Very firey debate, but I'm going to be a man here and give a couple of goal posts, but first let me explain my position. I actually believe Evolution happens, it's an inescapable fact, but I don't believe in Darwinism, which is that it is the origin of all species, by intelligent design or not. I'm sort of a god of the gaps person, but whilst I can agree with the concept of speciation occurring to to produce massive diversification such as those theorised in Horse evolution. I don't believe that it can produce effects to the degree of developing new organs, limbs or entirely new taxonomic classes and orders. I simply do not see the evidence to support this, but please prove me wrong. I'm a harsh, stern debator, but I will always accept logical defeat.

Here are my goal posts:

I simply want a theory proposed wherein which organs such as the liver, heart and lungs can evolve. It must withstand criticism and also must have physical evidences to prove that this has happened before-hand.

I would also like something similar to show the development of limbs.

Furthermore I would like theories and examples that explain why we are symmetrical beings, whilst being asymmetrical inside. If mutations are anomalous, how do they achieve symmetry.

Lastly, I would like a believable round up of how sex could evolve.


If these points are proved to a reasonable degree (or even 3 of them) I'll admit defeat. Even if I arrogantly refuse to continue disbelieving the theory lol. Hey... we all have emotions.

Originally Posted by Inertia

Very firey debate, but I'm going to be a man here and give a couple of goal posts, but first let me explain my position. I actually believe Evolution happens, it's an inescapable fact, but I don't believe in Darwinism, which is that it is the origin of all species, by intelligent design or not. I'm sort of a god of the gaps person, but whilst I can agree with the concept of speciation occurring to to produce massive diversification such as those theorised in Horse evolution. I don't believe that it can produce effects to the degree of developing new organs, limbs or entirely new taxonomic classes and orders. I simply do not see the evidence to support this, but please prove me wrong. I'm a harsh, stern debator, but I will always accept logical defeat.

Here are my goal posts:

I simply want a theory proposed wherein which organs such as the liver, heart and lungs can evolve. It must withstand criticism and also must have physical evidences to prove that this has happened before-hand.

I would also like something similar to show the development of limbs.

Furthermore I would like theories and examples that explain why we are symmetrical beings, whilst being asymmetrical inside. If mutations are anomalous, how do they achieve symmetry.

Lastly, I would like a believable round up of how sex could evolve.


If these points are proved to a reasonable degree (or even 3 of them) I'll admit defeat. Even if I arrogantly refuse to continue disbelieving the theory lol. Hey... we all have emotions.

You are a very hard person to debate with, I will admit (LOL) (: Please be easy on me because I am a 16 year old sophomore taking a Biology class and we actually just got done studying the theory of evolution.

Here is what I learned:

Before us (you may know already) there were the apes. Well, I believe that this was bullcrap that we evolved from them. I do believe that we have a gene of theirs though, which might give people the mis-understanding that we evolved from them as a whole. Actually, the theory goes that we evolved from the Ardipithicus ramidus which lived 4 to 5 million years ago, then the Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago, Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago, Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago, Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago, Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago, Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago, Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago, Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago, Homo sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present. The liver, heart, etc. Think of the early human as... well... a human, I suppose. We never really evolved internally (I don't think), just to adapt to a new environment.

Here is some more information if you havn't read already: Human Evolution

Originally Posted by Inertia

Very firey debate, but I'm going to be a man here and give a couple of goal posts, but first let me explain my position. I actually believe Evolution happens, it's an inescapable fact, but I don't believe in Darwinism, which is that it is the origin of all species, by intelligent design or not. I'm sort of a god of the gaps person, but whilst I can agree with the concept of speciation occurring to to produce massive diversification such as those theorised in Horse evolution. I don't believe that it can produce effects to the degree of developing new organs, limbs or entirely new taxonomic classes and orders. I simply do not see the evidence to support this, but please prove me wrong. I'm a harsh, stern debator, but I will always accept logical defeat.

Here are my goal posts:

I simply want a theory proposed wherein which organs such as the liver, heart and lungs can evolve. It must withstand criticism and also must have physical evidences to prove that this has happened before-hand.

I would also like something similar to show the development of limbs.

Furthermore I would like theories and examples that explain why we are symmetrical beings, whilst being asymmetrical inside. If mutations are anomalous, how do they achieve symmetry.

Lastly, I would like a believable round up of how sex could evolve.


If these points are proved to a reasonable degree (or even 3 of them) I'll admit defeat. Even if I arrogantly refuse to continue disbelieving the theory lol. Hey... we all have emotions.

Alixness is right, you are a tough one crack!

We are multi-celled creatures. We were not always so. At one point, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy back when, we were single celled organisms. About 12 million years ago, the first human-ape ancestors were evolved. We evolve (very slowly) to survive. Our main goal, and this is of any organism, is to reproduce and carry on our genetics. No one is sure how, or even why, the first multi-celled organisms evolved. But from there on, it blossomed.

Remember that an organ is different tissues (cells that carry out the same function) working together to produce a result, so to say, to maintain a negative feedback, etc. We have these to help us survive. The heart helps pump blood, whose blood cells carry oxygen to different cells throughout the body and to take the waste carbon out of the body. Same type of functions with other organs. Because we evolve, we have created the necessary body functions to help finish these jobs. Without evolution, we simply couldn't do just that; survive. Limbs are similar in usage, but I think this has to do more with natural selection. The organisms that were able to reach and kill their food survived and reproduced.

One of the reasons we are asymmetrical is for sex appeal. Again, we want to reproduce and we do that by having sex. When someone looks asymmetrical, they seem healthy and able to reproduce. Countless studies have shown that people choose asymmetrical faces over non-symmetrical ones. It's just what turns us on ;)

I don't really understand where you're going with the last one about sex. Is it how we have evolved to need sex, or how sex helps evolution? I'll answer that as soon as a clearer explanation is given. :)

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

Alixness is right, you are a tough one crack!

Thanks ^^, you two are pretty adept yourselves.

But lets get to fightin'

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

We are multi-celled creatures. We were not always so. At one point, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy back when, we were single celled organisms. About 12 million years ago, the first human-ape ancestors were evolved. We evolve (very slowly) to survive. Our main goal, and this is of any organism, is to reproduce and carry on our genetics. No one is sure how, or even why, the first multi-celled organisms evolved. But from there on, it blossomed.

What's most interesting is that it has been observed in our day and age for single celled organisms to literally evolve into multicellular life, but for me, getting the cells to stick together isn't quite as useful or interesting as the actual intricate functions and use of a cell itself.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

Remember that an organ is different tissues (cells that carry out the same function) working together to produce a result, so to say, to maintain a negative feedback, etc. We have these to help us survive. The heart helps pump blood, whose blood cells carry oxygen to different cells throughout the body and to take the waste carbon out of the body. Same type of functions with other organs. Because we evolve, we have created the necessary body functions to help finish these jobs. Without evolution, we simply couldn't do just that; survive. Limbs are similar in usage, but I think this has to do more with natural selection. The organisms that were able to reach and kill their food survived and reproduced.

This makes sense, but how could this lead a single celled organism to become a multi-celled complexity. In the end we are, quite simply put, a multifarious variety of different cells, that work in unison via sensory systems and synchronised molecular forms of deoxyribonucleic acid. The concept is that errors in copying this acid's molecular structure allow for natural selection among these cells and trial and error brings about the best result. Whilst morphological changes can apparently occur as a result of evolution, what is there to say that cells can and have evolved new functions.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

One of the reasons we are asymmetrical is for sex appeal. Again, we want to reproduce and we do that by having sex. When someone looks asymmetrical, they seem healthy and able to reproduce. Countless studies have shown that people choose asymmetrical faces over non-symmetrical ones. It's just what turns us onI'm ;)

This is true, but this is a result of what initially evolved. Not vice versa. The problem I have with symmetry isn't so much that it doesn't make sense that we have it, there are plenty of reasons we NEED it, but how would mutations result in such intricate symmetry? It can be argued that we are not perfectly symmetrical or that we are quite asymmetrical in many ways, but this does not satisfy the question of the degree of symmetry we have.

Originally Posted by CiaoPinkZebra

I don't really understand where you're going with the last one about sex. Is it how we have evolved to need sex, or how sex helps evolution? I'll answer that as soon as a clearer explanation is given. :)

Sex, seems to us like instinct, something natural, but according to the theory of evolution. Sex evolved. Initially life forms were asexual. At some point life forms split into two different types (male and female) and then somehow knew that in order to continue surviving they had to copulate and knew how.

Originally Posted by Alixness

You are a very hard person to debate with, I will admit (LOL) (: Please be easy on me because I am a 16 year old sophomore taking a Biology class and we actually just got done studying the theory of evolution.

Here is what I learned:

Before us (you may know already) there were the apes. Well, I believe that this was bullcrap that we evolved from them. I do believe that we have a gene of theirs though, which might give people the mis-understanding that we evolved from them as a whole. Actually, the theory goes that we evolved from the Ardipithicus ramidus which lived 4 to 5 million years ago, then the Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago, Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago, Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago, Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago, Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago, Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago, Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago, Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago, Homo sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present. The liver, heart, etc. Think of the early human as... well... a human, I suppose. We never really evolved internally (I don't think), just to adapt to a new environment.

Here is some more information if you havn't read already: Human Evolution

This is fair enough, but I don't trust morphology at all. They've made a degree of mistakes in the past and without any DNA evidence they can be spurious at best. Look up the disagreement between morphological studies and DNA evidence in Human evolution for more info.

Nevertheless, I don't think any of the Homo Species are useful to us in determining evolution, except perhaps by cranium capacity, but even in that sense, we know little about what that contends exactly.

Morphologically all of those species of humans that aren't distinctly non-human apes could have looked, acted and thought exactly like us. Artist renderings of ape-like features onto a fossil are useless.

Could you depict a human baby on this skull?

Originally Posted by Inertia

Thanks ^^, you two are pretty adept yourselves.

But lets get to fightin'



What's most interesting is that it has been observed in out day and age for single celled organisms to literally evolve into multicellular life, but for me, getting the cells to stick together isn't quite as useful or interesting as the actual intricate functions and use of a cell itself.



This makes sense, but how could this lead a single celled organism to become a multi-celled complexity. In the end we are, quite simply put, a multifarious variety of different cells, that work in unison via sensory systems and synchronised molecular forms of deoxyribonucleic acid. The concept is that mutations allow for natural selection among these cells and trial and error brings about the best result. Whilst morphological changes can apparently occur as a result of evolution, what is there to say that cells can and have evolved new functions.



This is true, but this is a result of what initially evolved. Not vice versa. The problem I have with symmetry isn't so much that it doesn't make sense that we have it, there are plenty of reasons we NEED it, but how would mutations result in such intricate symmetry? It can be argued that we are not perfectly symmetrical or that we are quite asymmetrical in many ways, but this does not satisfy the question of the degree of symmetry we have.




Sex, seems to us like instinct, something natural, but according to the theory of evolution. Sex evolved. Initially life forms were asexual. At some point life forms split into two different types (male and female) and then somehow knew that in order to continue surviving they had to copulate and knew how.



This is fair enough, but I don't trust morphology at all. They've made a degree of mistakes in the past and without any DNA evidence they can be spurious at best. Look up the disagreement between morphological studies and DNA evidence in Human evolution for more info.

Nevertheless, I don't think any of the Homo Species are useful to us in determining evolution, except perhaps by cranium capacity, but even in that sense, we know little about what that contends exactly.

Morphologically all of those species of humans that aren't distinctly non-human apes could have looked, acted and thought exactly like us. Artist renderings of ape-like features onto a fossil are useless.

Could you depict a human baby on this skull?

Being in Biology and just learning all of this, I can't argue xD
LOL, I GIVE UP! I have told you everything I learned so far (:
Maybe somone has learned more then me and can convince you? ^.^
Very good debate guys (:

To put it bluntly, if it really could be proven (right now, that is), this topic wouldn't be in Debates ;D

And we wouldn't have dinosaur-deniers >_>

If I had a better background in biological sciences, I'd jump head-in to this topic, but since I lack some critical knowledge of the subject, I won't be coming back to this thread, sorry :(

Come on People T.T

I dropped out of high school at grade 9....

Originally Posted by Inertia

Come on People T.T

I dropped out of high school at grade 9....

Your pretty damn smart for a drop out, I must say! :O

Hmm, well I must say you have a very educated, and what seems to be a very excellent researched argument.

First off, I would point out that we (Humans) have a closer DNA match to rats than we have with Apes. We also have to consider the astronomically insane probability of intelligent life to evolve on this planet. EVERYTHING had to be right, the exact times and conditions had to be perfect in order for intelligent life to evolve. Correct? But does everything we do, or strive for, count on Trial and Error? So why didn't life evolve that way? Scientists and paleontologists have uncovered "mini-people", very very small statured humanoids. These could quite possibly be a failed evolution. Also, there are many species of other animals. Take apes for example, there are monkeys, apes, gorillas, and different sub-species from those as well. Would it not make sense that we, as humans, also had several sub-species at one time? The triumph of homo-sapien over the neanderthals. Two, seperate species of human. One died out because it was not capable of surviving and adapting to the earths savagely changing environment.

Is it possible that (if we had the technology) we could trace all of life's existence on earth to a mutated single celled organism a few billion years ago. Yes, it's possible. But so is the fact that life started on another planet, then came here. Two completely outlandish theories. But not enough evidence that either did or didn't happen.

I bring all this up, because in order to "try" and prove any kind of genetic or evolution type theory, we need to look at all types of life, and how they evolved or died out. Plants, animals, bugs, all life on earth evolves and adapts according to the living conditions around them. We as humans (homo-sapiens) evolved with a highly developed brain-function capabilities. Our brain is the only organ on the planet that can study itself.

Not sure if I answered what you were hoping for. But it's some good food for thought anyhow.

Oldest Human Fossils Found : NPR

This is very, very interesting. And I think backs up what I have said. We are forced to evolve with our surroundings. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the human race can continue to evolve physiologically. Not with our technology, or fascination with other worlds. How will we physically continue to evolve?

Originally Posted by Loveslust

Hmm, well I must say you have a very educated, and what seems to be a very excellent researched argument.

First off, I would point out that we (Humans) have a closer DNA match to rats than we have with Apes. We also have to consider the astronomically insane probability of intelligent life to evolve on this planet. EVERYTHING had to be right, the exact times and conditions had to be perfect in order for intelligent life to evolve. Correct? But does everything we do, or strive for, count on Trial and Error? So why didn't life evolve that way? Scientists and paleontologists have uncovered "mini-people", very very small statured humanoids. These could quite possibly be a failed evolution. Also, there are many species of other animals. Take apes for example, there are monkeys, apes, gorillas, and different sub-species from those as well. Would it not make sense that we, as humans, also had several sub-species at one time? The triumph of homo-sapien over the neanderthals. Two, seperate species of human. One died out because it was not capable of surviving and adapting to the earths savagely changing environment.

Those are some tantalizing facts, I would be obliged to call for some sauce on that. Specifically the Rat and Human DNA being closer than Apes and the mini-people that was found (sort of scary).

Originally Posted by Loveslust

Is it possible that (if we had the technology) we could trace all of life's existence on earth to a mutated single celled organism a few billion years ago. Yes, it's possible. But so is the fact that life started on another planet, then came here. Two completely outlandish theories. But not enough evidence that either did or didn't happen.

Generally for me, a concept has to have a considerable amount of data and little theory to lead me to believe it even slightly. There are billions, even trillions of possibilities, ones you'd have never considered and no human ever will, but the most important aspect probability.

Originally Posted by Loveslust

Our brain is the only organ on the planet that can study itself.

I disagree there, we'll never know to any degree how philosophical a slug might get on a rainy day, but what animals truly lack is the dexterity to begin explaining themselves. We humans more or less discover things by mistake.

Originally Posted by Loveslust

This is very, very interesting. And I think backs up what I have said. We are forced to evolve with our surroundings. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the human race can continue to evolve physiologically. Not with our technology, or fascination with other worlds. How will we physically continue to evolve?

Yes, this is true. We are forced to evolve with our surroundings, this holds true for all species and we even "evolve" to do it. Yes there were other species of human before us that evolved into the kind of human we are today, but does this mean that evolution is origin of all species? I don't know yet...

I would also like something similar to show the development of limbs.

The development of limbs started, I believe, with the development of fish fins. This gave them the ability to swim freely and become proper predators. I can only assume the prey had to develop limbs as well in order to be able to escape.
The bone structure from there evolved into more pertinent structures for amphibians and birds. In fact, the actual structure of the bones is surprisingly similar for a lot of very different animals. For example, humans have all the same bones in their hands/wrists as bats do in their wings.

Furthermore I would like theories and examples that explain why we are symmetrical beings, whilst being asymmetrical inside. If mutations are anomalous, how do they achieve symmetry.

This explains there are molecules that signal for symmetry on both the left and the right. Besides, being asymmetrical would be pretty worthless for us anyway; a person with only one leg is NOT going to survive very long. It only seems logical we would develop a way around that in order to maintain the species.

Lastly, I would like a believable round up of how sex could evolve.

Asexual reproduction is really only useful for rapidly multiplying. Sexual reproduction developed as a way to increase genetic diversity, which makes for a stronger species. There are several types of worms that are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually, but they generally prefer sexual reproduction because it, like I said, is more beneficial for the species. From there, animals broke off into males and females; probably also for genetic diversity, but that is really speculation.

Originally Posted by Fabby

The development of limbs started, I believe, with the development of fish fins. This gave them the ability to swim freely and become proper predators. I can only assume the prey had to develop limbs as well in order to be able to escape.
The bone structure from there evolved into more pertinent structures for amphibians and birds. In fact, the actual structure of the bones is surprisingly similar for a lot of very different animals. For example, humans have all the same bones in their hands/wrists as bats do in their wings.

I understand the theory very very well, but what I'm looking for is reason to believe this is no different than a very well put together piece of fiction. We've always been able to see the similarities between ourselves and similarly shapes animals, apes etc, how does this information help me to see that specifically evolution happened ?

Originally Posted by Fabby

This explains there are molecules that signal for symmetry on both the left and the right. Besides, being asymmetrical would be pretty worthless for us anyway; a person with only one leg is NOT going to survive very long. It only seems logical we would develop a way around that in order to maintain the species.

Asymmetrical life forms exist and flourish plentifully. The fiddler crab for example has one pincer much larger than the other, they get around fine.

As for the Talk-Origins article response, I'd have to say that whilst I am aware bilateral evolution was supposed to have occurred about 600 million years ago, there is no proposed method as how that could have evolved, nor do I know any details on how DNA actually translates symmetrically. As far as I'm concerned, scientists are still having trouble mapping down exactly which parts of the human genome are useful and most (90%) of which they say does pretty much nothing (a view that constantly changes).

I'm not sure where Talk-Origins gets their "signalling molecules" concept from. The entire explanation makes no sense to me from. The body is built up of putting cells together, not molecules. The only involvement molecules have in genetics is DNA where our DNA itself is basically a bunch of molecules (nucleotides) and macro molecules (polymers), but why they decided to describe this as molecules instead of DNA is confusing, misleading and not helping me at all.

Originally Posted by Fabby

Asexual reproduction is really only useful for rapidly multiplying. Sexual reproduction developed as a way to increase genetic diversity, which makes for a stronger species. There are several types of worms that are able to reproduce both sexually and asexually, but they generally prefer sexual reproduction because it, like I said, is more beneficial for the species. From there, animals broke off into males and females; probably also for genetic diversity, but that is really speculation.

I understand that there is a plethora of different reasons why sex is useful, everything we do naturally has it's uses, that's why we do it. What I have difficulty understanding is not why we do it or that we do it, but how this would have evolved from NOT doing it. Remembering that some species of creatures also have more than two sexes.

Hmmm, this is only mildly on topic, but I just want to say it.
I believe in purely scientific evolution, but I find it very refreshing whenever I find people who believe in it on a partial basis. Even if it is extremely partial, like in this case. As far as I know, your beliefs are not directly contrasting logic. You're saying you believe what we can prove. I like to think that science and faith (of whatever understanding you have of it) don't have to always collide. =P

Well as to the sauce, I'll have to go talk to one of the Biology Teachers. We were talking about random things about DNA, and he pointed it out, and even showed me several sites with DNA mapping proving the theory. So, when I can find it, i'll post it.

As for the "mini"-people. Her name is Lucy, and I just read online somewhere that they found a close relative of hers. So they, in some form were alive and surviving at one point. But something happened causing them to become extinct.

Ahh, well as to the philosophical capabilities of the slug it's raining so they probably aren't happy anyway. But, we can monitor the brainwaves of any creature that we choose. We can do baselines on humans and see which parts of the brain "spike" when we are speaking or learning or teaching or doing any of the million things humans do. We can do the same with animals, even a slug. (To be honest, I can't remember if a slug has a brain atm..O.O) Depending upon the electrical signals interpreted by brain, we stand up, even more, we walk, more, we turn around, again, we walk back, lastly, we sit down. Then it goes on with whatever else we are doing. Even sub-consciously, our brains are making our lungs move, our heart beat, and constantly learning about our surroundings. While that is also true of all other living organisms on our fair planet, do they have the cognitive abilities to learn other languages than their own, describe and inanimate object well enough to understand, plus millions of other things that our brains allow us to do. Things we do daily, either out of habit or necessity.

Is evolution the origin of all life on earth? I don't believe so, in fact there is an organism that has absolutely zero DNA traits or qualities matching anything on earth. It has it's own DNA, that has nothing in common with any life presently on Earth. I don't have much more info on it than that. I seem to have come completely un-prepared for this meeting lol.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Hmmm, this is only mildly on topic, but I just want to say it.
I believe in purely scientific evolution, but I find it very refreshing whenever I find people who believe in it on a partial basis. Even if it is extremely partial, like in this case. As far as I know, your beliefs are not directly contrasting logic. You're saying you believe what we can prove. I like to think that science and faith (of whatever understanding you have of it) don't have to always collide. =P

I have an unusual propensity to enjoy the company of people that have different opinions than myself rather than those that share my exact opinions (which are none (probably related <.<)). So I know where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by Loveslust

Ahh, well as to the philosophical capabilities of the slug it's raining so they probably aren't happy anyway. But, we can monitor the brainwaves of any creature that we choose. We can do baselines on humans and see which parts of the brain "spike" when we are speaking or learning or teaching or doing any of the million things humans do. We can do the same with animals, even a slug. (To be honest, I can't remember if a slug has a brain atm..O.O) Depending upon the electrical signals interpreted by brain, we stand up, even more, we walk, more, we turn around, again, we walk back, lastly, we sit down. Then it goes on with whatever else we are doing. Even sub-consciously, our brains are making our lungs move, our heart beat, and constantly learning about our surroundings. While that is also true of all other living organisms on our fair planet, do they have the cognitive abilities to learn other languages than their own, describe and inanimate object well enough to understand, plus millions of other things that our brains allow us to do. Things we do daily, either out of habit or necessity.

I think we have very little insight into what creatures think of the world, even by monitoring brainwaves, we can't tell exactly what language to expect to see these things in. For example, scientists have suspected for years that dolphins communicate with each other to tell each other their emotions and how they feel, but they have not found a way for us to understand that or how to communicate with them without teaching them our language.

Personally I think this kind of debate is pointless. Debates should allow people to take their own sides. What you've done is made a challenge, not a debate. The problem is Evolution is a theory. Indicating it's not provable. If it was provable, it wouldn't be a theory anymore.