Instigator / Pro
4
1619
rating
43
debates
67.44%
won
Topic

Adam & Eve contained the entire human genome

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Death23
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
5
1585
rating
18
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 1,986 / 5,000

Resolved: Adam & Eve contained the entire expression of the human genome. By their direct contribution of male and female gametes, producing a human zygote with each pregnancy, their individual human DNA, along with the immediate potential in their first generation of offspring, and all generations following, to have the genome begin mutation to create the wide distribution of random gene selection resulting in the variety of human physical traits we see today. Not only are we all genetically related, we all contain these variant traits of hair, eye, and skin color, and physical structural differences within each sex. With dominant and recessive gene selection, each generation of children are a genetic imprint of their parents, while expressing unique combination of characteristics within each child, but for early duplication of the zygote resulting in identical twins, triplets, etc.

In this debate, I, as Pro, make no allusion to religion, God, or the Bible, other than the latter as being the only germane source of knowledge regarding the characters of Adam & Eve. This debate assumes the claim in the full description that Adam & Eve represent the first parents of the entire human family, i.e., Homo sapiens. The debate will not have opposing argument on this matter. Therefore, any DART member wishing to take the Con position of the proposition should agree to this stipulation of human parentage. The argument turns only on the proposition that other factors than a full set of human characteristics, by full genetic content, plus mutation, determined the variety of human physical expression we witness today.

Definitions:
Adam & Eve: The first male and female examples of the species, Homo sapiens

Genome: the entire set of human genes

Gamete: the mature human male and female germ cells [sperm and ova, respectively]

Debate protocol: 4 total rounds; 8 arguments

Rounds 1 – 3: Argument/Rebuttal/Defense

Round 4: No new argument. Rebuttal/defense/conclusion

Round 1
Pro
I Argument: Who are “Adam and Eve?”
 
I.a Adam & Eve, as said in description, represent the beginning of the human genome as we know it today, expressing its wide variety of genetic detail, including all the physical features we observe in their “grandeur of life,” as Charles Darwin eloquently referred to the variety of life in all species on Earth. Within the context of this debate, we might just as easily refer to Adam & Eve as Jack & Jill. Their names are superfluous. This is not a debate over whether the biblical edition describing the events and characters of Genesis is a true account, or fictitious. This, too, is superfluous. Adam & Eve represent the first edition of the species,Homo sapiens.  How their being came about need not be a matter of discussion. For purposes of debate, perhaps they appeared as adult transplants from some other planet “far, far away.” Perhaps they appeared from underground. Perhaps they poofed into existence out of fairy dust. Or, perhaps, as Darwin suggested, they evolved from a related, lower form. Any of these explanations for their origin, or others, will be, for this debate, acceptable.
 
II Argument: What are Adam and Eve?
 
II.a As their origin is of no consequence, let it be accepted that they represent, by male and female of a species, as virtually all species on earth do within their species, the complete human [Homo sapiens] genome consistent with all the varieties of physical characteristics of skin colors, eye colors and shapes, hair colors and features, bodily feature details and shapes, etc, as gene variations in dominant and recessive conditions. 
 
II.a.1 One definition I failed to include in the Description is allele,which means: Each of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and which may be found in the same position on a homologous chromosome.[1]*
 
II.b These variations of genetic expression may have been borne fully resident in the individual gametes of Adam and Eve, male and female, or, in keeping with the variety in natural selection, some traits in either or both humans, mutated within a single, or several generations to add to the genetic variety possible to pass to succeeding generations, meeting the definition of an allele. 
 
III Argument: How do Adam & Eve propagate trait variations?
 
III.a.An allele, being a variant copy form of a gene, resides at a specific locus on a chromosome in two copies; one copy of a gene/allele from each parent;[2]in our case, one from Adam, one from Eve for any given trait. There may be multiple alleles of a gene; therefore, any one of them, from each parent, may express as the one copy from each parent, and these copied genes/alleles my present different physical traits in each offspring generation of parents.[3] Thus, Adam and Eve, having multiple children, could produce variant traits in each child. It follows that the second generation, grandchildren of Adam and Eve, could express still more variation in gene copies, and so one for each succeeding generation.
 
III.a.1 A simplified explanation is that in Adam and in Eve, separately, are genes and copies of genes, which may be alleles, all variant forms of a specific trait, such as eye color. Any one of the variations of eye color represented in Adam, and separately in Eve, may express in their respective gametes [sperm and ova, respectively]. Let’s imagine that Adam contributes eye color brown, and Eve contributes eye color green in their respective gametes. The resulting child may either inherit one or the other, or a blend of the two. Another child may inherit neither color from Adam or Eve, but a separate pair of traits held in both parents’ genome.
 
III.a.2 As the gene pool spreads in scope with each succeeding generation, we would expect to see the wide variation in each gene/allele variant type [called a phenotype] until all variant possibilities able to be contributed by Adam and Eve are expressed in the following generations over time.[4]
 
III.a.3 Finally, within each generation, the possibility of a gene copy mutation may occur, actually adding to the total variations possible to express and transmit to a new generation.[5]
 
III.a.4 Ultimately, thousands of years hence from Adam & Eve, we see the wide expression of phenotypes expressed in Homo sapienstoday.
 
I close my argument for round 1 and pass the baton to Death23
 
 
*I habitually use the OED for all definitions. I recognize this dictionary as the ultimate of the English language. Unless one owns either the hard copy 20-volume set, or an online subscription [I have both] it is unavailable for reference. On my honor, I am fully quoting the definitions given.
 
 
 

Con
This is the resolution:

Resolved: Adam & Eve contained the entire expression of the human genome. By their direct contribution of male and female gametes, producing a human zygote with each pregnancy, their individual human DNA, along with the immediate potential in their first generation of offspring, and all generations following, to have the genome begin mutation to create the wide distribution of random gene selection resulting in the variety of human physical traits we see today. Not only are we all genetically related, we all contain these variant traits of hair, eye, and skin color, and physical structural differences within each sex. With dominant and recessive gene selection, each generation of children are a genetic imprint of their parents, while expressing unique combination of characteristics within each child, but for early duplication of the zygote resulting in identical twins, triplets, etc.
In so many words, the resolution contains the claim that all contemporary human genes are traceable to "Adam & Eve" or mutation.

This is not correct because a small but signifcant portion of the contemporary human genome is traceable to interspecies breeding between homo sapiens and neanderthals/denisovans. This is a well-documented phenomenon that has been well studied. You can see for yourself -

(using underlying sources there is encouraged rather than relying solely on Wikipedia)
Round 2
Pro
I Rebuttal: “In so many words”
 
I.a Thus, my opponent begins the argument for the Contending opinion.  Too bad Con does not quote a few more of my words. Con quotes the entire first paragraph of the resolution, then ignores acknowledging my round 1, argument I.a, which immediately follows, and in which I state, “How their  [Adam & Eve]being came about need not be a matter of discussion. For purposes of debate, perhaps… Or, perhaps, as Darwin suggested, they evolved from a related, lower form.”Perhaps, for example, “Neanderthals/Denisovans,”as my opponent argues? How, pray, tell, is an argument I have already made a rebuttal against my argument?
 
I.a.1 Moreover, my opponent offers a source to rebut my argument that preceded Con’s rebuttal; from Wiki, no less. As this is my first debate with Death23, perhaps my opponent is unaware of my total disdain for Wiki, [admittedly, I’ll rarely use it, but never as a source for a major argument] which of itself, says, “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.”[1] Granted, Con then adds, concluding Con’s round 1, “using underlying sources there is encouraged rather than relying solely on Wikipedia.”Well, then, Con should have done so rather than using Wiki at all. I use it here only in the hope that Con, and others, will not depend so heavily upon its scholarship, which, after all, implies one knows what one is talking about. Their assessment of themselves is telling. Enough; the debate is not about Wiki. There are, indeed, other sources, such as:“During the past decade, we have learned about interbreeding among hominin populations after 50,000 years [ka] ago, when modern humans expanded into Eurasia. Here, we focus further back in time, on events that occurred more than half a million years ago…”[2]  Enough of that, too. The cited article goes on to discuss intermingling of Homo sapiens  with Neanderthals and Denisovans. As I first argued the point in round 1, I need not cede the point to Con. I’ll claim it’s original mention.
 
I.a.2 Before leaving this point, I will argue, as well, just in case it needs mention, that such “interspecies breeding between Homo sapiensand Neanderthals/Denisovans” says clearly that prior to such interbreeding, Homo sapienswas already an extant species and that by such interbreeding, “…some traits in either or both humans, mutated within a single, or several generations to add to the genetic variety possible to pass to succeeding generations, meeting the definition of an allele.”[3]
 
I.a.3 Therefore, to review, Con’s round 1 is completely rebutted because:
            1 Con’s rebuttal of my round 1 was already my argument of round 1; therefore, the rebuttal is null.
            2. As my source for Con’s point reveals that Homo sapienswas already an extant species when his source claims Homo sapiensinterbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Thus, his claim that “[I] am not correct because a small but significant portion of the contemporary human genome is traceable to interspecies breeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals/Denisovans”  is misleading, because of my rebuttal #1. We can, indeed, trace alleles to Neanderthals, Denisovans, and probably other species, but that only supports my point of the resolution that Adam & Eve originated the species, Homo sapiens,and that both generational random selection of two genes or alleles per phenotype, and/or generational mutation occurred afterward to further diversify the human genome.
 
II Argument: How does generational mutation work?
 
II.a In my round one, argument III.a through III.a.4, was explained how generational random selection of each phenotype gene or allele from each male and female gamete effect each generation in the proliferation of variant phenotypes. In this argument will be explained how generational mutation of the DNA molecule, containing all its inherited genes and alleles gives rise to still greater variation generation to generation than inherited genes/alleles alone.
 
II.b Each DNA molecule in any living organism, including Home sapiens, is equipped with cells that protect the DNA helix from rampant potential attack to change or destroy the helix and its vital genetic data. These protective cells are called telomeres.[4] Telomeres are best explained by the example of shoelace caps, which keep the ends of shoe laces protected from wear and unraveling. Likewise, Telomeres protect the DNA helix from damage, fraying, of even adhering to one another, all of which may cause mutation.[5]It is vital that the DNA helix is protected, particularly during fertility, when duplication of chromosomes in reproduction is vital to assure generational growth and endurance of the species. Mutation, while sometimes being beneficial to ay species, is often also detrimental, having a reductive effect on growth and endurance. 
 
II.b.1 However, as a species individual ages, telomeres begin to breakdown. The protective nature of telomeres reduces, and mutations begin to occur, even while an individual is still fertile. As a result, genetic operation is a literal gamble that offspring will inherit deliberate, intended traits of the parents. As the risk increases by aging, the more likely we will pass on mutant genes/alleles, which either strengthen, or weaken the offspring. As these mutations increase, generation to generation, aging itself, and other mutation, is theorized to have a greater effect on telomeres.[6] This may be one reason why biblical people are recorded to have endured many years in excess of the typical human today.
 
II.c The aging and devolving telomeres are responsible for allowing attack on DNA molecules, and may be the direct cause of aging, itself.[7] Over the tens, hundreds, or thousands of millennia since Adam & Eve, our collective gene pool has made advances and regressions. It is difficult to determine if Homo sapiens,genetically, is at a zenith or nadir; so complicated has the genome become. That we can continue, genetically, into the foreseeable future seems evident, but under what conditions, genetically, no one can be certain. That, however, is also outside the scope of this debate, for which ongoing survival is mute.
 
I conclude round 2, and pass the baton to Con. 
 
 
 

Con
The following is my response to Pro's round 1 arguments. I will not respond to Pro's round 2 arguments until round 3.
 
The primary claim of the resolution is that all contemporary human genes are traceable to "Adam & Eve" or mutation.
 
The existence of Adam & Eve, though possible, is unlikely and unsupported by any of Pro's evidence. It is unlikely because it would require, not simultaneously, but the near simultaneous birth of two homo sapiens from the prior species. This is unlikely for several reasons. First, both Adam & Eve would have to be coincidentally born near the same place and near the same time. This is so that they would be close enough to one another in age and location such that mating would be possible. As we know, mutation is rare. For two mutated births to happen, with those mutations both making Adam & Eve homo sapiens from the predecessor species in the same generations and geographic areas is simply not a probable event, though it is not impossible. Stated differently, it is unlikely that two homo sapiens evolved at roughly the same time and place and happened to mate with one another.
 
It is also entirely unnecessary to explain the origin of homo sapiens. A more plausible scenario would be just Adam or just Eve, so to speak. To illustrate: Consider the possibility that a single homo sapien springs forth from the predecessor species and then mates with fertile members of the predecessor species, thereby producing some homo sapien offspring along with some offspring of the predecessor species. The new homo sapiens then mate amongst themselves and/or members of the predecessor species and now you have your starting population. This competing explanation does not require the unlikely coincidences associated with an "Adam & Eve" theory. It is also just as good at explaining the observations Pro has drawn our attention to.
 
Pro has no direct nor indirect evidence supporting his contention that the first 2 homo sapiens mated with one another. I have presented a competing explanation which is superior to Pro's explanation in terms of probability. Further, I reiterate my opening case that the resolution can't be reconciled with the fact that a small but significant portion of the contemporary human genome is traceable to interspecies breeding between homo sapiens and neanderthals/denisovans.

Round 3
Pro
I Rebuttal: “The existence of Adam & Eve… is unlikely”
 
I.a Thus, my opponent begins the round 2 argument for the Contending opinion.  Too bad Con does not read a few more of my words. Con quotes the entire first paragraph of the resolution, then ignores acknowledging my round 1, argument I.a, which immediately follows, and in which I state, “How their  [Adam & Eve]being came about need not be a matter of discussion. For purposes of debate, perhaps… Or, perhaps, as Darwin suggested, they evolved from a related, lower form.”Perhaps, for example, “Neanderthals/Denisovans,”as my opponent argues, though not by name, in round 2. How, pray, tell, is an argument I have already made a rebuttal against my argument? Again?
 
I.a.1 Am I repeating myself? The I.a paragraph [I checked – in fact, I copied and pasted, and then did minor modification] is quoted virtually verbatim from my round 2 rebuttal. Yet, my opponent t is still trying to prove something that was a given, and a condition of accepting the debate. The existence of Adam & Eve is not necessary to prove or disprove. The debate proposal is quite clear on the matter. We could call Adam and eve, as I argued, Jack and Jill for all the difference it makes. Con is not arguing to the proposal which he summarizes, yet again: “The primary claim of the resolution is that all contemporary human genes are traceable to ‘Adam & Eve or mutation.” Only, the matter is not a claim, as Con suggests. It is merely a statement to be taken at face value, for purposes of the debate, that two members of Homo sapiens,male and female, and, for convenience we’ll call them “Adam & Eve” [but they could bear any names you wish], and their entire genomes, male and female, and mutation contributed to the contemporary human genome.
 
I.b Therefore, I dispute that Con has successfully rebutted a point that is not even debatable in the context of thisdebate. There may be some other debate proposing to prove or disprove Adam & Eve, This is not it. Have I confused matters by naming these two humans “Adam” and “Eve?” Sorry, I spelled it out clearly in the resolution. Contenders are expected to read with comprehension before accepting the debate. I made that clear enough, as well: “Therefore, any DART member wishing to take the Con position of the proposition should agree to this stipulation of human parentage. The argument turns only on the proposition that other factors than a full set of human characteristics, by full genetic content, plus mutation, determined the variety of human physical expression we witness today.”[1]
 
II. Rebuttal: “It is also entirely unnecessary to explain the origin of Homo sapiens”
 
II.a Absolutely correct; it is not necessary. This point, as well, was given in the debate resolution, and repeated in my round 1, and round 2. However, Con prefers to debate the point anyway by even rebutting the point in his round 2 by making the statement quoted in title II, above.
 
II.a.1 To quote the debate resolution: “This debate assumes the claim in the full description that Adam & Eve represent the first parents of the entire human family, i.e., Homo sapiens. The debate will not have opposing argument on this matter.”
 
II.a.2 To quote my round 1, argument I: “How their  [Adam & Eve]being came about need not be a matter of discussion. For purposes of debate, perhaps they appeared as adult transplants from some other planet “far, far away.” Perhaps they appeared from underground. Perhaps they poofed into existence out of fairy dust. Or, perhaps, as Darwin suggested, they evolved from a related, lower form. Any of these explanations for their origin, or others, will be, for this debate, acceptable.”
 
II.a.3 To quote my round 2, rebuttal I: “Con quotes the entire first paragraph of the resolution, then ignores acknowledging my round 1, argument I.a, which immediately follows, and in which I state, ‘How their [Adam & Eve]being came about need not be a matter of discussion. For purposes of debate, perhaps… Or, perhaps, as Darwin suggested, they evolved from a related, lower form.’Perhaps, for example, ‘Neanderthals/Denisovans,’as my opponent argues? How, pray, tell, is an argument I have already made a rebuttal against my argument?”
 
II.b Therefore, by all three references to the resolution, and my round 1 and round 2 rebuttals, I have already demonstrated that Con need not have bothered trying to rebut points already acknowledged in the resolution as not debatable. Until Con can demonstrate why he argues points not debatable, instead of arguing, rebutting what is debatable, Con is not contributing to the debate. Therefore, I declare this rebuttal null, as well.
 
III Rebuttal: “Pro has no direct or indirect evidence supporting his contention that the first 2 Homo sapiensmated with one another.”
 
III.a  See the above rebuttals I & II, both of which refute rebuttals of points not debatable. I quote from my debate proposal: “Resolved: Adam & Eve contained the entire expression of the human genome. By their direct contribution of male and female gametes, producing a human zygote with each pregnancy, their individual human DNA, along with the immediate potential in their first generation of offspring, and all generations following, to have the genome begin mutation to create the wide distribution of random gene selection resulting in the variety of human physical traits we see today… This debate assumes the claim in the full description that Adam & Eve represent the first parents of the entire human family, i.e., Homo sapiens.”
 
III.a.1 Once again, I must remind my opponent to read with comprehension, in particular the last sentence quoted from the proposition; “This debate assumes the claim,”i.e. it is not a debatable point. Once again, I remind my opponent to divorce his argument from the biblical Adam and Eve, and any assumed necessity on my part to prove their existence, or on his part to disprove their existence. We must expect, because we’re here at all, that at some point in the pre-dawn of history that science can prove evidence, two Homo sapiens, male and female, mated, and began producing offspring. Call them “Adam & “Eve,” call them “Jack” & “Jill,” call them “Late” for “Dinner;” I could not care less. Nor does this debate. Clear enough?
 
IV Argument: Why doesHomo sapienssurvive?
 
IV.a As this is my last argument, I ask that, without making more than minimal reference to the last two rounds of my argument [that will be the task of my fourth round rebuttal, defense and conclusion], readers review the previous four arguments in rounds 1 & 2, plus this of round 3. Pressing forward to a fifth argument, let us consider why we still survive as the species Homo sapiens,and have not succumbed to any of a number of predicted calamities that were and are presented as global eradication potentials of the human species.
 
IV.a.1 We have faced, and continue to face calamities, natural and anthropogenic, any one of which might present the possibility of our total demise, such as the disastrous asteroid that struck in the Gulf of Mexico and was the cause of the demise of dinosaurs millions of years ago. Earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and even pandemic diseases have destroyed millions of humans, and one may be catastrophic sufficient to lay waste to the species. Nuclear war was feared for decades, and is still a remote possibility to be a humankind destroyer.
 
IV.a.2 However, although many natural disasters plague us, few have the capacity, short of a planet-killer asteroid, put humans at risk for survival. How have we survived to date? There is one possible answer, and it has actually been demonstrated for as long as there have been humans. The first obvious example may have be3en the ability, by our sentience, to tame fire; to make of it a tool at hand for cooking, light, protection, and warmth. It is an ability described by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species,[2] he called adaptation. We see, as did Darwin,
Innumerable examples in nature of both animals and plants exhibiting this extinction-defeating champion. 
 
IV.a.3 Not all species have been able to use adaptation to save themselves from extinction, but those that have thrive by it. Not only do humans have this ability, it is, in us, more than a chance occurrence, and even more than instinct. As sentient beings, we have the ability to add conscious thought to the equation of survival of the fittest. With that advantage, we have the ability to effect change in our environment and not merely effect change by migrating to a more appealing climate. Making a current environment to adapt rather than fleeing it is something most species on earth are not capable of doing. Since humans have this ability, we are far more easily able to meet our most basic, secondary and tertiary survival needs [there are actually five levels of survival needs according to Maslov’s Hierarchy of Basic Needs][3], and have more time and ability to address survival wants.
 
IV.a.4 This ability of sentient adaptation allows the species to adapt in ways that improve the human condition and make our survival more stable, and even advantageous.
 
I close my round 3, having provided five arguments meeting the demand of the debate proposal. I hand the debate to my opponent, now that all my arguments are laid bare for his rebuttal.
 
 
 

Con
Re: Failure to respond to round 1/2 arguments

I thought it would be unfair to Pro to use the "contender advantage" because Pro has no opportunity to respond to my round 1/2 args in his round 1/2 args. I will stop doing that and respond to Pro's round 2 and round 3 in this round.

Response to Pro's round 2:

"I.a 1" Pro speculates that the shared neanderthal DNA is could be caused by a common ancestor rather than interbreeding. This is unsubstantiated and should be dismissed unless Pro can produce some evidence to support it. The source I provided clearly shows that the interbreeding between homo sapiens and neanderthals/denisovans is supported by evidence. Stated differently: I have evidence to support my position and I have presented that evidence to you. Pro has no evidence to support his position.

"I.a 2" Pro's attack on the wikipedia as a source is weak. I stated explicitly that reliance on the underlying sources within the wikipedia article was recommended. For example, in one of the underlying sources:

Our analysis of human–Neandertal data provides strong statistical support for the IUA model and confirms previous claims that Neandertals contributed genetically to contemporary Eurasian populations

"I.a 3" Pro says that he rebutted the claim somehow. Pro alleges that "Homo sapiens was already an extant species when his source claims Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans", and that this somehow makes my position misleading. That makes no sense. It doesn't matter which species came in to existence first. So long as both species were extant at the same time interbreeding is possible. Pro again says he rebutted my case in round 1. That is not true.

"II Argument: How does generational mutation work?"

None of these facts are in dispute. This is all superfluous information.

Response to Pro's round 3:

"I.a" See response above in "I.a".

"I.a. 1" I understand what Pro is saying here that accepting the existence of an Adam & Eve, however unlikely, was part of the debate rules in a way. The point is conceded. However, this has no impact on the strength of my point about interbreeding.

"I.b" See above // "The argument turns only on the proposition that other factors than a full set of human characteristics, by full genetic content, plus mutation, determined the variety of human physical expression we witness today." Neanderthal/denisovan interbreeding is the other factor.

"II.a" through "II.b" This is mostly Pro restating matters which I have already addressed here.

"III.a" through "III.a.1" This is Pro restating his point about the truth of a fact being a debate rule. See my response to "I.a. 1" above.

"IV.a" through "IV.a 4" This is superfluous information that is not relevant to the central issue of this debate or my case.

Summary: Pro's attack on my case is weak and should be rejected because Pro has no evidence to support his attack. The strength of my case stands.
Round 4
Pro
I Conclusion: The missed point of this debate: off, offal, and chicken soup, A.K.A, the ‘contender advantage.’
 
I.a Unfortunately, my opponent in this debate was hesitant over three rounds, and probably this fourth, to accept the simple proposal that a pair of Homo sapiens,  a mating pair, male and female, whom we chose for no particular reason to be named Adam & Eve, and could have literally borne any names, such as Bob and Carol, or even Ted and Alice, and it would not have mattered one jot or tittle. But, no. Because Adam & Eve were the chosen names, and in spite of all warning to the contrary that these two were not to be linked to any biblical characters, or to prove or disprove the characters and events of biblical history, Con chose to do so. As a result, his arguments are off topic, and his rebuttals are topical offal.
 
I.a.1 Except there’s a wrinkle from Con’s round 3 called “contender advantage.” I do not see how Con, having missed the point for at least two rounds, has any advantage at all. Con claims in his round 3 that “Pro has no opportunity to respond to  [Con]round ½ args in his round 1/2 args.”  Clearly, I offered rebuttal to Con’s round 1 in my round 2 [pls refer to my r2 rebuttals I through I.a.3], and to his round 2 in my round 3 [pls refer to my r3 rebuttals I through I.a.3].
 
I.a.2 Con’s rebuttal to my r2 speculates that “Pro speculates that the shared Neanderthal DNA is could [sic] be caused by a common ancestor rather than interbreeding. This is unsubstantiated.”Yes, it is unsubstantiated, because I never said nor inferred such speculation. It appears Con is the only gold miner here. My entire round 2 never stipulates the words “common ancestor. ” I referenced a source [2] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/8/eaay5483
in my r1 argument I.a.1 which stipulated that Homo sapiens was already a fully mature species and genome when our species began interbreeding with Neanderthals, and others, 50,000 tears ago, after Homo sapiens  migrated to Eurasia. The reference does not speak to a common ancestor. It does speak to the fact that Homo sapiens was separated from Neanderthals and Denisovans, just as Nanderthals and Denisovans were separated from one another, and that all three were separate from one another 500,000 years ago. So, I have no idea to what Con refers as a “common ancestor” if, half of a million years ago, the three species did not intermingle or interbreed. Not then. I will note for the record that this “speculation” is not cited, not even for Con’s argument in round 3 but for pointing to a reference I used in my r1, argument III.a, but my argument dealt with the nature of alleles, specifically, not “common ancestry,” nor does my r1 [2] source. I do not deny that H. sapiensand Neanderthals eventually did interbreed, as sources in [2] designate. My argument is that because H. sapiens was already a mature species 50,000 years ago, what manipulation of the genome may have occurred after 50,000 years ago is not in the scope of this debate, which is, again, that a mating pair of H. sapiens,pre-dating 50,000 years ago, “Adam and Eve contained the entire human genome.”  In other words, readers and friends, Neal Neanderthal was not yet a factor. Period. Therefore, Con’s entire argument of Neal, and his friend, Dennis Desinovan, are not relevant to this debate. Nice to pay visits to them, but their game is not ours.
 
I.a.3 Con’s rebuttal of my r2, I.a.2 states by Wiki argument is “weak.” As I acknowledged in my r3, Con said there were underlying sources. Yes, there were. Then why did Con stop at using Wiki, rather than designating the underlying, and more reliable source? That was my only contention, that the best source was not used, not even that Wiki had bad information.
 
I.a.4 Con’s rebuttal of my r2, I.a.3, that H. Sapiens“was already an extant species when…H. sapiens interbred with Neanderthals”is irrelevant because it does not matter which species occurred first. Oh, no, my friend, it is highly relevant. My contention is that the H. sapiensgenome was already a mature genome when it first interbred with Neanderthal, and that this interbreeding occurred long after Adam and Eve, because the debate proposal indicated that Adam and Eve were the first mating pair of H. sapiens.Therefore, the human genome, unfettered by an inferior genome of Neanderthals, was already extant. What happened to it after interbreeding with Neanderthals is whatever happened in terms of change to the genome, but this does not affect the proposal of the debate. It is a matter of simple logic. If ‘A’ is the human genome as expressed by Adam + Eve first generation offspring, and ‘B’ is ‘A100,000’ [an ‘A’ descendant] + Neanderthal, it follows that A ≠ B.
 
I.a.4.A Con then argues in R3 that “So long as both species were extant at the same time interbreeding is possible.”Bold statement. He then argues that “Pro again says he rebutted my case in round 1. That is not true.”  Please refer to my rebuttal this round, I.a.2, and the referenced source [2] from my r1, to wit,that H. sapiensand Neanderthal did not inhabit the same region until 50,000 years ago in Eurasia and, therefore, the more likely outcome is that they did not interbreed until H. sapiensinhabited Eurasia when they migrated there 50,000 years ago. Whereas, H. sapienshas been around for 500,000 years according to my r1 source [2]. Note that my opponent’s bold “Not true” is not sourced, whereas my source, r1 [2] stands challenged, but not by scholastic sourcing. It is Con’s opinion.
 
I.b My opponent has proven something, but it is similar to my offering a recipe for a cake, and we are presented with chicken soup. Cake is entertaining, and that was, after all, the purpose of this debate: to argue a point of basic, human engineering, manufacture, and maintenance for which just about anyone would peruse, ponder, and conclude that, after all, nature is in flux, and we are along for the ride. Have another slice of cake. We’ll add ice cream because this is supposed to be entertainment, not an exercise in nutrition. Chicken soup is for the heart. We’re about the brain, here.
 
I.c However, I thank my opponent for the magical mystery tour through the zoo of human evolution, only to realize that Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice were never given tickets. Meanwhile, Adam & Eve are poster children that Con’s assumed science rejects. So much for humanity. A collection of us in various cities have certainly been acting Neanderthal lately, but that’s the flux I speak of. This debate is not about now, and never has been. 
 
I.d Fair warning: Note for the record on several occasions I have noted Con’s lack of sourcing when making claims. As he now enters round 4, and, given my prohibition of new arguments in round 4, the time has passed to offer such sources even if they exist. Having given away the store in my round four, my opponent may refute, but the soup will not suit; it has been made and a cake it cannot make.
 
 

Con
Re:
 
Con claims in his round 3 that “Pro has no opportunity to respond to  [Con]round ½ args in his round 1/2 args.”  Clearly, I offered rebuttal to Con’s round 1 in my round 2
 
Instigators can't respond to contenders in the same round. Contenders can. That is the contender advantage.
 
Re:
 
I do not deny that H. sapiens and Neanderthals eventually did interbreed
 
Pro and I seem to be on the same page that it happened.
 
Re:
 
what manipulation of the genome may have occurred after 50,000 years ago is not in the scope of this debate
 
OK. This is a lie. See here:
 
Resolved: Adam & Eve contained the entire expression of the human genome. [...] to have the genome begin mutation to create the wide distribution of random gene selection resulting in the variety of human physical traits we see today. [...] The argument turns only on the proposition that other factors than a full set of human characteristics, by full genetic content, plus mutation, determined the variety of human physical expression we witness today.
 
The phrase "the human genome" is, by itself, ambiguous as to precisely what time in history is being referred to. However, Pro said "physical traits we see today" and "expression we witness today" in the debate description and this makes it clear that Pro intended to have the resolution refer to the present day expression of the human genome. This was my understanding as well. Pro's claim that "what manipulation of the genome may have occurred after 50,000 years ago is not in the scope of this debate" is simply false.
 
Re:
 
Con’s rebuttal of my r2, I.a.3, that H. Sapiens “was already an extant species when…H. sapiens interbred with Neanderthals is irrelevant because it does not matter which species occurred first. Oh, no, my friend, it is highly relevant. My contention is that the H. sapiens genome was already a mature genome when it first interbred with Neanderthal, and that this interbreeding occurred long after Adam and Eve, because the debate proposal indicated that Adam and Eve were the first mating pair of H. sapiens. Therefore, the human genome, unfettered by an inferior genome of Neanderthals, was already extant. What happened to it after interbreeding with Neanderthals is whatever happened in terms of change to the genome, but this does not affect the proposal of the debate. It is a matter of simple logic. If ‘A’ is the human genome as expressed by Adam + Eve first generation offspring, and ‘B’ is ‘A100,000’ [an ‘A’ descendant] + Neanderthal, it follows that A ≠ B.
 
This is Pro trying to change the resolution again. The resolution refers to the contemporary human genome, not as it may have existed 50,000 years ago or at the time of Adam & Eve. Pro's theory going in to this was that the genes of Adam & Eve plus mutation = the modern human genome. Pro failed to account for interspecies breeding and is trying to do damage control by claiming that the resolution was not referring to the contemporary human genome.
 
Re: Sources
 
The sources I have provided are credible. Pro hasn't presented any evidence to call their credibility in to question, and Pro doesn't even dispute the claim I was using the sources to support.

Nothing else was relevant or worth responding to. Pro has failed to refute my case and doesn't even deny that interspecies breeding occurred. Logically it follows that the contemporary human genome consists of more than simply the genome of Adam & Eve plus mutation, as Pro contended. The resolution is thus negated. Vote Con.