humans are no longer significantly evolving

Off-Topic | Let me shortly explain sourcing and sources, because you seem to have yet to fully understand that problem as well. I don't want to lecture you - well I want to, but not to annoy you, but to help you get better. Sources are not there to directly prove that your exact theory is right. Scientifically spoken: if you find a source that states exactly what you are trying to state, you may don't need to write your essay at all. Because it has been done and you would only slitter into plagiarism. A good argument has a theory, an example or explanation and support. If I argue, that Bread is healthy, is not necessary to find a study that states "bread is healthy" but I need to find argument like "bread contains carbohydrates" prove that with a source and then make the connection that "carbohydrates are good for you" (source?) and have then shown that bread is good for you. That is like maths. If you want X and you have Y and Z you need to find Y and Z first. This is not even one of my theories, that is academic sourcing. Harvard spent quite a time on composing a guide [12 http://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu...] and if you enjoy debating you might want to have a look into it for your own enhancement and the other's convenience.Short: there is nothing wrong with having sources that are not directly on the topic if they can support the arguments that support my theory. And throwing in a source without using it (the pnas.org source) for an argument and just paraphrasing it, is only valid because this is a debate and not an academic paper. You don't need your own ideas for that, you can built a whole debate on someone elses ideological shoulders without breaking the rules of sportsmanship.Rebuttals | The following part is focusing on rebuttals. I hope I'll not forget one."defining weak in precise terms is irrelevant" - the conclusion that, if everyone breeds, the weak also breed, is not bad. But that bases on four assumptions: 1. there are weak humans 2. we have done something that prevents weak humans from dying 3. if we stop doing this, weak humans would die again. Defining weak is certainly relevant to this debate. Because we could then identify if these people are actually breeding successfully. If they are not, they are "dying". Not all unsuccessful individuals fail to breed, but most not successful. Not all human individuals breed. I don't have children for example nor has my brother, while my sister has three. Currently my family is not able to fulfill the evolution's requirement of successful breeding, because that would require at least 6 children in total, and ideally nine, three from each sibling. So my mother and sister bread successful (two children to prolong the line and one to extend it). If we could define my brother an me as weak humans, we might show that evolution is working. If we can prove that my brother and I are strong humans we can indicate that it is not working. Without a definition for weak, we are hamstrung. Quoting my Opponents introduction statement: "people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die", I conclude that she does have an idea about what "weak" humans are, so I don't see why my Opponent did not take this chance to correct that morally questionable first statement into something more sound and less (potentially) offensive. She actually made it worse ("there may be small variations, discussed when someone chooses a more intelligent partner etc, or when a retard falls off a bridge"). This is certainly a turn. Because it uses a certain perception about weakness that my opponent refused to define as something other than "irrelevant" and it approves my theory that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage. That's an indirect concession. "[adaption is] the precuser to it, not evolution itself." - I have already shown why adaption is precursor and indicator for evolution and I distance myself from the phrasing that I'd have stated that they are evolution.I have (other than my opponent) sourced on what I base that theory so there would be no need to repeat myself. If we have better adaption, what causes and proves that evolution has happened, we can prove evolution. You cannot prove an earthquake directly, but can prove that a tectonic plate is moving and that the surface appears shaking. That is sufficient reason to state that an earthquake has occurred. If we can show that humans adapt and have adapted than we can strongly believe that evolution has happened or is happening."neanderthal [...] are not us." There is a reason why we call it the homo neanderthalensis. He is "an extinct species of human in the genus Homo" (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org...). Evolving into a new genetic form usually means we get a new fancy Latin title. Before we were homo sapiens sapiens, we were homo sapiens, before that we might have been homo sapiens idaltu. New gene variation, new name. So who is "us"? "Foreseeable future" - All three last arguments evolve around the concept of foreseeable future: "we won't change any time within the foreseeable future". What is foreseeable future in terms of evolution? It's obviously not clear what you define as human (homo sapiens (sapiens?) or all subspecies of homo?) that makes "foreseeable" rather unclear as well. But the main problem is that evolution is not predictable at all. You cannot look at a species and predict how they will look like in 5my. And earth historically would that be a very foreseeable future. Their environment and challenges might change and with them the evolutionary outcome. There is no such thing as a predictable or foreseeable future in terms of evolution, because we don't evolve intentionally or to the better in all points. How nature enables us to adapt to what environment is a prediction with two many possibilities and variables. Humans have therefore difficulties foreseeing evolution . They might find indicators but they cannot prove their theories in the long term. Because we might not be there anymore when the "world has changed" (Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings). "if there is a change, it is far in the future, [...] my statement can still be maintained that we aren't evolving any more significantly" Again, some indications for concession, that at least evolution is going on but not significantly. The problem here is the "any more". That would mean that humans have at any point during their evolutionary history evolved genetically significant and fast. Well again, we run into problems, when it comes to "humans", because depending on how we define it, that statement is either wrong or partly wrong.The homo sapiens sapiens has genetically not evolved significantly overall. Because if he did, he would not be the closed subspecies that he is. That does not bring us anywhere. We cannot talk about evolution with the screenshot of the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens. We need to at least talk about the Homini genus homo, to which the Encyclopedia of Life refers to as "Human" [13 http://eol.org...]. But nowhere in the last 200,000 years have humans evolved genetically significant apart from technological progress. There is a natural genetic difference between two humans from about 0,1% and 1,2% between a human and a chimpanzee [14 http://humanorigins.si.edu...]. How is that significant?To my opponent is the technological progress no sign of evolution. But that only means that they would not have strongly evolved overall. Which conclusively means that the statement "humans are no longer significantly evolving" is wrong, because "not longer" and "significant" both fail to apply. To me technological progress is a clear sign of evolution. And that only means that "humans are no longer significantly evolving" is wrong, because technological progress is nearly exponentially proceeding, which means that the "no longer evolving" part fails to apply.Thanks |