Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

First of all, I would like to state that I am on the Con side. I will hereby assume that you have referred to the instigator when you mentioned the "Pro". Also, I would like to express my delight to see that I can debate with someone with significant knowledge on the topic, and is willing to argue the case with seriousness. In this round, I would like to respond to some of your arguments you made in round 1. Criteria for inclusion in a regular curriculum for Biology classes There is little to be said. Your assumptions I agree with. I am against the second point, and that will be my focus of the arguments I make. What is evolution? First of all, I do agree with concepts of variation, mutation, descend with modification, and many other elements of evolution. It is hardly logical to believe otherwise looking at different variations in phenotype of finch species in Galapagos Islands. There has been numerous scientific researches that prove those elements, and I believe that species can evolve differently in different environments. It is the notion that one species has turned into another because of these that I, along with many other scientists, am against. You are correct to say that evolution does not explicitly deal with origins of life. However, I believe that you will agree that evolution does support the theory that every species on Earth has origins in different species that existed before them, as that is the central theme of evolution. This is what I will be focusing on throughout my argument. The levels of support for evolution 1. Fossils I understand that so far, there has been no fossil evidence that contradicts evolution. You have mentioned fossil evidences that show species changing from ancient species to modern species. I am aware of ancient species such as Dorudon, Ambulocetus natans, and Pakicetus which are thought to be ancestors of modern whales. As majority of scientists believe, evolution happened over long periods of time, hundreds of millions of years ago, even over billions. According to Darwin, evolution is a continuous change. If it took 52 million years for Pakicetus to change into whales, there must be fossil evidence that shows continuous evolution between species in between the transitional periods. Basically, there should be plenty of fossil evidence that shows mixture of characteristics between Dorudon and Ambulocetus natans, distributed throughout 10 million years of time. However, there isn't. The existing fossil evidences are just fragments of supposedly vast history of evolution. 2. Controlled Experiments There has been evolution in certain phenotype of bananas or fruit flies due to difference in environments and geographic isolation. However, these changes represent microevolution, which is something I believe in. Microevolution is essentially a small evolution, changes in allele frequencies. Microevolution is well-supported by observation and experiments. What is not so well supported is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution that happens on species level. Changes in bananas or fruit flies due to different domestication or food availability supports microevolution, not macroevolution. 3. Scientific Consensus There is little to be said here. Centuries ago, people thought that Earth was flat and stationary. Even before, most people believed that thunders are caused by supernatural beings. Consensus among scientists rarely mean much, as their beliefs are often proven wrong. Clearing up misconceptions I understand that commonly used definition of theory and definition of scientific theory are different. Scientific theory must be able to be proven through observation and experiments. As I stated earlier, most of evidence point towards microevolution, which makes macroevolution, the center of controversy, based on baseless conjectures only. My initial argument questions why evolution takes precedence over creationism when they are both equal in terms of validity. <http://www.britannica.com...; <http://www.britannica.com...; <http://www.icr.org...; I have so far enjoyed this debate, which has been nothing but informational, objective, civil, and fact-based. I hope to continue on this trend throughout rest of the rounds.