frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





where to from here: evolution.

Debate Information

Are we still evolving? I fail to see it; yes I know evolution can be a very long, slow process with minute changes occasionally. Still, aside from less body hair, we still are pretty much the same as the ancients. So are we still evolving? Into what? What do you see for humans for the far future? 
Dreamer



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Yes, humans are evolving.

    Genetically the difference between a great ancestor 10,000 years ago is minimal. Wisdom teeth are a good example of evolution in humans. Our mouths have gotten narrower.

    In the far future there is only speculation. One possible future is that advanced aliens use as a livestock and we are all extremely obese and very few of us make it to adolescence. Only the most fat are allowed to breed in a form of artificial selection. 
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    i can not see being obese as part of evolution; unless we get to the point where we are born as such. @Dreamer
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @maxx If you sit around long enough you will see paint dry.
    If you sit around a bit longer you may notice that the hour hand on the clock has moved.
    Sit around for a few days and you will see the grass grow.
    Sit around for say, 5 million years and you will have noticed an appreciable difference in humans.
    In our current form, we have been around only a million years and we still need to devolve many redundant features such as unused organs; appendix, gall bladder etc. And our spine will take another couple of million years to adapt to primates.
    In about 100 million years time it is predicted that the human body may adapt to eating large quantities of garlic without getting poisoned. But then that feature will probably not be needed since stu-pid-ity, mysticism, and spiritualism will probably have all been evolved out of humans by then.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Aside from your flippingmouth and insults, why don't you  actually attempt to debate the issue as written?  Why will humans change. For what reason, and how? What will change in this world for us to evolve and into what? Technology? Sudden climate change? Give reasons. Just debate the topic and keep your snide remarks in your pocket. @Swolliw
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Philosopher John Vervaeke in his work emphasizes the concept of "psychotechnology". The concept refers to the result of integration of technology into one's life where they essentially become merged with it, leading to a unique behavior and outcomes. For instance, someone who grows up using a smartphone since they were 3 becomes a different being than someone who has lived in a society with no smartphones. Nobody living 200 years ago would even conceive of living in a world where they can get a very precise map of the area they are in with a couple of taps on a tiny handheld device, and the few world maps that did exist were clunky, had low resolution, were enormous in size, highly inaccurate, and unaffordable and rare.

    I see no reason to limit evolutionary considerations purely to what is inside our bodies. Sure, our cardiovascular system has not changed significantly over the past 2,000 years. What is more impactful on our life though: the fine details of how that system works, or, say, introduction of the Internet? "Evolution" is simply a process of changes in the species' life; it does not have to necessarily involve direct biological alterations. Humans have gone further over the past 6,000 years than they had over the previous 5 million in terms of how they live, even though biologically the changes have been significantly less noticeable.

    We are at the dawn of a cardinal change in how everything in human life works: we are about to start incorporating direct collective intelligence (natural language machine learning models) in all areas of our life. What this will do to the life and the function of the average human organism is hard to predict; suffice to say that a human 50 years from now will have very little in common with a human even today, let alone 2,000 years ago, let alone 200,000 years ago. If anything, evolution today is happening on a much shorter time scale than before.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    Very well. However,  technology has and is changing almost faster than society itself can keep up witn, let alone any kind of biological or mental change in humans that will actually show any kind od evolutionary change. We cannot even tell if technology has even made us smarter, for we allow it to do most of our physical work, as well as our mental. Spell check,  grammar corrections alone keeps many from learning proper writing.  We no longer have to spend long hours at research.   In who knows how many decades,  we will have implants rather than phones
     Humans are only trying to keep up with technology and unless technology stagnates for a few hundred years, there will be no actual evolutionary changes ib our brains @MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    I do not know what it means for a society to keep up with the changes, but as an individual human being, I cannot say that I am having any difficulties adopting the novelties. And even if I did, they would still influence my life and change who and what I fundamentally am. The fact that someone does not understand all the details of how artificial intelligence works and never trains neural network models himself does not shield him from all the ways other people using artificial intelligence change the world around him - and change him as a consequence.

    As for being "smarter", from this perspective, humans certainly are. If smartness is to be measured in terms of what insights a human can come up with using all the available tools at his disposal, then the average elementary school student today can be far smarter than Einstein was 100 years ago. The fact that a lot of this smartness is outsourced outside the human body hardly changes anything.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @maxx ; Give reasons. 
    My omission; also I seemed to have left that out.
    Many experts in their fields have claimed that the human brain has evolved way past its ability to keep us thriving and you only need to look at the advancements in AI to realise that in future times, complex calculations and decision-making will no longer be needed for humans to survive. Many psychologists assert that we are "too smart" for our own good and with a reduced brain size, we can still enjoy life without having to "overthink" our day to day travails and ponderances.

    So, yes I may be wrong with my observance above and I certainly did not intend any insult. For example, it could be that the appendix may in fact start to re-evolve and there will be a noticeable "hump" on the abdomens of the next race of human beings. This would coincide with the significant loss in intellectual capacity of humans and the side-effects such as lack of reasoning and sanity resulting in consuming copious quantities of garlic. So, the enlarged appendix would be able to reasonably break-down the dangerous levels of disulphide toxins produced by the breakdown of a very unstable compound known as allicin.

    But that is just one random example of how evolution can sometimes go backwards in order to march forwards.

    Let's look at say, as a random example, the vesicular monoamine transporter 2 gene which scientists have attributed to those having the gene to succumb to delusional illnesses; hence the nickname, "the God gene". With reduced ability to think too much about everyday phenomena, such an undesirable trait would gradually mutate out of the gene pool altogether.


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I can agree up to a point. Yes, humans are getting to the point where so many complex problems are solved for us. However i am not certain  that brain size itself will diminish. At least not because of us no longer needing to solve many problems. I think our mental capacity may change. Implants in the future can give us all the sudden knowledge that we desire, yet will that make us any more smarter? It is kind of like giving people all the food they can handle, yet they no longer know how to cook. We would have the free knowledge with out the ability to actually learn it on our own. Perhaps in the far future as long as the status quo does not change, we may lose the ability to learn many things as humans used to do. A college professor recently told me that so many first year students find it difficult to even spell complex words or solve math with out help from the web. What if AI moves into other areas of our lives and begin doing tasks for us? We already have robotic vacuums and lawn mowers. HUmans may get to the point where we have little at all to do around the house. Drones deliver our food. perhaps our muscles will diminish. lack of proper foods may change our entire biological system due to lack of nutrients. We may be looking  at where humans have most everything done for us. If we get to that point, and then nothing changes for for thousands upon thousands of years, we may become small under developed people with a large brain to hold all the knowledge we no longer have to learn or lack the ability to learn. @Swolliw
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    i disagree. having knowledge with out the ability to have learned that knowledge only means you have that knowledge available  to you. you did not learn it nor researched it. If one can not spell without spell check or looking it up, or solve basic math, or use proper grammar or any other mundane activities then it is simple, one is not learning. he just has the knowledge. It is like having the answer sheet next to you as you do a test. read my reply to swalloiw as well. @MayCaesar
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    maxx said:

    What do you see for humans for the far future? 
    Hello m:

    The Borg.

    excon

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    i disagree. having knowledge with out the ability to have learned that knowledge only means you have that knowledge available  to you. you did not learn it nor researched it. If one can not spell without spell check or looking it up, or solve basic math, or use proper grammar or any other mundane activities then it is simple, one is not learning. he just has the knowledge. It is like having the answer sheet next to you as you do a test. read my reply to swalloiw as well. @MayCaesar
    It is not clear to me what exactly you disagree with, since what you wrote here bears no relation to my comment. By what exact mechanism one has come to being able to do certain things is irrelevant as far as the impact of their ability on their biological organism is.

    Human brain always works actively; the question is merely what it works on. In the past, when even something as simple as storing food for a few hours involved a lot of deliberate actions, the brain was preoccupied with such mundane tasks; nowadays such tasks are mostly automated and human brains focus on more intricate things. Our current conversation involving very complicated concepts by the average peasant from the 14th-century Europe's standards would not be possible at that time: you would most likely be plugging the fields right now, and your mind would be preoccupied with such thoughts as, "I am tired", "I am hungry", "F this life", and "I hope our next child does not die".

    Whether you learn or not does not change; what changes is what you learn. Would you rather learn how to manually compute something that your computer can do in a nanosecond, or how to utilize your computer's high-level operations to be more productive than a million people working together 200 years ago were?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @maxx ; If we get to that point, and then nothing changes for for thousands upon thousands of years, we may become small under developed people with a large brain to hold all the knowledge we no longer have to learn or lack the ability to learn.

    You are probably right there if that is how we develop as a purely biological species.

    I think that, given the rapid development of technology and in particular, AI we may get to the stage whereby beings will be purely electro-mechanical. Before that, I have no doubt that we will be hybrid beings.

    maxx
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    what i am saying, having the knowledge does not equate with learning it. relying on crutches so tp speak will eventually stem your ability to walk correctly. The same with relying on given knowledge from a computer. Eventually if the status quo remains the same, in hundreds of thousands of years we will lose the ability to learn many things. Why? simply because certain learning is no longer needed. The majority of humans could not live the way our earliest ancestors did. we no longer have the hands on approach to do so, and in the far future, we will lose the basic skills that schooling once taught everyone. The same with automation. we already have automatic doors, escalators, elevators, toilets, sinks, lawn mowers, vacuums, and so on. In the far future who knows? moving walks, devices to float us along, teleportation, bionics to lift heavy objects, robots to do everyday chores( they already have auto-dog walkers), and so on. So again, we are evolving to the point where we no longer have to learn, and having everything done for us; which can eventually change humans with a larger brain to store knowledge we did not learn, and under developed bodies from having everything done for us. @MayCaesar
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    and what will that do to human evolution? @jack
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    what i am saying, having the knowledge does not equate with learning it. relying on crutches so tp speak will eventually stem your ability to walk correctly. The same with relying on given knowledge from a computer. Eventually if the status quo remains the same, in hundreds of thousands of years we will lose the ability to learn many things. Why? simply because certain learning is no longer needed. The majority of humans could not live the way our earliest ancestors did. we no longer have the hands on approach to do so, and in the far future, we will lose the basic skills that schooling once taught everyone. The same with automation. we already have automatic doors, escalators, elevators, toilets, sinks, lawn mowers, vacuums, and so on. In the far future who knows? moving walks, devices to float us along, teleportation, bionics to lift heavy objects, robots to do everyday chores( they already have auto-dog walkers), and so on. So again, we are evolving to the point where we no longer have to learn, and having everything done for us; which can eventually change humans with a larger brain to store knowledge we did not learn, and under developed bodies from having everything done for us. @MayCaesar
    If the tools tightly integrated into our life provide the same functionality as learning, then what is the problem with replacing learning with their use? The outcomes are exactly the same, and if we are talking about evolution, then the outcomes are the only output we should be concerned with: anything that happens within our mammal brains is irrelevant from the larger evolutionary perspective.

    In addition, I would argue that human learning process is unreliable and error-prone: many people "learn" something which is false and then operate with the assumption that it is true, resulting in eventual crisis. Computers are much more efficient and accurate at learning from observed data, and I would certainly trust an advanced AI's judgement over the collective intelligence of billions of mammals.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    and what happens if all of this crashes? We get to the point where everything is done for us, and all the knowledge is instantly available and it all comes down. The majority of the population will be at loss; yes some will retain the ability to relearn everything...eventually.  Recently i was in a fast food place. the total was 9.27. I gave the college student 10.30. I said, before you ring this up, tell me off of your head my change". She looked at me, then the money and then the total. after a few seconds, she began laughing and said" i don't know, i don't do much math." This is what happens when we rely on given knowledge and in the far future  we will rely on it too much and to the point where we can hardly do without it. @MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    That is a very big "if". If the crash is impossible, then the question is fairly irrelevant. In principle, a similar crash could have happened at any point in time: imagine if, for instance, 50 years ago the global electric grid permanently went down... The technology has the self-perpetuating property: the more technologically advanced the society is, the more tools they can build to maintain all this technology.

    Regarding people's inability to count, there is something to be said about it, but I do not see how it changes anything with respect to our topic. If the college student in question was able to complete the transaction accurately, even if she had to use a calculator for it, then she performed the exact same business transaction as someone could who did not need to use a calculator. And the more developed technology becomes, the more seamless such operations will become. You can imagine the near future in which you will not even need to perform this transaction explicitly: you come, eat and leave, and all the math is done somewhere in the background outside of your awareness.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    in terms of evolution to the body, what do you think humans will look like in respect to physical and mental changes in a million years due to having everything both physically and mentally due to having everything done for us ? @MayCaesar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Oh, I do not think that in a million years there will be "humans" as such. I would expect our organisms to change so much within the next few centuries that whatever creatures will roam Earth (and other planets or space stations) would be completely unrecognizable to us were we to encounter them today. From cybernetics augmenting all parts of our bodies, to virtually all functions of the brain digitized and put in a decentralized network... There will be not much of us left.

    In the alternative reality where the technological progress halted at the current stage and humans were to live in this environment forever, I would guess that our muscles would atrophy and our ability to multitask grow significantly. How exactly it would manifest biology-wise is everybody's guess.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    a lot of unknown variables. a nuclear war and radiation may change us. a comet strike may regress us back to animal level; diseases may change us. However unle3ss our brain changes; we may still retain our human capabilities. Another possibilityif we regress, or even if we do not,  is another line may off shoot from the race, either co existing or becoming the dominant species.  @MayCaesar
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;is another line may off shoot from the race, either co existing or becoming the dominant species.  @MayCaesar

    And we all have to be ware that God does these things to test us and sometimes he doesn't and in that case you have to wonder if it is the work of Satan that he creates another race of humans. So we must never loose site of what God told us that man must take domain over the world and use what he has given us. We saw it in the Bible when it happened a long time ago and the scriptures dont make it to clear weather or not it was God or Satan who put those monsters on earth for man to vanquish but man did vanquish them in the end so we have to make sure we vanquish another race if it happens again.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    well, this topic is not about god or evolution. please stick to my topic. @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;well, this topic is not about god or evolution. please stick to my topic. @Barnardot

    Well excuse me for being a monkeys bottom but it is about evolution and you evevn wrote it like derr where did your alien rocket crash last night.

    And because God is the one creator of all things it is right to say that God created evolution. He sowed the seeds which it says so many times in the Bible and thats how we know that he created evolution.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    very well, if god created everything to evolve, the topic still stands, in which you never actually answered. where do we go from here? What, and how will we evolve into, and due to what? @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;very well, if god created everything to evolve, the topic still stands, in which you never actually answered. where do we go from here? What, and how will we evolve into, and due to what? @Barnardot

    Well I studied remidal English and you put a colon in front of evolution so thats the subject but then what is happening is that the subject is evolving so thats cool. So what your got to under stand is that evolution is evolving so its hard to know for sure. For example chickens dont have much sents right because they have a pee brain. There was a chicken once called Mike who had his head chopped off and he lived because the pee brain is under the head. And he only died a couple of years later because he chocked on some food. So we can see that chickens are getting smarter because there used to getting there heads chopped off so then the ones with there brains under there head lived and got to breed again so thats how they evolved like that.

    So you fast forward to nower days and where I work we knock off thousands of chickens but if we chop there heads off we know that they will run a round and we would never catch them. One day a chicken escaped and hid under the conveyer belt but it got jammed and the inspectors came and we had to close the plant down for 2 days because it was smelling. We lost pay because of that and it turned out to be a black chicken which is why no body saw it so thats why we dont take in blacks any more. So guess what you dont see many blacks now because the farmers have to evolve them out because they cant sell them.


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    The colon was a typo; unlike your spelling of pea brain and sense in which you spelled pee and scents; so much for your English.  As well selective breeding is far different than evolution. Also, evolution is a force and evolution itself does not evolve; it just changes other things. You are beginning to stray from the topic itself.  Do not confuse selective breeding as the farmer did with chickens or people do with plants. @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;Do not confuse selective breeding

    Theres no confuscion at all about selective breeding and in fact it is part of evolution. There are heaps of animals that were hunted out of instinction so not only does that pull the animal out of process but other animals in the food chain have to adapt so they start evolving in a different direction than they would of. A lot of people dont see that but when you stop to analize it it all makes total sents in the end and like you said newclear wars could effect evolution also. So look at chickens. they are all evolving to be white because the black ones are useless so there wont be any black genes at all in a 1000 years time. Thats evolution all right so your just got to get smarter then youll realize what I mean. 

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    no. selective breeding may eventually "lead" to evolution; but evolution is a natural process, by nature; while selective breeding is produced artificially  Selective breeding or SB simply changes the appearance or size and other aspects of the animals or plant. It does not change the internal organs nor does it change one species into another. Take a look at dogs and all of the SB done to them. . The only difference in them is size and appearance. They are still a canine.  For instance; evolution naturally produces traits in animals that are able to adapt and survive, while weeding out those who can not do so. Take a poodle which has been breeding to the point where it can not survive in nature on its on.The key point of evolution is survival of the species. Artificial SB does not ensure this and again, just changes the animal looks and size.  @Barnardot
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Maybe a better question is what ideally would we evolve into?


    Maybe we would evolve to be vegan and not need animal products. This would greatly reduce the amount of suffering in the world. Right now politics tends to lag behind science. For example with vaccines we have the science to eradicate several disease and we just don't have the political will. Ditto, for climate change we have the tech but lack willpower.

    "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" Irina Dunn

    Maybe we in the future there will be no men. :) 
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    being a vegan is a choice.  The only way we could evolve to be vegan is to have an evolutionary biological change in where we could not process meat. The rest of your reply makes little sense in regard to evolution. @Dreamer
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ; It does not change the internal organs nor does it change one species into another. 

    Yes it does and I gave you the proof. And you said your self The key point of evolution is survival of the species. And the key point of chickens growing there brains in there neck is for survival because the ones with there brains lower down run off and live and bread so thats evolution.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    why are you even on this site if your highest level of education is remedial? Well, you made the assertion, so i suggest you prove it. show me a link that shows how a chicken can live two weeks with out a head; show me how a brain can fit and operate in their neck; and show me how scientists put one in there. Of course you will not, because you can't. @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    @maxx ;show me a link that shows how a chicken can live two weeks with out a head; 

    I did do that and it was 2 years and scientists didn't put the brain there because it evolved that way any way so like derrr. So I think your getting in to your spazo ways again when you say other people are like your really wired ways. But basically I reckon you get stuck on all this natural stuff like all that garlic boloney you kept on going about. Your got to accept that things that are not natural are apart of this world and even if you dont like it your got to live with it.

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I doubt the human species going to live 10,000 years anyways. Climate change might cause us to go extinct before then.

    "Global warming worsens wildfires by drying vegetation and soil, creating more fuel for fires to spread further and faster."


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    you never showed a link.  regardless, selective breeding is not the same as evolution. @Barnardot
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    perhaps. however humans lived through ice ages and other climatic changes. @Dreamer
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    @maxx I did show the link and your trying to do the same as what you usually try to do and turn things a round. Selective breeding is not the same as evolution so what the thing is that selective breeding is part of evolution and evolution ios not just natural whatever thats supposed to be because every one is still scratching there heeds at why you think natural has got to do with any thing and whats the point any way
    So not only were you wrong about the headless chichen you were wrong about it being posted. Do you like being wrong and p ing people off or some thing for some reason

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/MikeTheHeadlessChicken.jpg


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Anthropogenic climate change is of the fast very dangerous kind.


    " Rapid climate change, of the type we're causing through our enormous carbon dioxide emissions, falls into the very dangerous camp. That's because the faster the change, the harder it is for nature to cope. We are part of nature so if it goes down, it takes us with it."



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    according to science, we are still in the remnants of the last ice age. The natural state of the world is tropics and humans have lived and flourished in it. I do not believe climatic change alone will cause extinction; however, the man made chemicals that are not natural to humans may be a different story. We may poison ourself into extinction. @Dreamer
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    i looked up the chicken so that part is correct. However, science did not put brains into chicken necks. I do believe you said that.  Now what selective breeding does is simply bring out desirable traits into animals, changes appearances and size. It does not change one species into another one as evolution does. Selective breeding is like stacking a deck of cards, while evolution changes the deck of cards into a different pack. @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ; I do believe you said that.  

    Well what you believe and whats realty are 2 completely different things because the fact is that it doesn't matter how things change they are part of evolution> I reckon that your got to let go of all this natural baloney because it effects what you think like evolution is got to be natural so any thing thats not natural isn't a part of evolution. It doesn't make sents does it just like all your natural cures dont make sents. Believing some thing and wanting things to be what you think they should are not realty. Now the thing is that you got done in good and proper twice over about the head less chicken but now your finding different excuses so that when I answer that dum excuse and give evidence youll find another dum excuse. So the point is that I am pointing out is that once your lost especially when you lost twice on the same thing you cant just keep trying to win by making up totally spazo arguments about the same thing. Once your lost your lost and you should except that with honor.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    ok, you did say the point of chickens Growing " brains in their necks, in which they do not!!  People may take you more seriously if you learn to use the proper words. you are constantly using the wrong ones, such as sents for sense, and there when it should be their and a host of other incorrect word usage. Now if SB is actual evolution, then show me a species that SB has changed to the point in where the species has changed into another one. Here. evolution is far different than SB.   Purpose of evolution, what's evolution for? | Lessons from History (medium.com)  @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;ok, you did say the point of chickens Growing " brains in their necks, in which they do not!!  

    Thats not an argument. You just cant say that the sky is not blue period. I gave the evidence and tripped you up so bad and now your in denile.

     Now if SB is actual evolution, then show me a species that SB has changed to the point in where the species has changed into another one.

    No because SB is not evolution it is part of it and changing from one species to another does not happen and would not prove any thing any way. And if you had a brain bigger than half of the brain of an ameba on the spectrum you would actually read about evolution instead of asking 1st grade questions. Most evolution is parallel because some of one animal wander off and grow differently because the environment is different and then some of those wander off and become differenter and so on but all the other animals stay the same in there environments but when you look at the animal in the environment a million times along the pathway a hundred thousand years later it is a dog and the first one is still a chicken and the hundredth one is still a chicken with hairy airs and so on. So you see we all came from a carrot billions of years a go but we still have carrots so one thing does not turn into another like your trying to make out just to try and win an argument that you lost real big time.

    Now next dum question please but you must sit up strait and cross your legs and button your lips and actually listen. Or do what other people do and actually read some descent stuff about evolution not the 1st grade dog mess that says actually nothing that you just posted. Thats real stu pid wishy washy stuff if ever there was.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    a wolf and a dog are both canines; the same species. chickens do not grow brains in their necks. evolution and SB are different. Now if you can prove those points different, then do so. Otherwise return to the topic. where to from here in evolution. @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited June 2023
    @maxx ; chickens do not grow brains in their necks. evolution and SB are different. Now if you can prove those points different, then do so.

    Your arguments are worth zilch because you just cant say some things wrong and thats it. I gave you evidence and you didn't. And you know very well that this is the subject. How much of a dim wit do you want to show off to be and how many more times are you going to go round in circles saying the same thing over and over.

    I know any way that you like playing dum games like that any way because no human being could ever be alive if they were really that dum any way.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    only evidence you gave was the one about the chicken whose brain stem was still intact after his head was cut off. You gave no evidence regarding the other statements you made.  everyone{well except you} knows there is a difference between SB and evolution. I could post links showing you but you would simply refuse the science. Now are you going to return to the topic? where to from here in evolution.  and by the way it is dumb; not dum. @Barnardot
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @maxx ;where to from here in evolution.  

    Well I reckon that we will still have evolution in the future because thats what its all about. But it will proberly be different because you will get a lot of SB going on in evolution and a lot of AI to. For example we wont have chickens any more because all humans will be AI and all they need is energy from the sun to eat and the same with plants to because there wont be any animal needing to eat carrots and leaves for example. So there wont be any more bio things left and AI humans wont die per say. You just get a new brain from the brain shop and they just download all your memory into the new brain chip from the cloud in space. And wait for this you wont need any more cars or air plains because what you do is you keep another AI body at your girl friends place and when you want to visit her you just zap your brain over into that AI body in an instant. And your wife proberly thinks that your fallen asleep in front of the TV. So where the SB comes in to it is that Ais and bots cant evolve per say so what they do is plan a head and select what kind of bots and AIs will look like in the future so that the AIs and bots will proberly evolve id a different way and they wont call it evolution any more because it will be SB.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch