Smartphone use yields negative results for intellectual evolution

My opponent stated that "intellectual evolution is dependent on growth, a lapse in growth leads to a lapse in adaptation, leading to a lapse in the evolutionary process." This statement assumes that the following is true: a. Evolution cannot occur without growth. b. Adaptation cannot occur without growth. c. The evolutionary process cannot occur without growth. Both facets A and C of this argument are identical, as evolution cannot occur without an evolutionary process because the very definition of evolution specifies that it is "a process of slow change and development" [1]. Thus, the whole argument can be disproven by invalidating point A/C and B. My opponent invokes the definition of evolution, although he does not cite the biological definition which is of the most relevance to this debate. His source defines evolution in biology as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" [2]. This mentions nothing about growth. Thus, my opponents argument is invalid, as evolution can occur without growth and is not dependent on growth. Furthermore, in order for my opponent to prove that smartphones yield negative results for intellectual evolution, he must prove that there has not been a change in the gene pool of the population as a direct result of smartphones. R1: Presumed declines in spatial memory cannot be directly attributed to smartphones. Only 31% of smartphone owners say that they frequently use their device for GPS [3] [4]. Therefore any decline in spatial memory that my opponent alleges is a result of smartphones cannot be applied large-scale to account for an decline in intellectual evolution. R2: The Generation Effect has little relevance to smartphones and cheating does not correlate to intellectual ability. The generation effect is a psychological principle that states that "actively producing material during encoding acts to improve later memory performance" [5]. Smartphones allow users to access information quickly, however this ease of obtaining information does not have a direct correlation to the memory effect, as Googling a fact does not lead to a decrease in memory performance more than looking a fact up in a book under the principle of the generation effect. Because looking an answer up in a book does not involve producing material, which is necessary for the generation effect to apply, the concept that smartphones are detrimental under the generation effect is false.My opponent also argues that cheating is somehow the result of smartphones. Students do not cheat because they have a smartphone. Students cheat because the feel that it is necessary for them to achieve their goals [6]. Cheating is not caused by smartphones, but rather smartphones are a newer vehicle for cheating.R3: Smartphones can be used in many beneficial ways.The advancement of technology has improved access to medical care in remote areas [7], increased clinician efficiency [8] [9], and improvements in medical training [10]. It has also allowed increased access to reading materials, which has the potential to increase global literacy rates [11]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.pewinternet.org...[4] http://www.pewinternet.org...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[7] http://www.sciencedirect.com...[8] http://journals.lww.com...[9] http://multi-science.atypon.com...[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[11] http://unesdoc.unesco.org...