The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FMAlchemist
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

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 4 votes the winner is...
FMAlchemist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 59706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

linate

Pro

macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

we are not longer evolving significantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor countries die, many religious fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environment 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 especially 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 occurring given that even the weak are likely to breed.
FMAlchemist

Con

Macroevolution has not stopped,it just doesn't happen in the expected way.

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

Yes if weak means not good for the environment you are in,no if it means not physically strong. Evolution is still happening. As an example i can give is that woman tend to choose good looking men and men tend to choose good looking women. Given enough time,people would look better and fat and ugly people would become extinct. Woman also tend to choose dumb and easy to influence men,so we would have dumber and easier to influence people given the enough time. Evolution can be hard to notice,but it is still happening to humanity. Another more practical and general example is how people who have a more effective immunity system will resist to certain diseases and have more chance to survive.

"but as a whole, we are adapting the environment to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt."

These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system. Atleast not now and i don't think we will in a foreseeable future. And you are only capable of seeing one generation,and evolution takes time,a lot of time. It will not force we to adapt,it will just kill or prevent reproduction of people who do not have the qualities to survive or to reproduce.

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

Fat,ugly,weak,etc. people are a lot less likely to breed. They are likely,but a lot less:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

con argues that given enough time, the fattest and stupidest among us would not further their genes. that's the problem, though. for the most part, they do further their genes. sure, the most extreme examples don't, but that doesn't affect macro evolution, just micro evolution at best. and even if it was an issue, the fattest and stupidest haven't ever had much success breeding for anyway.

"These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system."

i am not able to decipher this from con. it seems somewhat incoherent.
FMAlchemist

Con

"that's the problem, though. for the most part, they do further their genes."

Yes,but good looking people are more likely,the same way in evolution ancestor apes that were dumb could survive enough time to reproduce,but the most intelligent were more likely to do so.

"but that doesn't affect macro evolution, just micro evolution at best."

Macroevolution is just microevolution in a large scale,so if microevolution happens,macro does too. A giant chain of microevolutional adaptations lead to big evolutions.

" "These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system." "

What i meant was that the humans are not really adapting how the other people think about who they are going to have child with,and how we still aren't adapting the immunity system artificially. We are indeed adapting the world around us but not enough to block evolution's path.

"and even if it was an issue, the fattest and stupidest haven't ever had much success breeding for anyway."

Evolution takes time,it is not like you are going to see the evolution of an species in some centuries. It will take a lot of generations to show a "macro" level change. And they did have success breeding,in the pre-historic era,woman were fatter because it was harder for them to die of starvation. Man that liked fat women had less problems so they evolved to like them. The majority of the Venus figures found were fat compared to the women of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

con just goes on to revert to insisting that the least attractive and fattest and such wont be as likely to breed. please see my arguments above for response.

micro evolution doesn't per se lead to maco evolution. that there is a minute fraction who wont breed has always been the case, but they still pump out fat ugly and stupid people. and when they don't breed it might cause a ripple effect on a larger scale, but it would be inaccurate to call that macro evolution. macro is where body parts and physiology changes, and perhaps starting into or completely changing species, speciation.

as was said which con hasn't adequately rebutted, we change the environment to us, we aren't forced to adapt physically to the environment. and, the weakest among us for the most part breed successfullly, thus preventing any significant evolution.

if nothing major changes like space exploration or a huge natural disaster (but probably even with those), in a million years the human species will still be essentially the same. that indicates that macro evolution has for the most part stopped.
indeed, there are species out there that have not evolved for millions of years, like many species of turtles, because they are so well adapted to the environment. those species it is fair to say have stopped evolving for the foreseeable future as well.
FMAlchemist

Con

"con just goes on to revert to insisting that the least attractive and fattest and such wont be as likely to breed. please see my arguments above for response."
I would really like to see a source showing how they do further their genes in an equal level of good-looking people. You can see how people tend to prefer good-looking people instead of fat people[1].What i described is called Sexual Selection[2],and it happens to other animals too,and it plays a big role in natural selection.


"micro evolution doesn't per se lead to maco evolution."


It actually does[3]:
"Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."

"as was said which con hasn't adequately rebutted, we change the environment to us, we aren't forced to adapt physically to the environment."

There are limits in what we can do changing the environment,and evolution doesn't force us to change,natural selection just happens and your life is too tiny to see any of it happening,but if we can observe microevolution that means macroevolution is happening too.

"if nothing major changes like space exploration or a huge natural disaster (but probably even with those), in a million years the human species will still be essentially the same. that indicates that macro evolution has for the most part stopped."

I don't think you have evidence to backup that claim. As i already said,macroevolution and microevolution are essentially the same,so unless something really big happened i don't think we would be able to stop it.

"indeed, there are species out there that have not evolved for millions of years, like many species of turtles, because they are so well adapted to the environment. those species it is fair to say have stopped evolving for the foreseeable future as well."

I have to disagree with that. You have not provided examples of those turtles you claim to not be evolving anymore so i will give you one example of one species that evolved alone. The Galápagos tortoises are giant compared to other tortoises or turtles. They evolved even while being isolated in an area without a lot of risks[4].

"Restricted gene flow between isolated islands then resulted in the independent evolution of the populations into the divergent forms observed in the modern subspecies."

They also have longer necks[5] than other turtles because of sexual selection[6].

"When mature males meet in the mating season they will face each other in a ritualised dominance display, rise up on their legs and stretch up their necks with their mouths gaping open. Occasionally, head-biting occurs, but usually the shorter tortoise will back off, conceding mating rights to the victor"

[1]:http://psychcentral.com...
[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5]:http://www.factzoo.com...
[6]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Changes in transcription proteins/sequences and promoter sequences can produce sudden changes in morphology, phenotypes, this is Macroevolution via Punctuated Equilibrium.
The disappearance of the raptor tail in birds is a product of sudden changes in genetic expression.
By blocking the transcription process and reinserting the genetic sequence for continuation of the tail sequence they have been able to regrow the tail in bird embryos.
Same goes for the sudden disappearance of teeth in raptors and the change from scales to feathers is a change in Genetic Expression.
Transcription process changes, change how genes are expressed, in that the same gene sequence can produce different proteins and tissues, such as scales to feathers, simply by altering the expression (transcription) of the Gene sequence.
Birds appear to have all the same genes as their raptor ancestors, it is only that the genes are expressed differently due to transcription mutations or as some call it Framing Mutations.
The switching from one beak to another in Darwin's finches is a transcription modification which can be switched on and off by the mother in line with what type of seeds are available.
She notices there are predominantly hard seeds and struggles with her fine beak to break them, her chicks will develop the larger and stronger beaks, suitable for those hard seeds and it can reverse in a single generation. Transcription switches are evidence of short term macroevolutionary changes.
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
Macroevolution is essentially the same as microevolution as i said in my argument.And i can give you real evidence of evolution with this link,the same link i used in my other debate about evolution:http://oregonstate.edu...

This mayfly had an ovipositor and very long antennae compared to the ones we have today.It was pratically a completelly different species.
Posted by denyyourmaker 2 years ago
denyyourmaker
Macro evolution please give examples of this. you talk about as if it is a fact. when man first forged steal to make things was that evolution? when airplanes were made was that evolution.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Ray Comfort fits into the Taxonomic Classification of "Wankeria"
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Macroevolution is likely going to occur to humans, as we cannot predict what Punctuated Equilibrium will bring us in the way of mutations/changes.
Creationists don't understand how Macroevolution occurs and neither do many Evolutionists.
Macroevolution is real and it can be demonstrated, as they have already achieved demonstrating this in embryos.
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
This argument was created by Ray Comfort in his creationist documentary "Evolution vs God",he also says that evolution doesn't follow the scientific method,what is utter bulls**t.Kind is not a taxonomic classification,it is a biblical term,and he keeps changing the goalpost every time they give him an example of change in kinds.He raised it to domain by saying that an organism was still a bacteria,so there was no change in kinds. -.-
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
You know the only difference between macro and micro evolution is time, right? Most people that try and make that distinction often use the "changing of 'kinds'" to differentiate between the two, but then we wouldn't be humans, would we?
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 2 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
@FMAlchemist - lol... On a side note what do you think about the idea of humans looking radically different in the future especially if we start to explore the stars? Also, do you think that we would look different especially if humans begin to colonies like say Mars for example where you have a planet with less gravity, less sun light etc.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 2 years ago
gt4o2007
linateFMAlchemistTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the only logical argument and descriptively told us his position while also providing examples
Vote Placed by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
linateFMAlchemistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the better arguments with multiple, reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
linateFMAlchemistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some points, though yes, fat and dumb people still breed heavily as the more intelligent have less children and the lower, poorer dumber ones bread like crazy. So actually the average IQ levels in humans is dropping. Yet Con gave Sources and had a slightly stronger argument. There is some evidence that we are evolving softer, longer fingers, as manual labor is becoming less common and tablet type computers are now the work horse of modern times. Yet, nobody can predict Punctuated Equilibrium (Macroevolutionary Changes) and accumulated microevoluitonary changes to provide a Macroevolution change, but not as rapid as Punctuated Equilibrium changes can. Yet, we appear to be constantly Evolving. Humans are getting taller every generation, which is a noticeable (Macroevolutionary) change.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
linateFMAlchemistTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb below my vote. Con had better spellling and arguments backed by sources. Wikipedia is not the best source, but it is better than no sources.