humans are no longer evolving to a significant extent
Debate Rounds (3)
remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals don't cause evolution... eg, you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless.
there will be spurts as those who are superior will tend to get together etc... but on balance, the weak will dilute the gene pool. we will never branch off into another species or become superior in our own, if we don't have the weaker among us die off.
and in every other sense that we might be considered 'evolving' it is minor.
true, people in poor countries etc die, and cannot further their genes, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. some weak might die, but we are not advancing on whole.
(i'm sure there are radioactivity exceptions, but that is minor relatively, and not to be included in this debate)
The oxford English definition of evolution is:
1the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2the gradual development of something:
the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution
Evolution does not necessarily need to be the best adapted.
I don't think that you have looked into evolution too deeply, it took millions of years for the original apes to evolve into humans . However, the human average height is increasing quite quickly at the moment. It was proven that taller men have a wider choice of partner, by a wide study in Britain, even with today's society. Now, true, this will not make too much of a difference, but, it does make a difference. A study of how the the average height in the UK has changed shows that; in 2002, the average height for a man in the UK was 5ft 9inches. now, in 2012, it is 5ft 10inches. This shows that the average height has increased by a whole inch in just 10 years.
This is not always the case, in tribe which live at high altitude, the smaller ones have an easier time surviving so the average height of them will not be increasing significantly.
Evolution can consist of just the very slightest of changes between generations, so it is difficult to say we are not advancing. UK citizens are, however, on a whole, taking a step back because of the current benefits system. People who work hard at school and get high up in their job are less likely to have a lot of children, as it would obstruct their work. This is different for the not-as-smart people who do not try at school and drop out at 15 or 16. It is quite common for these people to have 6+ children, because if you have a lot of children, the government will pay for your living, so you do not need to get a job. This all results in the lesser intelligent people having more children than the very intelligent people, therefore the humans are in general, going to get less and less intelligent as the generations go on. Just because this is not a positive change, does not mean it is not evolution, evolution does not need to be a positive change.
eg, that better breed of tall and good looking etc people will have offspring that breed with the lower ones. the lower ones are not dying off, and of course the better are not either.... even the lower are able to adapt the evironment to us, instead of us to the environment, which is the crucial necessity in any significant, on the whole, evolution.
Height and intelligence are just two of many variations which are getting more and more different with each generation. There are many other factors such as; skin colour, amount of muscle, feet size:height ratio, hairiness or shape of skull. If each generation keeps on taking a step further in the same generation then, eventually, they will be able to breed with each other, but the sperm from the newer humans will no longer be able to fertilise an ovum of an original woman (or vice versa). This by definition means a new species has been formed.
Other than speciation, a new species can arise through genetic mutations (These aren't always through radioactivity). There are many different genetic mutations that can occur through extra, damaged or fewer chromosomes etc. Examples of these would be polydactylism (extra fingers or toes), webbed hands/feet, down syndrome, cystic fibrosis etc. Due to today's society, it is easy for gatherings among these sufferers to happen, this means that quite often, the sufferers have bred with each other, normally resulting in suffering offspring who then breed with other sufferers, with the mutation being in the family for many generations, eventually, more mutations can be picked up. Over millions of years, a new species of human is going to be formed. This is happening at the moment with all the societies for different sufferers (which I think is great idea). http://www.cfvoice.com... is an example of a community for people with cystic fibrosis. Sufferers also meet at therapy sessions, and other help places.
Human remains from just 11,500 to 14,300 years ago were recently found in China, from this you can see that the human race is evolving, as these remains are very different to the humans we see today. Evolution is a very long process which makes it difficult to say hat it is not happening to us, as just the very slightest change from each generation can lead to a new species. You must always look at a big number of generations because you may think that steps forward are being balanced by steps backwards, but if you look in the long term, you'll see that we are moving significantly in one direction.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: FF and con easily won, easy vote is easy.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.