Round 3. TruthWithin v Skyfloating: Humanity 2.0

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Homo Sapiens, or some portion thereof, will eventually evolve into one or more new species".

TruthWithin will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Skyfloating 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.


There are no limits on the length of posts, but you may only use 1 post per turn.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations


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. Each invidual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.


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.

A new time limit policy is in effect
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extention of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extention begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extention request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Hello everyone! Allow me to take a moment to thank The Vagabond for setting up and maintaining what is proving to be a really exciting debate tournament. I wish SkyFloating the best of luck!

Let’s begin.

TruthWithin's Opening Statement



"Homo Sapiens, or some portion thereof, will eventually evolve into one or more new species".

Throughout the course of this debate I intend to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not a matter of if, but more a matter of WHEN Homo Sapiens will evolve into one or more new species.

We will define the terms “species” and “Homo Sapien”.

We will look at how Homo Sapiens came from a minor change in the genetic makeup of apes and how that might suggest yet another evolution that would spawn a new species from the Homo Sapiens genome. Furthermore, we will examine how, since the rise of the Homo Sapien, there has been a constant evolutionary process that will imminently lead to a new species.

We will examine some of the factors that fuel evolutionary mutations and how these mutations will breed a new species.

We will consider current scientific studies by biologists that assert that a new species derived from the Homo Sapien genome is imminent, and by looking at the history of Homo Sapiens we are able to see major evolutionary changes that have already occurred.

We will look at how the genes of Homo Sapiens will play a critical role of this evolution of the species Homo Sapiens into a new and unique species.

The Homo Sapien Species



I would like to begin by briefly discussing the term “species” and its implications on this topic. The term "species" is generally hard to define and has challenged those in the scientific community to specify what constitutes a “species”. In fact, a separate term, “The Species Problem"” has been coined to discuss this issue. This coined phrase is only brought up to illustrate the complexity of the term “species”, however it is not critical to my main point.

So, to prevent this debate from turning into an argument as to what the term “species” means, allow me to define this term as it is relevant to the species “Homo Sapien”. This is from dictionary.com.


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.


This definition aptly fits because Homo Sapiens are indeed mammals and can be categorized within their inherent species because they are able to only interbreed within there own species. In other words, Homo Sapiens can only breed with other Homo Sapiens to produce fertile offspring. This, in and of itself, classifies Homo Sapiens as a unique species.

It is worth noting that the terms “Homo Sapien” and “Human” are completely interchangeable in this debate as they both carry the same meaning. “Homo Sapien” is simply a Latin term that means “wise man” or “Knowing man”.

Look Ma! I'm evolving!




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.


It is widely accepted that Homo Sapiens were descendants of the species Australopithecus and this split occurred because of some form of gene mutation that occurred within the species.

Since the rise of the Homo Sapiens, there has been a constant evolutionary process that has occurred. Research now suggests that this process has in fact made humans less similar over time. More importantly, this process is happening faster than ever. Due to these these evolutionary mutations, a new species is imminent.

This is a study that suggests that these changes are occurring rapidly. I will address the imminence of a new species in the next post. This gets the ball rolling though.

Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike


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.


One of the major factors in the hastening of this process, the article suggests, is the human population explosion.


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.


This is only the tip of the iceberg into our journey through the process of the Homo Sapien species evolving into its own new and unique species.

In our next segment, we will look at how current research suggests that a new species may not be too far off. Specifically, we will look at how the human genome will play a role in this process. We will also take a closer look at the major evolutionary processes that have already occurred within the history of mankind.

Again, it is not a matter of “if” Homo Sapiens will evolve into a new species. It is only a matter of "when". And it may be much sooner than you think!

I open the floor to my opponent’s opening statement.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Humans will not turn into animals, monsters or aliens. Instead our intelligence and abilities will evolve


The debate topic is „Homo Sapiens, or some portion thereof, will eventually evolve into one or more new species“. I have been assigned the con-position and will therefore argue that Humans will not evolve into another species.

There is ample evidence that the abilities, bodies and intelligence of the homo sapiens have evolved and will continue to 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.


So that we at least have something to debate about and so that readers might learn a thing or two, I will state:

* Our intelligence and ability are evolving over time (which does not require for us to turn into animals or aliens or x-men as my opponent hints at)

* The idea that we evolved from apes without outside intervention, belongs to a highly speculative but unfortunantely overpublicized branch of Darwinism and is far from proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". 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. Looking into this during the debate naturally touches on alternative theories of interventionism, creationism and even soul-incarnation-theory).

* As a treat for ATS-members and if space allows (we always want to make the debates a learning experience and not only a right-wrong match) I would like to examine the possibility of hybridizing humans and extraterrestrials to create a new species (this however does not support my opponents stance as then we would not be „eventually evolving“ into a new species but rather intervening to create one ourselves).

This is not yet another „Creationism vs. Evolution“ debate in the strict and clear-cut sense as I see both of these sides to have valid scientific evidence. The truth is most probably „somewhere in the middle“. We can all see that a sort of „evolution over time“ does take place, but we cannot see how and when apes magically turned into humans. The "truth in the middle" will probably someday conclude that we do evolve with ocassional interventions of an "intelligence" outside our current scope of perception.

I will agree with my opponents definition of "species" as I dont want to turn this into a boring debate on what "species" means. My opponent correctly says that members of the same species are able to interbreed with each other. Turning into another species would mean that we could interbreed with that other species. Thanks for the pointer!

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 (my opponent has already defined "homo sapiens" and human to mean the same thing, with which I fully agree).

Socratic Questions:

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"?

I wish my opponent TruthWithin the best of luck


I
The Vagabond for setting up a series of challenging debates.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I thank my opponent for his timely reply. I will begin by answering the questions that my opponent asked in his opening post.


1. Do you admit there is a difference between evolving/growing/progressing and transforming into something entirely different?


Certainly, however, you cannot have one with out the other. Any evolution occurs when there is a mutation or a change in DNA, RNA or cell function. This same mutation that causes a humans brain to grow larger over thousands of years, or for elephants to develop tusks, can be a mutation that spawns an entirely new species.


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?


Yes, just as I admit that mankind's knowledge about how we get heat from the sun is a theory. I do not see how you reminding me that we are debating "theories" helps your situation in any way as I believe that there is far more evidence to suggest that new species evolve from other species than species simply falling from the sky, or however you assume that species are created.


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"?


Most polls have belief in evolution at about 50%. Like this poll USA Today having it at 53% pro evolution. If it's enough to get a president elected, its a widely accepted idea. The scientific community is another story with an overwhelming majority believing in evolution.

SOCRATIC QUESTION #1

1. Given that nearly 90% of the US population is Christian, do you feel this figure would in any way influence people to not fully buy into the theory of evolution, as it undermines much of what the bible tells us about the creation of man?


In response to some of my opponent's comments...

First, I request for the sake of civility that we leave little "pointed" comments out of this. They really serve no function within the debate.



"Turning into another species would mean that we could interbreed with that other species. Thanks for the pointer!"


I addressed this topic because there are many different definitions of species that could be construed and hammered on for the rest of the debate. I felt it necessary to specifically define the scope of "species" so we could move on. I didn't do it so that my opponent could belittle me.

My opponent begins his post with:

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.


I am certain that nowhere in my post did I claim any of these things to be a product of a new human species, however my opponent does leave room for the possibility.

Nor did I insinuate that humans will one day turn into X Men. I used the quote because it illustrated that there is generally a mutation involved when dealing with evolving life forms. And I like the movie
.


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.


That is a very absolute statement. I do take some issue with its logic though and since my opponent seems to really like lions, I will use lions as an example

Wikepedia



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.


So it is very reasonable to argue that we can thank the lion for some of our other feline friends as well. This illustrates a mutation of necessity breeding new species of "big cats".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent requests that our readers "learn a thing or two" during the course of this debate, which is why I am bringing information to the debate that may not be commonly known. All of this information pertains to the debate at hand.


I would like to examine the possibility of hybridizing humans and extraterrestrials to create a new species


I might suggest my opponent start a separate thread about breeding aliens and humans together to create hybrids if he so desires. This would probably distract us a bit from the debate at hand.


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.


There is just one problem with your taking me up on my offer. I never said that. I believe I said, "I intend to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not a matter of if, but more a matter of WHEN Homo Sapiens will evolve into one or more new species."

And that is exactly what I intend to do.

This provides an excellent transition to jump back into my argument.

ONE PLAUSIBLE WAY A NEW SPECIES OF HUMAN CAN BE FORMED

I submit this article which continues to show that a new species of human could be right around the corner.

Death of Y may spawn new human species



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.


To sum it up, if males eventually lose the Y chromosome then it is very possible that a new species would evolve to cope with the mutation. Given the deteriorating nature of the Y Chromosome, it might even be imminent.

This is one variation on a near infinite scale of variations that human genes could mutate and evolve on to create new species of humans. 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. Whether it takes 1 year or 15 million years, the potential and reality is there.



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


Finally, the more an more different we become genetically, the greater the chance for mutations to occur that would cause the formation of a new human species.

My opponent has agreed that we have evolved as human in various ways but that we will remain human. So I use my Socratic right and leave my opponent with the following question:

SOCRATIC QUESTION #2

2. Since you admit that humans do indeed evolve - Can you deny any possibility that one of those evolutions could result in the formation of a new human species?

In the next installment, we will cover the topic:

THE RNA TO DNA TRANSFER AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS

I open the floor to my opponent.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
We evolve, but not outside of our species

While its been proven that we evolve, its also been proven that we do not evolve outside of our genus (species). In simple terms, we can become more of what we are, not something other than we are.

Science projects/predicts that we will evolve into very tall, big-headed, hairless, wide-eyed, skinny beings in many thousand years, some say in several billions of years (notice the similarity to what ATSers call "the grey extraterrestrials". Did you know that the inspiration to depict ETs like this, originally comes from predictions of evolution-theorists?)

Anyone who knows the first thing about biology knows that my opponents assertion is plain wrong. We will not evolve into another species, we will evolve into humans with another appearance

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".

I ask the debate-judges to keep the last paragraph in mind when making a final decision on this debate.

Up to now Ive typed everything up from my own memory of the facts, without the need for sources. Sources will be forthcoming if my opponent seriously tries to refute commonly known and widely available data.

And now in response to my opponents last post.

My opponent has meanwhile conceded that his assertions are a mere theory...in another words not proven fact, let alone observable reality. We have this on record.

Answering my opponents Socratic Question #1:

Yes I admit that evolution theory is undermined by alternative views such as christianity or spirituality which do not entirely see humankind as a product of coincidence. I am however not refuting the theory of evolution but merely the unproven claim that we evolve outside of our species.

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. Mutation occurs, but becoming an entirely different species does not occur and has never been observed or scientifically validated.

The gist of my opponents argument can be summarized in this sentence which he presented in bold print:


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


In this quote and in other points he made it becomes apparent that he is peddling the idea that mutation equals transformation. Predictably he fails to mention that humans have undergone several mutations throughout time without once transforming into another species. I will predict to the reader that my opponent will write a lot but in the end not show a shred of evidence that this type of transformation from one species to another has ever occured.

In response to his Socratic Question #2:

No, I cannot deny the possibility that we will evolve into another species. However, I am arguing for what is more probablerather than possible.


My socratic questions:

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?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
While I applaud my opponent's attempt to try and muddle the term "genus" with "species", I can only assume that this is an act of convenience. It indeed would be convenient if they meant the same thing. They, however, do not. And we are not debating genus, we are debating species.

For example - My opponent has called to question my example of leopards diverging from lions.



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.


This is simply refuted. Black people and white people are both categorized under the species of "Homo Sapien".

Leopards are categorized under the species P. Bengalensis, while lions are classified as the species P. Leo. This notes two DIFFERENT species. Therefore my opponent's argument does not stand.



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".


Even though my opponent cites no information to back this claim up, he asks the judges to refer to it. It would almost appear that my opponent is resting his entire case on this statement.

Therefore -

I present two solid examples of how Speciation (the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise) occurs and HAS been observed in nature.

Finches

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.[8]


Flowers

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."


Yet my opponent then contradicts himself by stating:



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.


That is a sharp contrast to my opponent's earlier contention and post title of "We evolve, but not outside of our species."



Up to now Ive typed everything up from my own memory of the facts, without the need for sources.


Well, I think sources are helpful, particularly when you are trying to prove or disprove something. I will gladly accept any cited proof that directly attacks my argument. Thus far, the only thing my opponent has cited was the definition for "genus", which we now know is NOT the same thing as species. Even so, if you visit the Wikepedia page you get the dreaded message at the top of the article that says...



For the sake of brevity, I will postpone my introduction of THE RNA TO DNA TRANSFER AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS. I will save that for my next post.

On to the questions.



1. Are you seriously suggesting that it is more probable we will evolve into another species instead of into other human forms?


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.



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?

While I fail to see the relevance of this as it pertains to the topic we are debating, however, I do feel that if a mutation, such as my previous example of males losing the Y chromosome and having to adapt by forming a new species, then our future visitors would indeed be reproductively isolated and thus they would, by our agreed definition, be of a different species. This is, I may note, the same distinction that my opponent ribbed me on earlier.




3. Do you know and can you define the difference between natural selection and evolution?


I would say that natural selection is a component of evolution and it helps to explain why various species adapt to their habitats and environments. For example, it has been shown that family members genetically linked with those that survived the Spanish Flu of the early 20th Century will have a leg up on another similar flu if one were to break out currently.

I open the floor to my opponent.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Humans will develop into sub-species or superhumans, not into another species.

We neednt kid ourselves: This debate has been raging since more than a hundred years...and it is far from solved.

In my last post I did something I have never done in a debate before: I deliberately built in a mistake for my opponent to pounce on, well aware of the correct answer beforehand. My opponent has snatched the cheese and fallen into the trap. I used the words genus and species interchangably, although a simple look at wikipedia (under "species") illustrates the difference:




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.

A random google search throws up thousands of articles explaining why. Its hard to comprehend why my opponent acts like this is not commonly known among the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debaters, saying "I am not citing sources". This is akin to saying "You are not citing sources to prove that G.W. Bush is currently president". So, for what its worth, here are two example articles explaining my viewpoint:

We dont evolve into another species 1

We dont evolve into another species 2

My opponents rather weak and hopelessly unscientific stance is summarized by his own words:




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.



And so here we have the essence and reason for the entire "intelligent design vs. evolution" debate and the reason why many say that darwinism is not an exact science like physics or mathematics. Since when will a scientist dismiss what is probable for the sake of what might be possible? Of course anything is possible. Its possible that I will turn into a pink chipmunk right this instant. Its possible that in 15 million years humanity will have blown itself away and become extinct. Anything is "possible".

***Dear Judges, by dismissing the probable as "irrelevant" my opponent has left the trail of serious debate***


Now, while my opponent will continue to argue that we are evolving into another species and citing examples of lions diverging into leopards and flowers diverging into other flowers (!) (I now understand why my opponent did not want to discuss the definition of "species" in his opening post. Granted, that was a good move of his) lets look at what science actually believes humans will evolve into.

Excerpt from Source


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.



Sub-species not species, mind you

Another source of similar informatiation: Two sub-species


As an entertaining side-step and also a welcome relief from the somewhat dull classroom atmosphere of this debate I would like to show all readers a clip from one of my favourite movies ("Waking Life"). A speculative concept flying around out there is that we will evolve into "neo-humans" or "superhumans" (however not as another species but as a higher version of ourselves). Note that I am only adding this as an additional speculative possibility to what was already stated above, wheras the above-stated (of humans turning into two sub-species) is currently viewed as more probable.






Why this debate is so important


For readers unfamiliar with the significance of our topic I would like to state: If my opponent can prove that humans turn into another species, he can prove that there is no necessity of intervention by an outside agent or outside intelligence.

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.



Socratic questions to my opponent:

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?


Let me conclude with a simple observation:

Flowers can change into other flowers, humans can change into other types of human



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

HELP! I'm caught in a trap!



Or not.


Let's revisit the topic for just a moment.

Homo Sapiens, or some portion thereof, will eventually evolve into one or more new 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...

So "Y" the change?



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.

So, now it would appear that, in his pangs of desperation, my opponent has resorted to "tricking" me into falling into a trap. So let me see if I have this right.

A WELL LAID TRAP?

**SkyFloating's Wicked Trap**

Step 1 - Say that genus and species mean the same thing.

Step 2 - Knowing that they are not the same thing, get TruthWithin to say that they are not the same thing.

Step 3 - Put up a picture showing that they are not the same thing! GOT HIM!

Congrats! You tricked me into clarifying the facts!




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.


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.

This is clearly an attempt the redirect this debate. I have to show a change of species, not genus. I have done this with multiple examples.


My opponent then carefully picked two sources out of "thousands" that explain how species cannot produce new species. After reading them, I can certainly see why he didn't publish any examples.

Here are two of my favorite sections.

SkyFloating's Source


"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.


Socratic Question #1 - How does this article in any way prove that humans will not evolve into a new species?

We don't eveolve into another species 2


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.


I would hope, that as humans, we would have evolved past referring to Asian people as "Oriental". The author of this article did write it 10 years ago, so hopefully he has.

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.




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.


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.



On to my questions...



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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and gentlemen -

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. This is not, nor has it ever been, my stance on this issue.

I open the floor to my opponent.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Or we will genetically engineer ourselves into a new species

For purposes of clarity I will now quote and respond directly to each and every one of my opponents claims for 1-to-1 combat.




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...


Ive 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". I am firm in my conviction that there is no evidence of humans turning into something other than humans (humans turning into flowers?) and believe this to be the decisive factor in my favour.



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.


Again slight mutations are not indicative of a total transformation. Take a look around. Does it look to you (reader & judge) like any of this is "imminent"?




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.


Yes, my opponent has shown how flowers change into other flowers. Lets let my opponent finally show us how flowers can evolve into something other than flowers...then I will gladly resign from this debate and bow before his victory. Im willing to learn! But so far, no evidence in sight.



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.


We have already adressed how science believes humans will either evolve in intelligence/ability or split into sub-species. This is something different than changing species.




A note of caution: Curry is a theorist. There's no evidence that any of this will happen.


But there is evidence of your assertions?

I´ll stay on the safe side saying that humans are more likely to progress than to change form.



Socratic Question #1 - How does this article in any way prove that humans will not evolve into a new species?


It doesnt and that wasnt its purpose. Its purpose was to show what science thinks we will evolve into: Sub-Species.



So, out of THOUSANDS of articles - this is what my opponent has built his case upon.


Oh no...this is not what Im building my case on. Its merely an example of the current status quo. I am building my case on the strength that you cannot show me a single example of a human transforming into a...a what? I dont even know since you havent mentioned what humans are supposed to be turning into. And on the strength of this "minor little thing" there´s not much else I need point out here.



Please do not try to paint me as a Godless being that does not believe in love, beauty or creativity.


I did not paint you as that. Instead I was applying common sense to show what else readers have to buy into if buying into the belief that there is no intelligent intervention. If there is no intelligent design or intervention at work, it all becomes quite pointless.




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.


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.



What you are insinuating is that evolution and the development of new species cannot coexist with a God. I have never argued this.


That is not what I am insinuating. Thats what you were expecting me to say in a debate like this. Instead its made made clear that evolution happens but that species-change requires some type of willfull design and is not a mere "coincidence". Whether this intervention comes from a supreme being or humans or extraterrestrials or a "field of consciousness" or some factor not yet known to us (this is quite the probability!!!!) is not at debate and neednt have anything whatsoever to do with christianity.





#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.


You have not cited examples of humans evolving into a new species. Instead youve shown how a flower can turn into another flower.
Thanks for conceding that you cannot prove how humans can switch 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?
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.


Wrong. "Evolution Theory" by definition implies natural evolution and mutation without intelligent intervention. Were new species to be created by design by humans it would no longer be evolution but engineering.



#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?


I think Ive made it clear that I believe both can co-exist. No need to try to narrow this down to the usual christian vs. evolution-theorist quagmire. The decisive question is whether we will evolve into a new species or design ourselves as a new species.

It is a question of self-determinism vs. pan-determinism.
You say we will evolve into a new species, different than human.
I say we will either evolve into superhuman / neo-human / sub-species...

...or design ourselves as a new species.

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.

Fact is I have the free will to lift my finger right now. I just decided it, then I did it. This was a self-determined action. Likewise, if we do not willfully intervene we wont ever see humans becoming something other than they are.What you are trying to convey is that somehow things "just evolve" without any intervention, intelligence, will whatsoever.





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.


Well, that "agreed upon definition of species" has been retracted. I understand your reasoning but its a stretch for me to see how a flower producing other flowers implies that humans will change into something else than humans. A real stretch.




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.


How fortunate that they error was discovered in time, retracted and refuted.



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.


Not at all. In this post you tried to pass off genetic engineering as "natural evolution". Engineering something does not have to be conducted by God, it can also be done by us.

And you know what? It IS being done by us already!

What does that mean? It means that the intervention & intelligent design which you, by your debate topic must refute, is taking place today before our very eyes.

***This then shows how we will design and engineer ourselves to a new species rather than "evolve to a new species"***

Information on Genetic Engineering



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Before I begin my closing, I wanted to take a moment to once again thank The Vagabond for hosting the tournament. I would like to thank Skyfloating for helping to perpetuate the break neck speed at which this debate has moved. Also, thanks to the readers and the judges for giving over your time to make this possible. This was a lot of fun!



TruthWithin's Closing Statement



I think Skyfloating pretty much summed it up when he said:



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".


Then he tries to excuse is total lack of substance in this debate with:



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.


Skyfloating's "first hand experience" with evolution, when put up against scientists who study genetics and the processes in which cells, DNA and RNA is hardly a match.



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.


Well, maybe not 1000000000000000, but then again, you couldn't even present 2.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in this debate was clear from the beginning at it is clear now. I laid out a clear argument from the start and have supported that argument with scientific evidence, historical observations and relevant studies. I defined terms that, while my opponent says he has retracted his agreement with, he has still yet to provide a viable alternative definition.

My opponent has tried to skew definitions by "tricking" and "trapping" me. He has tried to make this debate about religion. In fact, he brings up religion first and then accuses me of:



That is not what I am insinuating. Thats what you were expecting me to say in a debate like this.


So he is accusing me of something that he introduced into the debate and, by doing so, has casts a dense smoke screen over the crux of this debate.

Allow me to clear things up.

Unlike my opponent suggests, my job is not to prove that humans can turn into lions. My job is to show that Homo Sapiens (humans) could one day evolve into one or more new species.

To do this, we both had to agree on the terms used in the topic. And we did until it became clear to Skyfloating that by using that definition, I was able to actually show how species have evolved into new species. Then, all of a sudden, he didn't like that definition anymore and claims he refuted it, which he did not. He did not even offer any sort of alternative.

I described one very real scenario in which humans could diverge into another species, and instead of refuting the actual scenario, tells me that's not possible, after he admitted that it was. I then backed it up with real world observations that support the idea of species giving way to new species.

The facts and arguments are all there. No matter how much Skyfloating twists my words around, the fact stands that he has been unsuccessful in refuting my arguments, definitions and examples. If this is in anyway unclear, I urge the readers of this thread to start at the top and notice how my examples and definitions have gone virtually unchallenged with any real substance or sourcing.


Finally -

We do not know with any certainty what the future holds for humanity. We could all be wiped out tomorrow or we could thrive for another hundred billion years or more.

One thing is certain: If humanity continues on, our DNA and RNA and Cells will mutate and give way to many changes.

We will continue to adapt to our surroundings and the changes going on around us.

And I do believe , beyond a shadow of a doubt, that new species will form to help bring about this change.

Whether that change comes from God or science is unknown, but the change WILL happen and a new species might be our only hope.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Please THINK!

I chose this title for my closing because, as I write this my opponent is leading by 18-5 star counts. In previous debate I would have inwardly conceded that my opponent has won the debate and closed with a half-hearted post. But I cannot possibly do this here as I am 100% convinced of my case. Then why arent the star-awarding readers convinced? Maybe it has to do with the fact that people prefer nice-sounding "titles" and scientific sounding "sources" so that they are spared the burden to THINK for themselves. As soon as this debate is over I would really be interested in hearing why those who awarded all those stars to my opponent did so. (I was hoping I wouldnt have spell out every single detail, but apparently its necessary)

Humans will eventually evolve into another species

was the debate topic. If you, as a reader, buy into that, you ALSO have to say that the following is untrue:

* We will not evolve into another species but genetically engineer this new species ourselves (notice how my opponent completely sidestepped this issue, not even beginning to refute or mention it...because it would neutralize his case - isnt this telling enough????????) I brought this case up as my last scenario because it is the most probable and what science is spending the most money on.

* If we do not engineer it ourselves then we will let nature take its evolutionary course. In this case the most probable scenario is that we will either evolve to be a super-human or a human with higher intelligence/ability.

What follows are some quotes from the first source I cited (my opponent chose not to adress that source at all...I wonder why!), describing scientific knowledge from basic textbooks on genetics
Duh...who says I dont cite any hard scientific facts?


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)


Source (If you want to read more).

I wont even begin with all of the other things that are more probable to happen (natural distaster, blowing mankind up with our weapons, evolving into a non-species - a non-localized field of consciousness - as some physicists theorize). There are so many logical fallacies in my opponents argument that it is beyond me why I should be finishing this debate with a 5-18 star count. It is my hope that the judges of this debate will not judge by the number of stars but by what makes more immediate SENSE.

Make no mistake: This debate has nothing to do with God vs. Science or Liberals vs. Conservatives or Creationism vs. Evolution. My opponent tried to imply this in his last post in order to fog proper judgement and evoke knee-jerk-reactions in you. My opponents fails both from a creationist perspective AND from a scientific perspective (as we have already begun to genetically engineer ourselves into a new species!).

What has been my opponents strongest piece of evidence as of recent? "Men loosing the Ý chromosome".



Y chromosome
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.



As you can see, the Y chromosome determines the sex and not the species. Enough said.

Conclusion:

We will not evolve into another species without intervention/engineering. We might involve into another version of the SAME species (human).

Or, in more scientific terms (same source as above):


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 apologize that I did not go into other preferred endeavours such as ET-human hybridization and humans as a field-of-consciousness, but my opponents quick pace and excellent argumentation forced me to resort mostly to pure logic and dry reasoning.

Thanks to readers, judges and moderators for having the patience to read and the stamina to think and consider.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
TruthWithin has won and will advance to round 4.


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.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I sent a U2U to TruthWithin congratulating him on his win before the judgement was made. My embarrasing performance grew out of a being unfocused, being reluctant to even debate the topic and TruthWithins fast-paced, intelligent no-BS style (and the fact that he caught me totally off-guard in the opening post). I think TruthWithin would have also won if debating the other side.

(no need to reply to this)


[edit on 23-3-2008 by Skyfloating]





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join