2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
From the move X Men
Prof. Charles Francis Xavier: Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, and normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward.
We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah.
Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation,” the study says. “The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease.
1. Do you admit there is a difference between evolving/growing/progressing and transforming into something entirely different?
2. Do you admit that the idea of humans being the product of dead matter and coincidental chemical chain-reactions which lead to the ape and finally to the human is a mere theory?
3. When you say that us evolving from apes is "widely accepted", what do you mean by "widely accepted?" Would more than 50% of the world population not buying into this idea constitute "widely accepted"?
"Turning into another species would mean that we could interbreed with that other species. Thanks for the pointer!"
Humans will not turn into animals, monsters or aliens. Instead our intelligence and abilities will evolve
The evidence that the homo sapiens will turn into a lion, monster or alien is scarce though.
For as long as we can remember, for as long as we have accounts of recorded history, lions have been lions and humans have been humans. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that we will be something other than human in the future. Its really no more complicated than that...which is why I struggle to imagine how my opponent hopes to argue the opposite for five lengthy posts.
The oldest lion-like fossil is known from Laetoli in Tanzania and is perhaps 3.5 million years old; some scientists have identified the material as Panthera leo. The oldest confirmed records of Panthera leo in Africa are about 2 million years younger. The closest relatives of the lion are the other Panthera species: the tiger, the jaguar and the leopard. Morphological and genetic studies reveal that the tiger was the first of these recent species to diverge. About 1.9 million years ago the Jaguar branched off the remaining group, which contained ancestors of the leopard and lion. The Lion and leopard subsequently separated about 1 to 1.25 million years ago from each other.
I would like to examine the possibility of hybridizing humans and extraterrestrials to create a new species
My opponent (in his opening) uses the words "beyond a shadow of a doubt" so I will take him up on the offer to state with absolute certainty that apes are where humans come from.
The pending demise of the Y chromosome could give rise to a whole new species of human, a professor of comparative genomics says.
Scientists have been speculating about the demise of the Y chromosome for some years now but Professor Jenny Graves of the Australian National University in Canberra has come up with a bold new twist on the theory.
When two populations become two species
Graves says men without a Y chromosome would be largely infertile. But a small number would reproduce and pass the new sex determining gene to their children.
Eventually the group with the new gene would separate from the Y gene group, potentially evolving into a new species, she says.
My opponent states that humans are becoming more different than more alike...as if this in any way supports his side. No matter how much we´ve evolved over documented and recorded history we´ve always stayed human and will stay that which defines us as human
Again, all it takes is for one subtle or major mutation to cast off an entire new species of human to deal with the change
My opponent continues by showing how lions supposedly diverged into leopards. Lions and Leopards are, however, not a different family just like blacks and whites are not a different species.
In order to transform from one species to another you need to add new information into the genetic code - information that did not exist in that species before. This has never once been observed in science let alone proven. And even if it were possible, it would require intervention on our part...which refutes the idea of "naturally evolving into it".
1. One of Darwin's finches (Geospiza fortis) helped prove their namesake's theory of evolution when scientists observed a shift in the species to birds with smaller beaks after competition was introduced by the arrival of another species with larger beaks. This happened over a twenty year span and was the first instance where scientists were able to document the type of evolutionary change known as character displacement from the start to completion of the process.
2. "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
No, I cannot deny the possibility that we will evolve into another species. However, I am arguing for what is more probable rather than possible.
Up to now Ive typed everything up from my own memory of the facts, without the need for sources.
1. Are you seriously suggesting that it is more probable we will evolve into another species instead of into other human forms?
2. If I time-traveller were to travel back from the year 5000, is it probable that you could interpred with this member of the preferred sex or that you are confronted with an entirely new species?
3. Do you know and can you define the difference between natural selection and evolution?
Probability is irrelevant in this case as there was no defined time limit, and you yourself can not deny the possibility that humans could evolve into another species. Give humans 15 million years and ANYTHING is possible.
Claim: Humans will evolve into two sub-species
Claim: Humans will evolve into two sub-species
A British researcher claims that the human species will evolve into distinct "coffee-colored" sub-species over the next 100,000 years, according to the BBC.
Oliver Curry, an evolutionary theorist at the London School of Economics, predicts that mankind will peak in 3000 and that technology will lead people to be choosier when it comes to selecting a mate.
"The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the 'underclass' humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures," he says.
Its a wicked debate trick I know, but it serves to illustrate a point: My opponent is not interested in acknowledging the facts or logic but simply trying to debunk whatever comes up. What are the facts? That neither genus nor species have ever been observed to deviate from their course of evolution and that the superordinate genus not having switched already implies (by logic) that the species does not switch.
"Men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises," the BBC reports. "Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features."
A note of caution: Curry is a theorist. There's no evidence that any of this will happen. Also, for what it's worth, H.G. Wells predicted the bifurcation of the human race in his 1895 novel, The Time Machine, with predatory Morlocks and weak Elois inhabiting the earth many millenia in the future.
Quite to the contrary, if an Oriental couple suddenly comes out with a blue-eyed blond baby, you can be sure that this woman visited some blond man sometime ago. This is the scientific conclusion we have been drawing all this time. Otherwise, we could never have accused such a woman of cheating.
He can then, in one go, refute the existence of intelligent consciousness seperate from physical reality, refute the existence of a supreme being, refute that concepts such as love, beauty, creativity are anything more than coincidental chemical reactions...and so forth and so on.
1. Can you prove that humans have switched species?
2. Do you concede that modern science is working on changing us as a species by intelligent intervention rather than leaving it to natural evolution?
3. If you take a short break from abstract biology books and take a look around...can you in all honesty and with certainty say that no intelligent design was required for trees, human bodies, birds, clouds, etc. to exist?
4. Do you think the fact that flowers can change into other flowers proves that humans can deviate from their species?
I defined species at the beginning of this debate so that we would not run into this. We BOTH agreed that a new species would be defined as a group that "are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." Even though my opponent belittled and poked fun at my definition, he still agreed to it...
Is it because my opponent has been unable to refute any of my current examples pertaining to humans being able to evolve into new species, like the example on men losing the "Y" chromosome? Maybe.
Is it because my opponent has yet to refute my examples of observed nature, wherein species have INDEED changed into new species, in the sense that they were no longer able to mate with the species from which they descended? Maybe.
Because of the FACT the "genus" is listed below "species" on my opponent's chart, it is then LOGICAL to state that the genus does not have to change if the species changes. By the way, if my opponent is going to make such a huge distinction about genus and species, then I would like to see at least a feasible definition from my opponent.
A note of caution: Curry is a theorist. There's no evidence that any of this will happen.
Socratic Question #1 - How does this article in any way prove that humans will not evolve into a new species?
So, out of THOUSANDS of articles - this is what my opponent has built his case upon.
Please do not try to paint me as a Godless being that does not believe in love, beauty or creativity.
This is not what this debate is about. If it was, then my opponent would have argued this from the beginning. This is a clear motive to bring emotion into this, and I will not accept this as a valid argument.
What you are insinuating is that evolution and the development of new species cannot coexist with a God. I have never argued this.
#1. Can you prove that humans have switched species?
Nope. If I could, then there would be no debate. My charge is to show how Homo Sapiens could eventually evolve into one or more new species. I have done this by citing numerous examples.
#2. Do you concede that modern science is working on changing us as a species by intelligent intervention rather than leaving it to natural evolution?
I argue that this point is superfluous to this debate. The topic does not clarify if these "new species" need to be a product of natural or unnatural intervention. It asks if humans could eventually evolve into new species and it does not require that I prove whether or not this occurs naturally. How these new species are formed is not in the scope of this debate.
#3. If you take a short break from abstract biology books and take a look around...can you in all honesty and with certainty say that no intelligent design was required for trees, human bodies, birds, clouds, etc. to exist?
Again, it is you that assume the two cannot coexist. Let us say that it was indeed God that created new species - and God decided to create a new species of human. Would that not fulfill my obligation to this argument?
4. Do you think the fact that flowers can change into other flowers proves that humans can deviate from their species?
First, these flowers did not simply change into other flowers. The original flowers created offspring that formed a new SPECIES and, by our agreed upon definition, were then unable to mate with the species from whence they came. This example was used to fortify my other example that when men lose their "Y" chromosome, a new species of human will develop because this new species will not be able to reproduce fertile offspring with the human species.
SkyFloating made a fatal error in the very beginning of this debate by agreeing to my definition of species and, ever since then, he has been back peddling.
Now, in a desperate attempt, SkyFloating would try and convince you that this debate in some way has to do with the existence of God or a greater power. He would also have you believe, and believe falsely, that if I am right, then surely God can not exist.
I've acknowledged that I was inattentive at the beginning of the debate. But this one mistake of mine does not decide the entire issue. Ive retracted it and countered it with "a flower can turn into other flowers and humans can turn into other humans".
You try to support your baseless claim with "sources" written by supposed "authorities" who try to pass speculative theory as "fact".
I on the other hand dont need to look up to any self-styled "authority" to confirm my first-hand-experience of the facts.
You will not accept it as a valid argument, but I sure bet the majority of earth will. There are not 1000000000000000 sources, books, lectures you could pile up to make most of us believe that the transformation you speak of could occur without willfull intervention.
That is not what I am insinuating. Thats what you were expecting me to say in a debate like this.
Things alike are not things inter-changeable. There has to be a basic mechanism allowing and enabling such interchange to occur. Otherwise, they would forever remain different however small their differences may be! This is the precise case with the diverse species on earth. While they often look alike, there is this fundamental lack of essential biologic mechanisms allowing them to convert one into the other. Thus, despite the similarities between a chimpanzee and a human being, they since the beginning of time have been separate species. As shown in the above, since chimpanzee's genetic and man's genetic constitution differ from each other and there exists no mechanism for their interconversion, there could not have been any inter-breeding between these two species: because had there been evolution of man from the chimps, there could not have been man before the chimps had evolved into man. It would be entirely necessary for the chimps to have had their fetuses suddenly "mutate" into human fetuses to ensure the genesis of humans from the chimps. But as just summarized and proven, fetal development from zygote is so individual- and race- specific that to suppose the chimp fetuses could have suddenly mutated into human fetuses would have meant that an Oriental fetus of pure Chinese Han ancestry could suddenly mutate into a blue-eyed blond without difficulty! How nice, the Chinese are ancestors to the Europeans! But we don't see that. Do we?
Quite to the contrary, if an Oriental couple suddenly comes out with a blue-eyed blond baby, you can be sure that this woman visited some blond man sometime ago. This is the scientific conclusion we have been drawing all this time. Otherwise, we could never have accused such a woman of cheating. But we are almost always certainly to accuse her of cheating in such a case. Why? Because we have never at the medical/ scientific level accepted Darwin's suppositions. Otherwise, we could not make such an entirely scientific medical conclusion at all. We would have denied the truth of such a modern knowledge of medical genetics. In other words, Darwinian thinking as an outdated quasi-scientific hypothesis, runs contrary to proven modern principles of inheritance. Insofar as genetic engineering has progressed to the stage of sheep cloning, and soon human cloning, it would be regressive and ignorant for Darwin to deny the truth and magic of these modern insights into and technology on the stability of the gene populations in various individuals and species. Such a stability denies Darwin's hypothesis the degree of scientific value needed for its acceptance as a scientific doctrine.(Italics added 8/1/1998)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Y chromosome is the sex-determining chromosome in humans and most other mammals. In mammals, it contains the gene SRY, which triggers testis development, thus determining sex. The human Y chromosome is composed of about 60 million base pairs.
genetic expressions as indicated above, are subject to teratologic and other poisonous distortions, but only within intraspecific boundaries, e.g., a thalidomide baby being still a human baby, not mutated into an ape baby.
I give it to TruthWithin.
Overall he presented a better case. Skyfloating resorted to odd tactics that really didn't help him, and he claimed victory on some aspects that seemed almost irrelevant. TruthWithin wasn't thrown off by these odd tactics and continued to hammer away.
I normally read these two or three times, but after reading it the first time I genuinely feel it's not even close enough to justify even a second reading.
Skyfloating would be better served if he dropped some of his "wicked debating tricks" and just stuck to the subject, because he's damn talented.
I think Truth was ahead in just about every category in this one;
Form, style, rebuttal and clarity of thought.
Sky seemed to be in the debate reluctantly, or pressed for time?
He Seemed lost/lacking in focus, at times.
The 'tricks', back stepping, flip-flopping and divagation of the specific stated argument did not help his case, IMO.
Clear victory for TruthWithin. It was such a rout that I found myself wondering if I'd missed something on Skyfloating's side.
TruthWithin was really in top form for this debate. He progressed through the topic in a well organized fashion presenting information I'd never seen before to support the more basic explanation of how the proposition was scientifically plausible. He also reacted very well to skyfloating's sometimes confusingly off base rebuttals.
Skyfloating just wasn't himself. I can only assume that he had greater obligations but simply would not let us down by dropping out, and thus couldn't invest enough time in research. He chose his intepretation of the question unwisely (implying that humans would have to evolve into some already existing other species, such as lions). I also think me missed a very important point- that humans are the first species with the ability to exert coherent influence on their genetic development, and may prevent their own evolution by trying to combat such things as the degradation of the Y chromosome. The most jaw-dropping problem however was the "trap" he laid. I suspected that he had made a mistake and tried to pass it off as a trap, because it just didn't make any sense.