Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

Once again, I was amazed at the level of research, thinking, and professionalism that the Pro has demonstrated throughout the debate. And now to continue with our debate: Macroevolution As I have mentioned before, I am a Creationist. That means that I am against the idea that different species can form from one common ancestor. However, I must apologize for my lack of explanation of my views toward macroevolution. Rereading my arguments for the second round, I realize that I implied that I am against every idea of macroevolution. My most sincere apologies for that implication. Evolution is a theory that encompasses a range of topics. Only a small portion of it is controversial. I do not believe that all parts of macroevolution is false. What you have said about finches and Dodd's flies I agree with. I do agree with the notion that species complex, or species flock, has arisen from common ancestor. I have forgotten to mention them in my previous argument. Macroevolution, however, does not involve only the species complex. Macroevolution, as you know, is closely related with common ancestors between two species that are not part of same species complex. This topic is the focus of this discussion. Science, as you have mentioned, is based on observation and experimentation. The experiments and observations you have mentioned prove macroevolution within species complex. However, this does not support the idea that macroevolution could have caused the creation of all species on Earth today. According to evolution, every living organism evolved from an ancestor; that has never been observed. Jefferey H. Schwartz said, "...it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed." Scientific Theory is something that is confirmed through observation. If this specific component of evolution has not been observed, then how can it be called the theory of evolution? Fossils You have mentioned that since we do not have complete, or even nearly complete, collection of fossilized remains of past organisms, it is logical that we cannot find transitional fossils. If so, then how can scientists assume that the fragments of vast history are all pieces of evolution of species, not remnants of separate species? Scientific Consensus You are right to say that scientific consensus tend to be more accurate when dealing with well-established theories. However, in ancient Greece, geocentrism was the theory that every scientist believed. Of course, now we know it is not true. Scientific consensus can be completely overthrown when new ideas are proved. Therefore, consensus among the scientific community cannot be justification for any theory, no matter how well-established it is. That would conclude my third round. My apologies for not making this round the best I can; the time had not allowed me to be more thorough. Thank you once again for your well thought-out arguments and your politeness. I am quite enjoying this debate, which has been more professional and thoughtful than I ever hoped it would be. http://www.britannica.com... http://evolution.berkeley.edu...