humans are no longer significantly evolving

Glad to be back. This was really a quick answer, so thanks.Scientific Evidence | If my opponent fails to provide specific evidence, than the mere claim that it is there, is only speculation and not evidence at all. Because "there's stuff all over the internet" backing up many theories, there are reliable and unreliable sources. PopSci is a journalistic summary of Science News, it's not as reliable as the MIT publication I provided you with [6 http://dspace.mit.edu...] or the National Academy Press. Furthermore, the given article only summaries the ideas of one genetic. And even the article states that this theory is controversial ("Our future may be uncertain") by promoting Steve Jones thesis as merely one possibility. My opponent might want to find actual publications by Steve Jones and include them as support.Weak | The argument that weak humans are likely to breed, has not yet been supported by further explanation or examples. I currently also lack my opponents definition of a weak human. Physically weak, by being less able to lift as much or run as far? Mentally weak? Is a bipolar top-athlete with diabetes evolutionary weak or strong? My opponents core argument therefore is currently the only thing that clearly shows weaknesses (from a rhetorical perception of weakness).Adapting is Evolution | My opponent states that "adapting [...] isn't really evolution". This is wrong. Said Mr. Darwin noticed already that adaption is what happens, when you evolve [7 http://www.literature.org...] and that is simultaneously what ensures that evolution goes on. Adaption is result and mechanism and therefore a valid indicator for evolution. Relevance of Genetic Mutation | Pro has difficulties to make clear, but most likely claims, that genetic mutation is the solely necessary element for evolution and that evolution has not occurred if the gene pool does not reflect that. This concept shows the following problems: Genetic evolution is slow. The Hyracotherium, the most basic form of the horse, took more than 10my to genetically transform into to Orahippus and about 55my to become the horse we know today [8 http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...]. To say that humans don't evolve any more because there are not any recent changes in our DNA as species is like taking a screenshot from a movie and argue that this proves, that there is no movement in the movie at all. Species die out. Humans die. One low performing individual that breeds does not equal that low performing individuals are getting evolutionary successful. There is a bigger picture. And recent human development like the extinction of the homo neanderthalensis only 200,000 years ago [9 http://humanorigins.si.edu...] (that is really recently if you think about the age of the earth) shows certainly a tendency to still let unsuccessful species go extinct. However, I see that the claim that current human breeding techniques hinder classic evolution has more potential. That this is also not true is going to he shown by the next set of arguments:Intelligence and Adaption | Humans have developed (already to some a sign of evolution) the incredible ability intelligently adapt to their environment or, where this is not possible, change the environment to adapt to the human. This is huge step in evolution because Humans don't have to wait for thousands of generations to adapt to a cold environment, they get some cloths, survive and then wait till genetics catch up. Intelligence and Knowledge are Humanities most valuable and most unique tools in the evolutionary process because they are an evolutionary outcome that enables us to work faster than genetic evolution. While genetic evolution still works unnoticeably slow and silently in the background.A few evolutionary benefits of Intelligence and Technological adaption:- Humans can now choose to find a mating partner all over the world with relatively low effort (more choice better statistic chances)- With modern medicine do we prolong the live span and chances of our best individuals as well- With Collective Intelligence do we raise the overall performance and chances of our race, because we ensure that the most successful individuals do not only spread their genes but also their knowledge widely. We use all their resources.Do intelligent humans have more children? Form a short point of view seems this the point of my contradiction. But the intelligent humans are those who ensure the mechanisms that keep themselves AND the lower performing ones alive. Doctors and Technicians and Professors might not breed more successful in terms of the amount, but they breed better in terms of performance, because their children are most likely to achieve the same educational standards, income and therefore are less dependent. And they spread their knowledge and expertise so not only their own children but everyone's child can benefit and increase their evolutionary value. Do "stupid" people die earlier? They do. Interesting is, that education and live expectancy are probably linked, because the life span difference between someone with less than a high school degree and a graduates degree is over 10 years for male adults [10 http://www.prb.org...]. Cancer | Cancer is a good example that evolution is not perfect and that it sometimes makes compromises for the overall outcome. Mammals, especially because of the human, are currently the most successful class in the food chain. But they have the highest risk of dying from cancer [11 http://wwworm.biology.uh.edu...], which is, unless caused by a virus, basically a spontaneous genetic mutation that kills the individual. A not at all beneficial genetic specialty. But cancer risk has survived and increased for millions of years, because it's not significantly hindering reproduction. Not only in humans. That's it so far :) I am excited to see the rebuttal and really thankful that your last answer came so soon, it was really convenient for me.