pro is asking whether any “energy” was added to monkeys. No. Nor does there need to be other than via food.

Humans evolved a dissimilar shaped face, standing up right, loss of hair, and improved intelligence from apes over a period of millions of years.

The evidence indicates this occurred through a long period of evolution where human brains grew, they began standing upright - factors that all appear due to genetic mutations that compiled over time to change the way humans developed.

No additional energy is needed.

Conclusion:

I have clearly shown that humans evolved, and that there is evidence of any purpose or cleat direction in our existence

This is all unchallenged by pro, and I extend it.

Pro has largely made an argument from ignorance - asking a series of questions that he feels can’t be answered by material explanations - then using this an argument to support the idea of Gods

Pro has not offered any argument to positive support the resolution.

Sources:


[1]https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/athleticperformance
[2]http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160616-monkeys-grieve-when-their-friends-die
[3] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229682-600-only-known-chimp-war-reveals-how-societies-splinter/
[4] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079630-what-do-chimp-temples-tell-us-about-the-evolution-of-religion/

So, with my opponents forfeit. I will summarize the position.

1.) Resolution.

Pro must show that humans were created, and that this creation was intentional.

Pro does not show this; they neither offer any positive evidence that Humans were created. Nor that this was intentional. As shown, pro only offers doubt on the evolutionary background of humans.

2.) Humans weren’t created directly or indirectly.

I have provided evidence - that was unchallenged - that humans have evolved from apes, and that there appears to be no evidence of creation either directly or indirectly.

Pro argues apes are dissimilar - and claims this is because apes do not mourn or have religion: I presented evidence that both those claims are false.

3.) There does not seem to be any purpose or direction

This was unchallenged by pro.

Conclusion:

Pro offers no real support for the resolution. While pro asked incredulous questions to cast doubt on evolution - he offered no argument or evidence to directly support his claims. He made a tacit argument from energy that made little sense and was refuted.

As a result: I have clearly shown my burden of proof by providing evidence that Humans weren’t created and have no purpose. 

As pro has not addressed this. The resolution is clearly negated.