The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
76 Points

humans are no longer evolving

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,634 times Debate No: 1657
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (24)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

we are not longer evolving signficantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt.

remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself)
this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed.
Yraelz

Con

The first time I saw this debate I had a ton of arguments on it that I can't all remember. So, considering I am tired right now, I will probably have my second post be the best one. But here goes what I can think of off the top of my head.

So let me evaluate your statements a bit. I have something to say about a couple of your lines.

"remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes."

>> I disagree with this statement. The weak dieing is not a prerequisite. It is the "weak" not copulating that furthers evolution. Whether they die or not is not amazingly important.

"there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed."

>>I disagree with your statement that the "weak" are likely to breed. Or at the very least I hand you the idea that the "strong" are more likely to breed.

Anyways here is my theory, some African nations and other nations where human survival is still the number one worry aside. Humans will always evolve for two reasons. One, to better attract a mate. Two, in order to become successful.

So on my first one. There are always body types that are more desirable to the populace as a whole. And we know that genetics can play a major factor in how your body turns out (watch a cholesterol commercial and why you being overweight isn't your fault). Therefor the more fit looking people, the handsome and beautiful men and women will have a higher chance of being selected as mate by others.

Now you'll probably argue that if they are really stupid then they won't be selected. But once again this just factors into my evolution theory. Mentally under par and physically unappealing people will have the lowest chance of being selected as mate. Where as the more intelligent and physically appealing people will have the higher chance of being chosen as a mate. Thus if a and b are the alleles for intelligence and looks:

AB: Everyone wants one of these.
Ab: Some people really want.
aB: Some people really want.
ab: A few people want.

My proof to support this is our societies steady progression towards taller and taller people over the years. As height is often seen as a desirable trait among the women folk (not obscene height, just slightly taller than average).

Another interesting source of support, is the dieing of the red hair gene. This is arguably not because of anything to do with attraction but rather to do with the diversity of the world which has lead to red-haired likely having children with someone not red-haired. So we are slowly evolving from red-hair and it is supposed to be gone around 2100. (Except for rare occurrences)

Two, in order to become successful. It is often the crafty, witty, intellectual, athletic individuals who become "successful" in todays society. These individuals are seen as capable of supporting a family and are usually found with a mate (at some point or another). Thus I argue that genes linked to these traits are, percentage wise, promoted more. I believe that from an athletic viewpoint, when survival no longer became an issue, that our overall fitness declined. I feel however that we will/already have hit the low point and are not back on a slow genetic rise.

Anyways, there are my thoughts for now. I have some other stuff, i'm thinking. Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Con

Well... Just for more fun ideas.

Humans are always creating new philosophies, new ideas, new inventions. Obviously if we had entirely stopped evolving we wouldn't bother coming up with any of these. (At the rate at which we do anyways)

People with inheritable genetic diseases die quicker. Therefor the inheritable disease dies more and more. People with immunities tend to die less. (Immunities can be genetic traits that get transfered more often.)

I don't know, maybe I will think of some more. I feel like I had many good arguments on this.....
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Con

Well apparently my opponent decided against debating. Extend my points. Unless you really don't like the first one in my 2nd round. Then just flow across the others.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by erkifish26 9 years ago
erkifish26
Silly high school debaters and your "flows". jkjk I'm a member of that demographic. Very nice job on the Con's part, although I must agree that one argument is silly.
Posted by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
plus, evolving doesnt necessarily even mean more effective. It just means adapting to an environment, so there really is no way we could stop
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
Con makes some really good arguments, except for the first one in their round 2, which is complete bull. Shame Pro forfeited.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Understood. But still, human hair is evolving in a way. Not because of any outside force, so perhaps simply changing would be a better way to put it.

Anyways, look to my other points.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
It is neither. The genes are simply recessive and the genes are getting more combined. So blonds and red heads are getting less common.

There are two main genes which cover hair color.
red/Not-Red
blond/Brunette.

If you are red + blond you're a ginger. red + brunette you're an auburn. Not-Red and you have no red in your hair.

So the phenotype expression of the gene is far rarer but the gene frequency is the same. You'll get fewer blonds and fewer redheads but you'll start getting redheads and blonds born to parents who are non-redheads and non-blonds (parents heterozygous for traits).

As for the topic of the debate, studies show that evolution is in hyperdrive:
http://www.reuters.com...

It is currently going about 100 times faster than previous rates. Also, there's a major human caused extinction event going on so there's probably massive amounts of evolution going on throughout.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Its not the red hair gene that is dying, it actually seems to be the blonde gene. The red head one is just rare.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mariahsaywhaaa 9 years ago
mariahsaywhaaa
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
dairygirl4u2cYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03