The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

humans are not evolving significantly any more

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 55259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




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.


To some it may seem as if we have ceased to evolve, to these people i would say look at the bigger picture.

You may think that we have reached our peak because we've built an environment so comfortable for ourselves that we are no longer in any real danger other than that caused by ourselves, and this has left us with no need to adapt because we have the ability to change the world around us. Yes humans have indeed reached a peak; our physical bodies will not naturally adapt, but this is because they do not need to.

You are looking at evolution the wrong way as you are looking for patterns that have already occurred, but the next step of human evolution has never seen before.

The key is knowledge of the universe. knowledge has power beyond our current understanding and once a true understanding of the universe is acquired, we will be able to exist on a higher level. We are living in the information age where data is acquired and saved but never destroyed, not only that but it is accessible anywhere, to anyone at any time thanks to the internet. The growth of knowledge will speed up the growth of technology, and the growth of technology is exponential. The advancements will allow greater advancements infinitely.

Who knows, perhaps we will create artificial intelligence that will be self aware, then make the decisions based on the collective knowledge of the human race, this is a power we currently could not even comprehend.

Look at the world around you, electricity constantly surging through every device. machines becoming more and more powerful. Technology is slowly solving every single little flaw that humanity possesses until we are eternal and we can leave the earth to finally seek the truth. Machinery is becoming more compact and integrated into our everyday lives, soon it will physically be a part of us in cell sized robots. this is the truth and its coming up fast. This is the most important time to be alive.

Debate Round No. 1


con is basically just resorting to relying on the mysterious infinite possibilties the future presents. i suppose there's on way for me to deny that there are all those possibitlies and that even some will come to fruition. perhaps we will travel othe planets and only the smartest will go, and different species etc will develop. who knows. con misses the main point though, in that at least for traditional evolution, we are done.


Geo1700 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2




Geo1700 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jakeleventhal 2 years ago
Con - I think what pro was going for was an argument based on physical evolution such as having heat resistant skin or having 6 toes etc.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Enji 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was off topic, and he acknowledges that <<[humans] will not naturally adapt, but this is because they do not need to.>> Con instead presents an unsubstantiated argument that humans will become immortal due to technological advancements, which has nothing to do with biological evolution. Hence Pro's arguments, while still not great, stand uncontested.