this method 2 stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation
Debate Rounds (3)
and the populations are small and large enough to not cause problems from inbreeding, or too large as to stall evolution.
a new society is created. it consists of new born to 30 year olds. only the best and the brightest 500 people from society are picked. intelligence and physical attributes. they do genetic testing on the people to ensure diseases and problems indicated by genes and family history are rooted out.
eighteen to thirty year olds are permitted to breed.
then the population of five hundred would be permitted to expand to five thousand. then by the time it got to five thousand, for each member that reaches 18, two are removed until the population goes back down to five hundred. this method of expansion and retraction would be put on repeat.
when a parent shows that it later develops a disease, that can disqualify the offspring as well.
eventually, this would lead to speciation.
Your proposed eugenics programme is not based on science.
i'm afraid con's criticims don't hold up under much scrutiny.
Also, I misspoke earlier. There is a link between genetics and intelligence, because there is a link between genetics and everything, but genetics is not the sole factor. In fact, the correlation is only strong when the two individuals compared have identical DNA, such as in the case of identical twins or when the same person is tested twice. Unless you're going to have a clone race and raise them all in identical environments, you simply cannot control how intelligent they will be. It just doesn't work like that.
There is a reason that scientists no longer advocate eugenics programmes, and that's because they don't work. Pro has not put forward a real argument here, and I believe I have utterly debunked her points.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Swedishperspective 2 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: PRO offered no scientific basis for why his scheme is either useful or possible and did not rebut the arguments presented by CON. Further, PRO clearly misunderstood what speciation actually means in terms of biology, so his whole premise falls apart. Clear win for CON.
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.