Strong Evolution Arguments Needed!?

Question

In my science class we are doing a panel discussion on evolution in a week. I have been assigned to the pro-evolution side (even though I am con-evolution), and I need strong arguments that are pro-evolution. I have already checked out the book that has all of Charles Darwin's essays, etc. in it. What I need are strong, reliable, logical sites with pro-evolution facts on it. All information is appreciated, but please do not give your own opinions or information, I need something from a very reliable source. All answers are appreciated, but PLEASE do not bombard me with answers like "what do you mean your con-evolution", "You're completely ignoring the facts" and "Do your own homework, kid", etc. I am doing my own homework, I just might need some extra help and somewhere to start.

Thank you!

I'm in a Life Sci class, it's required. Because of where I live, we have no Debate or Speech classes. We're doing it because 1. The school districts' benchmark standards include something about being able to explain and debate scientific processes, and 2. We have few enough people in my GRADE (only 16) that it would be fair to do it, and we don't do any debate in any other classes, and when we do do debates/panel discussions we have a much wider knowledge of our unit/chapter. I personally enjoy them.

I do believe in the story of creation, but I'm still young, so I'm trying to figure my opinions/viewpoints and find out all the facts. Right now I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to evolution, so I suppose that con- evolution wouldn't be the proper term.

Answer 1

I find it apalling that this is happening in a science class.

Debate class, yes. Social science class, yes. Political science classe, yes.

But science class? The only possible outcome is to reinforce the ridiculous notion that evolution is
(a) Complicated; and
(b) Controversial.

It is *neither*.

But that said .. to help you, I highly recommend getting familiar at least with the Table of Contents of the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution
Write the Table of Contents down.

I have two problems with the content of the page ... (1) it gets into difficult detail that it doesn't need to get into; and (2) it really doesn't hit the DNA evidence hard enough ... and DNA evidence is even stronger than fossil evidence!

Second step, compare it with the talkorigins page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This is a fantastic page that presents *so* much evidence that it's hard to keep up.

But still ... compare that with the organization of the wikipedia page, and you'll start to see a pattern. Feel free to read any of the articles ... but depending on how much science you've had, this may get intimidating.

If the above doesn't help you ... please see my answer to the following question:
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtVnLC3NuInHCUMFLTXewSLBFQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20061114162706AAJ3vs9

I've broken the evidence down into 10 categories.

Feel free to email me with any questions.

Next, to prepare for the "counterarguments", go back to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

Finally as a word of advice, make sure the question is well-defined ... and your opponent *STICKS TO THE TOPIC*.

1. Is the question about the *process* of evolution or the *theory* of evolution? The *process* of evolution is a *fact* ... that organisms change over time. The *theory* of evolution is the explanation of how that same process explains all modern species ... and it is (obviously) a theory ... but a theory in the scientific sense, which means "explanation with evidence." Too many debates about whether evolution is 'fact' or 'theory' is about a misunderstanding of which meaning of the word "evolution" people are using, and then misrepresenting the meaning of the word "theory."

2. Make sure you limit the debate to *EVOLUTION*. This does NOT include the origins of life (abiogenesis). If your opponent starts talking about biochemicals assembling into the first organisms, they are OFF TOPIC. The reason they do this is that abiogenesis is a far less understood topic ... evolution is *extremely* well understood and backed up by evidence.

Good luck!

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Arguments For Evolution

Answer 4

Reasoned debate is an extremely valuable skill. Debating the side opposite the one you believe is an especially valuable training exercise.

What exactly is the point being debated? Microevolution is so well supported by the evidence and science, and so widely accepted, that it's hardly ever debated. If that's the issue, you have the easy side.

Are you supposed to argue that a giraffe has the same genetic ancestor as a trout or a pumpkin? Then, look at the evidence in support of the argument. See whether the proposed mechanism is plausible or makes sense or is likely. In today's secularized science, your argument should not be between common ancestry versus God created them separately. It should be whether the common ancestor hypothesis is supported by good science or not. If not, that doesn't imply God created them separately. Instead, it means the genetic ancestry hypothesis cannot be confirmed by science at this time.

You need not start with Darwin. Start with a modern, reputable evolutionary science text. Look for the parts relevant to the specific issue being debated. Don't spend a lot of time arguing what the opposition is likely to concede without a fight.

Look at measures of 'genetic distance' but beware of how it can be used to argue both ways. I'm not sure anyone can meaningfully discuss this without a rather deep understanding of genetics.

Answer 5

If you prefer books, here are some I always recommend. If time is a limiting factor, definitely go with Blind Watchmaker and River Out of Eden first.
===================

Dawkins, Richard, 1986, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company.

Dawkins, Richard, 1989, The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.), Oxford Univ. Press.

Dawkins, Richard, 1995, River Out of Eden, Basic Books

Dawkins, Richard, 2005, The Ancestor's Tale, Mariner Books

Gould, Stephen, 1980, The Panda's Thumb, W. W. Norton & Company

Ward, Peter D. 2006, Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, Birds, and Earth's Ancient Atmosphere John Henry Press

Watson, James, 1968, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, Atheneum

Weiner, Jonathan, 1994, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Knopf

Willett, Edward, 2006, Genetics Demystified: A Self Teaching Guide, McGraw-Hill

Answer 6

There's a really good book at Barnes and Noble called "Why Darwin Matters" I"ve just started reading it, and it talks about this exact subject..

one of the main points he makes in there is the "Disproving A does not prove B".. meaning that many people arguing for intelligent design will try to do so by pointing out all the things that are wrong with the theory of evolution.. however, this doesn't make intelligent design any more correct..

Also, people will say that evolution is only a "theory".. well a "theory" isis not just someone's opinion or wild guess made by some scientists. a theory is a well supposrted and well tested generalization that explains a set of observations.. that's why darwin said that "theory" comes to and from facts, not political or philosophical beliefs.

There is alos proof of evolution because we have many vestigial body parts (useless) that played an important role in the lives of our ancestors but now serve us no purpose..

http://www.xenophilia.com/blog/?p=5986


A man by the name of Herbert Spence once said,"Well which is the most rational of theories about these tens of millions of species? Is it most likely that there have been tens of millions of special creations? or is it most likely that, by continual modification due to the change of circumstances tens of millions of varieties have been produced, and varieties are still being produced.?"


They may throw out the argument that there are no transitional fossils that have been found....here's an example of one..
Ambulocetus natans (walking whale)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/432.shtml


Also, they may argue that we can not observe evolution or natural selection. However Diseases are prime examples of evolution and natural selection.. the Aids virus keeps evolving and multiplying in response to the types of drugs that we try to fight it with. This is why they have yet to come up with a cure..

alright, I've rambled enough, one last link that kinda explains the 10 icons of evolution ( there's a list that explains all 10 of them if you click on the link for each one..)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution

Answer 7

Please leave science class, as you obviously can not benefit from a scientific education. Eri has already given you a good site. It is sad that such a debate is even taking place, since evolution by natural selection is the cornerstone of biological science. Here is a site about the man, who knew he would cause great controversy, but needed to speak the truth anyway.
The truth does not care for pro, or con, as the truth we be true regardless of anyone's position. It is the joy of science to find that truth.

http://www.aboutdarwin.com

Answer 8

Without being too scientific you can argue in favour of evolution very simply.

Viruses and bacteria evolve all the time. Because the typical virus lives and dies within hours to days, the evolution of these germs is very much speeded up compared to humanswho live for decades and who have very "slow evolutions".

Viruses and bacteria who survive antibiotic treatments live, viruses and bacteria who succumb to treatments die out. This is why there are new strains of flu, avian flu, SARS and even HIV. One kind of germ mutates and survives becoming after a few generations, a new species!

This is an example of evolution that does not require fossils and thousands or millions of years to demonstrate.

Animals and humans evolve also, but obviously more slowly.

An example of human evolution without using fossil evidence is skin colour. Genetic information taken from people around the world suggests that dark skin developed several different times in response to high UV levels, and that fairer skin evolved to combat vitamin D defeciencies in northern climates. Without Vitamin D, darker skin peoples suffered from high levels of Rickets, preventing survival to adulthood, so in northern sunlight poor regions, fair skin became the norm.

These differences do not create different species of human, but are suggestive of what happens when individuals have different survival pressures put upon them.

Evolution is science.
Science is responsible for the computer you use, the food you eat, the medicine you take and fuels and materials we all live with.
You can not pick and choose.

Science, or ignorance.

The Pope believes in evolution and no one questions his faith in God. Numerous Catholic and Christian universities manage to have faith and still believe in scientific principles.

Good luck in the debate.

But it makes me sad to think tht such a debate is deemed worthy anywhere in the developed world....

Answer 9

If you have time, you can browse through some of the first testimonies in the Dover case (link below) - the first scientist that testified in favor of teaching evolution in schools has some extremely good points - especially when it comes to the whole "it's so complex, someone must have created it" silliness.

Answer 10

This is a good overview of the evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

The best argument is that there is no scientific argument against evolution.

And for the record, if you are con-evolution, I would bet you money you are ignorant to the science behind evolution. I have never met someone educated on the science who didn't accept it.