Ragnazork should be (in the manditory sense) tought in schools

Yes, the video's are rather pointless, but there not random. I used an analogy with a horse with six legs, and the top video has a horse with six legs. I also had an analogy of a horse with wings; the bottom video is of a horse with wings. A cool visual to accompany the analogy for your enjoyment. ---- Differences between RA & QU --- As for as the horse analogy, Yes I know RA would not give anything so fantastic within a mutation. And I know they do not have to be radically different looking to count as a different species. Taking my analogy literally that a horse could be born with wings in a mutation would be talking about the ‘monster egg' theory, and I don't expect you to defend that as that is not what most supporters of RA believe today. The point of the Illustration is to show the principal difference in the two mutations, not how fantastic they are. I chose the concepts of a Pegasus and the horse Odin rides on Final Fantasy because I see no grey area in what kind of difference they are from real horses. You see, a creationist will believe you when you tell him that in small increments of change from mutation you can get the polar bear, grizzly bear, and black bear descending from a bear that had all their traits. He will not believe you when you use the same explanation for getting that bear and the bovine that all Holsteins, Angus, and buffalo descended, from descending from the same creature. But we must draw a line somewhere as to what would be considered a new species after when it first happens. Because like you said it will not likely look drastically different. It has to be when new genetic information comes with mutation. The horse already has the genetic code for designing its front legs. If it made more of those it would be old genetic information that has been their all previous ancestors. But as for wings, no duplication, scrambling, or loss of DNA in a horse will make those in a mutation. It would require all new genetic information, new kinds of building blocks, to make that. In a real live case it would not have to be wings, just something ‘new' for the horse species to prove RA, because according to RA, this very thing has happened at some point in past. If the diversity of genetic information from a fire flys thorax to a pine trees arching branches did not come from the very first life form ever by this means of new information in mutation, then all genetic information would have to have been present in that first life form, only for mutations to cause certain information to be lost for some descendants, and other information to be lost for others. And that would not be RA, that would be de-evolution, the general theory for downgrading, degregation or de-improvement. ----- RA in schools ----- You point out that there is still political tension, but who cares about that? Science is not about what the public thinks or what makes them comfortable; it's not a public census. If we should look at any collective agreement as an indicator of what should be taught in science classes, then the scientific community is an obvious first glance. ‘Science' should not care, the schools on the other hand should. They are supposedly put up by the public and maintained via there tax's. If there going to be forced into this deal where they pay the state their money for public services, their say shouldn't't be discounted, In fact I dare say we do ‘care' about their wants when spending the money we legally stole from them if only in trivial matters. I know listening to the public in all things will lead to something like mob rule, witch is why I stress the term ‘trivial', but throw them a bone they should have an impact on the way there lives are being run. Now if you can show understanding RA, (not QU or XG) is not 'trivial' but 'pivotal' then my argument falls all apart. 'You claim me to be committing a fallacy of appealing to authority and yet you yourself commit that same supposed fallacy.' That does come off as pretty hypocritical of me, I am sorry. But I am not throwing away Dr. Egnor's case just yet. Yes, you should listen to him on his authority as we have deduced hear. But for this resolution we are not concerned with what he says about the evidence, but the evidence of that he has said. That sounds same as listening to him, but its not quite. Its observing that his opinion can exist in his field. Now if we scroll back up to round 2 you might read my saying how a person claim something is very important for practice, but not be correct when its easy to exaggerate the things your interested in hear. but how could RA be a necessary 'unifying theory' for his practice and he not understand that? Nero surgeons don't tend to keep their jobs if they have reputation for messing up there patients, but he appears to have no black marks in that respect. His papers have been discredited since his remarks about the unneccisity of RA He claims in his interview with Ben Stein. But his actual practice shows fine. If we ignore the authorities we both have stood behind we find the point we are arguing is 'is it necessary understanding?' If it is not it is understandable how there could still be divisions in opinions by those that practice applications in science, but if it is necessary how on earth could a man disagree when he must be using often? 'What's funny is that you even claim my sources support evolution only for the public spotlight - what a harsh claim, want to back it up?' I guess not, my arguments of perception deal with how to view data, it doesn't provide against it. unfortunately that is where my skill level is right now as a debater. I could try drawing back to Egnors being discredited in the scientific community, along with anyone else Ben Stein categorized as 'Expelled' in his movie. But primarily I would like to point out that Egnor works on brains with science, what does NSTA or the National Academy of Science do with it? Talk about Science with Science? 'The point of that article wasn't to make clear the distinction between RA and QU, but rather to show the overwhelming impact evolution has on interdisciplinary fields, ranging from medicine to even psychology.' Of course it was, and it does show overwhelming evidence for QU impacting these field. But I typed up Ragnazork in the resolution. and I could not find one paragraph in that article that showed how understanding how we get a specieation between snails and spiders, bananas and dogs, rhino's and hippos, snakes and crocodiles. there was evidence for how understanding how we get wolves and coyotes, but that is QU. 'Further, your proposal of "XG" is a red herring - simply because evolution perhaps had a different meaning before has no bearing on it's meaning now. Most words have had different meanings in the past, but there's no need to create a whole new word every time.' My point is that its meaning from before should have no bearing in this argument. defending the currant meaning with the old meaning makes no sense. If we where arguing about applications of love but every time you read it you saw one meaning and I saw another we would end up essentially arguing about different things. and if we are not debating a term with the same meaning why debate at all? In this debate the helpfulness 'improvement' has been for man does not indicate the helpfulness of 'speciation of bears and cows' ------------------------------- I would like to end with this. Even if we assume that everything you have said true, that RA and QU are the same, and that its important to know for students, We still should conlude to take RA out. Because if QU is still being taught then so is RA because because we are viewing them as the same, but all the people who do not see them as the same and are wrong quite whining, causing problems, ect. And the students get all they needed out of RA in QU because they are the same. Have your cake, Eat it too.