It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Challenge Match. budski v GUNSINWAR: Some People Change

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:35 AM
The topic for this debate is "Assuming that the theory of evolution is correct, the unique demands placed on humans in the first and third world will cause Homo sapiens to diverge into two different species".

This debate topic presupposes the answer to a contentious question, namely evolution. The debate forum does not ask that debaters accept that conclusion, but merely to explore the issue as a hypothetical.
Under the fighters bill of rights, if either fighter considers such an assumption blasphemous, they may request a new topic.

budski will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
GUNSINWAR will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points, the loser will lose 2 ranking points, unless the loser already has zero ranking points. This debate will be judged by a secret pannel.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:04 PM
Thanks to Vagabond for setting up this debate, and thanks and good luck to my opponent GUNSINWAR in this challenge match.

Opening Statement
The topic for this debate is "Assuming that the theory of evolution is correct, the unique demands placed on humans in the first and third world will cause Homo sapiens to diverge into two different species".

During the course of this debate, I will show beyond doubt that humans will, at some point in the future diverge, because of the criteria shown in the title of this debate.

In order to do this, I will look at aspects of evolutionary theory.

These aspects are the Darwin Theory of Evolution (and others), and the theory of Social Darwinism particularly with regard to eugenics.

I will also define what a first world and third world country actually is, why they are different, and the effects the difference will have that will make humans diverge as a species.

There are many areas that need to be explored in order to fully understand why humans will diverge into two or more different species, including education, healthcare and environmental factors. I will show how these factors affect both first and third world nations and how differences between the two can our species to diverge.

Anthropology suggests that as a species becomes advanced enough to protect the weakest members of the species, evolution stops or at least drastically slows. I will show that this may NOT be the case for some third world nations.

There are some who would argue that humans have already diverged, because of the different racial groups and this is where I will show the effects of environmental factors, such as food and water supply and weather conditions specific to a particular region.

To open this debate, I will now specify what constitutes a first world nation as opposed to a third world nation.

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.


Here is a lsit of first world nations.

Third world nations are those defined as:

the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.


Here is a list of third world countries.

Third world countries are not necessarily poor, but nor are they generally as advanced as first world countries in many areas, such as technology, education, healthcare and social welfare - please note this list is not exhaustive.

Socratic Questions

1. Does my opponent believe that Darwinism is applicable, and if so, why?

2. Does my opponent accept Darwins Theory of Evolution

3. If Darwins (and others) Theory of Evolution is not applicable, why is this the case?

Thank you, this concludes my opening.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:30 AM
There is a delay because of complications with GUNSINWAR's fighter status. We are attempting to correct the issue, and it's not his fault.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:34 PM
Thankyou for this great debate by Vagabond.Good luck to my opponent it is a honour.

OPENING STATEMENT:"Assuming that the theory of evolution is correct, the unique demands placed on humans in the first and third world will cause Homo sapiens to diverge into two different species".

To proof to you first that what Darwin suggested on his Theory of Evolution

We will have to look on facts NOT suggestions nor the word assuming to proof that evolution is correct,and the unique demands placed on humans.

I will show you what happend when a fist world countrie changes into a third wourld countrie as i know, i stay in one.

To show that humans are humans.

Socratic Questions:

1.) Does my opponent believe in the Bible?

2.) To proof what is Darwins theory.

That is about it for know! Thank you, this concludes my opening.


[edit on 18/01/2008 by GUNSINWAR]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:54 AM
I will open by answering my opponents socratic questions, although I notice that mine have not been answered.

1.) Does my opponent believe in the Bible?

Yes - I have a bible in front of me, it's real, it exists.
If my opponent is asking if I believe in what is written in the bible, that is another question, and one that I will be happy to answer should it be asked.

2.) To proof what is Darwins theory.

It is not my place to prove or disprove Darwins theory - the title of the debate points to the fact that we are to ASSUME the theory is correct, which my opponent could have pointed out by answering my socratic questions - which he chose not to do.

I will now focus on aspects of evolution and eugenics or social darwinism in this part of the debate.

The theory of evolution has come quite a long way since Darwin first introduced it, although it must be said that various forms of the theory have been around since ancient greek times, and possibly before.
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal.
Darwin simply brought something new to the theory - Natural Selection, a theory that has long been under fire from various religious groups.

Put simply, Darwin postulated that an organism which was best suited to its environment, and changes in the environment would be more successfull than species which were unable to change, and that the advantagious evolution would be passed on to its offspring - thus ensuring the continuation of its species.

If evolution were not a fact, we would not be here now.
Man has evolved through countless millenia, changing slowly, until the present day - this would indicate that changes are constant, although slow.

The changes in our understanding of genetics may indicate a speeding up of this process, and the differences are already becoming more pronounced according to a recent report which stated:

Humans have moved into the evolutionary fast lane and are becoming increasingly different, a genetic study suggests.

In the past 5,000 years, genetic change has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period, say scientists in the US.

Researchers found evidence of recent selection in 7% of all human genes, including lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations.


This could be due to many factors, some of which will be covered later on in this debate, but the evidence is irrefutable - humans are changing at a rate faster than anything previously known, and if given enough time, will eventually evolve into different species.

Another factor is modern eugenics - I am not speaking here of the outmoded, dangerous and flawed theory of eugenics, so popular for many years until the Nazi's came along and started to experiment on prisoners for the purpose of furthering the master race.
Modern Eugenics is a completely different matter, and is the theory or practice of improving a species (whether human or animal) through breeding, and/or gene selection.

This practice is already widely used in some regards, as evidenced by the existence of sperm banks, where women or couples can specify or pick the best criteria for possible inherited traits by looking at the profile of the donor.
Of course, just because a parent is a Nobel prize winner, it doesn't mean the child will be, but it increases the chances.

We have all seen reports about the near future and the stories about parents being able to pick the sex, eye colour etc of a prospective child - and it must be noted that this could happen only in first world countries, where the level of income, the medical technology and the understanding of procedures make this a near certainty at some point in the near future - something that third world nations do not share with first world nations.

There are also cultural aspects, relating to how a woman chooses a potential mate, which differ from region to region and country to country and which I will explore further later in the debate.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:31 AM
I will open by answering my opponents socratic questions,

as I am only second to answer my opponent questions:

1.)Does my opponent believe that Darwinism is applicable, and if so, why?
- NO

2.)Does my opponent accept Darwins Theory of Evolution?

3.)If Darwins (and others) Theory of Evolution is not applicable, why is this the case?

By the man, who said it by him self, and i quote...

prove that a single species has ever changed." - Charles Darwin

Even the farther of evolution said that we cannot proof it!

Man has evolved through countless millenia, changing slowly, until the present day - this would indicate that changes are constant, although slow.

The thought is simple and yet profound ... why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history! Think about it! Evolutionists claim that man evolved over billions of years (that's billions with a "B"). If there were any truth to these false claims by unscrupulous scientists, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions. There is no record of a cataclysmic event that destroyed mankind prior to 4,000 B.C. And if there were, surely some of the survivors would have passed this information down to generations to follow. The Bible dates creation, as we know it today, at approximately 4,000 B.C. Thus, it was approximately 6,000 years ago that God, Jesus Christ, created the heavens and the earth in 6-days. It was 6,000 years ago that Jesus Christ spoke the stars into existence. It was 6,000 years ago that Jesus spoke animals, fish, plants, and land into existence. And it was 6,000 years ago that God formed man out of the dust of the earth.

humans are changing at a rate faster than anything previously known, and if given enough time, will eventually evolve into different species.

The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Since Rome's fall in 476 A.D, this is the year 2008,how long will this take when there was already enought time?

It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.

The most basic fact of all Human conditions is that PEOPLE DON'T CHANGE.

That is about it ! ..........For know.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:49 PM
I'm not sure if my opponent has got the point of this debate.

The subject calls for the assumption that evolution is correct, not an argument about evolution VS the bible.

However, I will contiue, and will answer his biblical theory, by tying it in with a point I said I would expand upon later in the debate.

If the bible is correct, and Adam & Eve were created 4,000BC how did we arrive at so many different ethinc groups?

Fossils which have been recovered which have been dated around the 200,000 year mark originated in Africa.
This would indicate that our ancestors derived from africa and the african ethnic group.

If we assume that we were all originally of similar african ethnicity, then why do we not look the same as we did back then if we have not evolved into different subsets of humans?

The reason is clear.
As our ancestors spread across the globe, they encountered conditions far different from where the species originated, which lead to humans breaking up into subsets of the same species.

People with paler skin pigmentation are from northern climates, where there is less sunlight - so these people EVOLVED lighter skin in order to absorb the amount of sunlight they needed.

Whereas people from the tropical and hotter climates did not need a lighter pigmentation, so they had no need to evolve to take advantage of less sunlight.

In first world countries, we have seen as recently as the last few years, changes in physical appearances due to societal factors regarding the food we eat and the kind of work we do.
Many more people now work in offices than ever before, and we now lead a much more sedentary lifestyle, for the most part, which has lead to a heavier population.
The average height, weight and IQ are all increasing quickly, due to better education, the food we eat and better medical healthcare.

This may not be the case in some third world countries, where education and healthcare are seldom as good, and where manual labour is still the predominant way of living. This may in some respects lead to a divergence of the species, as each pursues a different speciality.

Because this is what evolution tells us happens.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:08 AM
GUNSINWAR is late and will forfeit a single post.
Budski may continue his argument

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:10 PM
There have been many societal changes in first world countries compared to third world countries in recent years, one of which is how people pick a propective mate.

In earlier times, especially when humans existed primarily as hunter-gatherers, the most desirable mates had different characteristics to what is considered desirable in the modern world.

For women, a good mate would have to be able to provide - and so the strongest and best hunters would be the most desirable mates.

For men, the act of procreation and carrying on of genes was the most important trait - and due to a lack of knowledge, this meant that characteristics such as wide hips and large buttocks were more desirable.

In first world countries, this is no longer the case in many respects.
For women, the provider instinct may still be strong, but now it has changed from bringing in food, to bringing in money.
A male who is able to earn large sums of money is not always the strongest or the biggest - but he is likely to have above average intelligence, which means that the genes now being passed from generation to generation are becoming skewed towards intelligence rather than physical strength or physical ability.
Of course, physical attributes are still important, but they are not AS important as they were in earlier times.

For men, the act of procreation has becoma secondary to physical attributes in women, as the ideal of what a woman should look like for mating purposes has changed dramatically in the last century or so.
The media has created an image of what the ideal should be, and many women may try to emulate this, leading to smaller, perhaps weaker offspring in the future in comparison to what may have developed had the criteria remained the same. We may have even seen further increases in average height and weight than we are currently witnessing.

For third world countries, the reverse is more likely to be true, as the hunter gatherer image has remained fixed in the psyche for much longer.

The food eaten in first world countries is also a major consideration.
Much of the food eaten in first world nations is likely to be processed and contain additives, hormones and chemicals not used in previous era's.
The use of these and the prevalence of obesity means we may actually see life expectancy drop for the first time in many generations, except amongst those who choose a more natural diet, more suited to the modern first world.
This would also seem to indicate that intelligence may increase, as humans who reject modern convenience food, may be viewed (in general) to be above average intelligence.

The ease of access to all the necessary foodgroups needed to achieve longevity may also be a factor, with, again, generally those of higher than average intelligence choosing this option, and so ensuring that in first world nations average intelligence continues to increase.

In third world countries, the hunter gatherer has also become much less prevalent, with farming for food, or earning money to buy food now more the norm.
Despite this, it may be said that physical attributes are still the dominant factor when picking a mate, which means that the physical attribute genes may become more prevalent.

It must also be said, that third world countries may be more dangerous and lead to shortened average longevity, due to war, famine and the relative scarcity of balanced nutrition.

The relative scarcity of balanced nutrition, may be due to less sophisticated infrastructures than those which exist in first world nations.

As these factors take more and more effect with each generation, we will see the divergence of the human race into separate species.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:11 PM
GUNSINWAR has missed two posts. GUNSINWAR is disqualified. Budski has won.

top topics


log in