The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dapperdan2007
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

we 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: 1,029 times Debate No: 1654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

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 animal 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.
Dapperdan2007

Con

"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."

This statement is incredibly disjointed. What does the former have to do with the latter, at all? Everyone dies. The environment forcing us to adapt is not a requirement of evolution.

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

'The weak' breeding does not hinder evolution. "Survival of the fittest', as you are trying to explain, just means that the members of a species who acquire the most favorable adaptations are the ones that will most likely live on, and those traits will over time be the ones that remain in the species. However, just because the human species doesn't exactly follow "Survival of the fittest" anymore, it does not stop us from evolving -- our genes are still randomly chosen when new life is created, and causing adaptations. The adaptations which turn out favorable will overtime become predominant over the less favorable traits. Therefore, we are still evolving.

P.S. Fix your shift key.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Dapperdan2007

Con

Then I will do the same. Somehow I'm not surprised by this.

Your argument must be at least 100 characters in length.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Dapperdan2007

Con

Then I will do the same. Somehow I'm not surprised by this.

Your argument must be at least 100 characters in length.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
First, this is really a non-debate, because humans are evolving faster than ever before. http://www.reason.com...

Thoreau, there is no "hindering" of evolution. It is an unguided process. Evolution doesn't work towards any goal.

And not weeding out people is not bad for the species. With technology, if you are born with genes that would otherwise lead to you not being naturally selected, you can mask the effects of those genes (e.g. if you wear glasses), which preserves genetic diversity, which means the species has a better chance of survival.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
Honestly, I am of agreement that humans (as a whole) hinder evolution, what with all the social programs helping out those who are (technically) too weak to survive, and with those who are especially outstanding being shunned by their peers. However, I do not see this as a negative thing, relative to the other option: Social Darwinism. Not a pleasant thought, a world there is no mercy. It's what makes us different from animals (along with everything else that does that).
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cDapperdan2007Tied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cDapperdan2007Tied
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 YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cDapperdan2007Tied
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 Gao 9 years ago
Gao
dairygirl4u2cDapperdan2007Tied
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 Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
dairygirl4u2cDapperdan2007Tied
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