Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

In this round, I would like to respond to the pro's arguments, and conclude my debate. The criteria for inclusion in a regular curriculum for Biology classes In your previous argument you have stated, "Even if Con's skepticism on evolution is indeed correct, the theory should still be taught, but the teacher should state where the controversy is. " Looking at Science Content Standards for California Public Schools (I'm using California as an example), you can see that the school imposes the views that evolution is correct, but there is no requirement that states that teachers must also teach that there are controversies. Of course, this is understandable. Standards/regular curriculum cannot include every controversy, since it may make the class unnecessarily hard. However, this is giving theory of evolution precedence over Creationism, which is exactly what I stated was wrong in my first argument. To clarify, I am against the inclusion of evolution into biology classes, because it does not state the controversies clearly enough. Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. As a basis for understanding this concept: a. Students know both genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and diversity of organisms. b. Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. c. Students know how independent lines of evidence from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the bases for the theory of evolution. d. Students know how to construct a simple branching diagram to classify living groups of organisms by shared derived characteristics and how to expand the diagram to include fossil organisms. e. Students know that extinction of a species occurs when the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics of a species are insufficient for its survival. 4. Evidence from rocks allows us to understand the evolution of life on Earth. As a basis for understanding this concept: a. Students know Earth processes today are similar to those that occurred in the past and slow geologic processes have large cumulative effects over long periods of time. b. Students know the history of life on Earth has been disrupted by major catastrophic events, such as major volcanic eruptions or the impacts of asteroids. c. Students know that the rock cycle includes the formation of new sediment and rocks and that rocks are often found in layers, with the oldest generally on the bottom. d. Students know that evidence from geologic layers and radioactive dating indicates Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and that life on this planet has existed for more than 3 billion years. e. Students know fossils provide evidence of how life and environmental conditions have changed. f. Students know how movements of Earth's continental and oceanic plates through time, with associated changes in climate and geographic connections, have affected the past and present distribution of organisms. g. Students know how to explain significant developments and extinctions of plant and animal life on the geologic time scale. f. Students know how to use comparative embryology, DNA or protein sequence comparisons, and other independent sources of data to create a branching diagram (cladogram) that shows probable evolutionary relationships. g. Students know how several independent molecular clocks, calibrated against each other and combined with evidence from the fossil record, can help to estimate how long ago various groups of organisms diverged evolutionarily from one another. How we Connect to Species I was not able to find the information you discussed here in your list of sources. It would be most helpful if you will clarify the sources in your next argument. You have mentioned that DNA evolves slowly from older species to younger species. Then how do you explain the disagreements between morphological evolution and molecular evolution? Discordance between morphological and molecular evidence Certain species that do not share common ancestor have very similar alleles. This is inconsistent with the theory of molecular evolution. Neutral evolution would explain this, but neutral evolution states that most molecular evolution happens due to mutation and chance. The simplified version of DNA sequence that you have presented is clearly based on natural selection as well, seeing how there is a pattern to the evolution. If neutral evolution was true, then the DNA in fossil records would be much more random. Last common ancestor You have said, "I must mention that, strictly speaking, the last common ancestor is not part of the theory of evolution. " However, as you can see from Biology class curriculum I have included earlier in the argument, evolution curriculum does deal with last common ancestor. The topic of the debate is not whether evolution is true or not, but whether evolution must be a regular curriculum in biology classes. As for your argument about DNA evidence, I was not able to find the source that you used. I would be most delighted if you will post the link for me in your next argument. Scientific Consensus You have mentioned that ancient Greeks were not scientists by today's standards. I do agree that Greek methods of approaching matter were heavily based on philosophy. Yet, it shows the susceptibility of "intellectual community" to false but convincing conclusion. Also, in your first round, you have mentioned that since 97% of scientists agree with evolution, evolution is well supported. However, as you said, evidence will continue to pile up. Evolution may one day be disproved. Because such cases were numerous throughout the history of science, scientific consensus does not prove evolution, nor support it. It merely states that many scientists support evolution. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://www.cde.ca.gov... Evolution is a theory that encompasses many topics and has many controversies. My initial topic of debate, "Should evolution be a part of regular curriculum for schools", and my stance, are based on the fact that evolution curriculum implies that evolution is a proven fact, and ignores all controversies. Many elements of evolution can be explained by Creationism, which is no more a faith than evolution, since evolution cannot sufficiently explain beginning of life. This will be my concluding round. To conclude, I would like to express my gratitude one final time for the Pro's willingness to debate the topic with significant knowledge and politeness. I enjoyed this debate, and I hope that this had been a learning and fun experience for both the Pro and the Con.