The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

macroevolution has effectively stopped in humans

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 77828
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




we won't be developing into another species in any immediate sense, or getting significantly altered due to evolution.
we may evolve in space, but this is far off and not the current time period being discussed.

remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals don't cause evolution... eg, you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless.

there will be spurts as those who are superior will tend to get together etc... but on balance, the weak will dilute the gene pool. we will never branch off into another species or become superior in our own, if we don't have the weaker among us die off.
and in every other sense that we might be considered 'evolving' it is minor.


I won't post any rebuttals yet.

Case 1. How Do We Know For Sure?

Has anything been clearly defined in scientific law stating that humans are finished with our evolutionary process? I have evidence we're still evolving. This leads me to my second point.

Case 2. We're still evolving

Humans are still evolving. For instance, women who are severely underweight could mother children in the past. However, they are now unable to mother children if their weight is too low. (1)

This proves that humans are still evolving. If they are still evolving, it will lead to a large scale change.

Sorry for this being so short. This is really all that needed to be put though.

Debate Round No. 1


con doesn't understand evolution. a mother who changes her body and ability to have kids does not mean evolution. again, evolution is where species change via certain members dying off and only the resultant are left for changes.


I don't think she's done much to my case. All I have to do is prove her definition of evolution fallible and her whole case falls.

I would like to raise a question to Pro. If evolution means the previous species have to die, how come monkeys and apes are still alive?

I would like to introduce my own definition of evolution.

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (1)

Therefore, my research study proves evolution is still taking place in humans. Therefore, we have solid evidence that macroevolution has not stopped either.

Debate Round No. 2


changing weights is not evolving. evolving involves changing genes. changing weight doesn't involve changing genes.


Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
Changes in our species is evolution, and our species is changing. If you concede 'micro', then you have also conceded 'macro'...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 3 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: condo for ff. arguments because dairygirl litterally put up no case defense besides a perpetual 'nuh uh'. dairygirl was unable to disprove con's source which demonstrated microevolution in pregnant women.