Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

Again, I assure Con that the delight is shared. Now, onwards with the debate. So far, it seems that the only remaining disagreement is on the validity of what Con calls "macroevolution". Since Con has given his/her approval over "microevolution" and "concepts of variation, mutation, descend with modification, and many other elements of evolution", it is safe to conclude that these elements — namely the mechanism of natural selection, and evolution as an explanation for smaller evolutionary changes, should be included in the regular curriculum for biology classes. With a significant part of the topic resolved, what I will now do is to resolve the remaining part by demonstrating the validity of "macroevolution". Macroevolution on the species levelCon has defined macroevolution as "evolution that happens on the species level", so I shall start examining the validity of evolution on the species scale. Perhaps it might surprise Con that differences between species are actually pretty small. The picture below shows 16 very similar looking species of butterflies. . http://www.pnas.org...If one accepts the mechanism of evolution, and evolution in antibiotic resistant bacteria, the idea that evolution can cause changes on the species level should not be too counterintuitive. Hence, the significant and visible changes in the banana, and the biological changes in Dodd's flies should not be rashly dismissed as examples of "microevolution". Furthermore, considering that evolution heavily relies on random DNA mutation, it would be illogical to think that numerous DNA mutations cannot produce pass the point of "microevolution", and develop larger scale changes in "macroevolution" if given enough time. Of course, science is ultimately based on observations and evidence, so reasoning alone cannot suffice, I should also provide evidence of macroevolution on the species level. However, it seems that Con has perhaps unknowingly produced sufficient evidence himself. As Con mentioned Darwin"s finches, I should remind Con that the finches have been classified as around 14 different species (source 5). Indeed, the different species are extremely similar looking to each other, other than variations in the beak. Since Con has accepted evolution in the finches, Con has essentially accepted evolution on the species level. If Con remains unsatisfied with evolution on the species level, the image detailing the evolution of Chesapecten Scallops should provide additional evidence. Link: . http://image.slidesharecdn.com...The collection of fossils are rather complete to show how the small changes add up in a macroevolution on the species level. Macroevolution beyond the species level Now that we have demonstrated the strong evidence for evolution on the species level, it is time to move up a level to the genus. Certainly, evolution on the genus level involves larger changes compared to evolution on the species level. But are the changes so abrupt, to the point that it seems incomprehensible? Perhaps not. The source below shows the evolutionary history of modern whales (and their cousins):. http://www.sciencenutshell.com... It can be seen from Indohyus to Balaena, each iteration involves significant and consistent changes " the size gets bigger, the center of gravity lowers, the snout elongates, and the limbs shortens. These gradual physical changes, along with gradual changes in the DNA, are strong evidence for evolution on the genus level. Even if one find it hard connect the huge headed balaena (modern whale) to the flat headed Dorudon (DNA analysis says otherwise), they should not have difficulty connecting Pakicetus to Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon, which already suffices as evidence for macroevolution on the genus level. Addressing the lack of Fossils between Dorudon and AmbulocetusCon has asked a very common question regarding the evolution of whales, if macroevolution is true, surely "there should be plenty of fossil evidence that shows mixture of characteristics between Dorudon and Ambulocetus. " The answer to this question, is that fossils are very rare finds. Fossils only form when certain conditions are met. Large fossils are even harder to come by. According Paleontologist Dr Prothero (see source 4), our fossil records possess only 5% of today"s known species, if we consider that on the evolutionary time scale, the fraction of fossils we possess is a very tiny fraction of all species that once lived. So ultimately, the assumption that we should possess plenty of fossils in between Dorudon and Ambulocetus is wishful thinking. If we possess a very complete fossil record, and still fail to find species in between them, then macroevolution might very well be falsified. But even with such an incomplete fossil record, we are able to identify gradual changes in physical appearance and DNA instead of finding fossils with no visible connections, surely this strengthens the case for macroevolution instead of diminishing it. Response to the importance of Scientific ConsensusCiting the flat-earth belief and the supernatural explanation of thunder, Con has been critical of the importance of scientific consensus. I must point out that the public consensus is very different from the scientific consensus. And often, it is wiser to take the opinion of educated experts. Of course, if we are talking about the frontier of science, then the scientific consensus can be volatile and is less valuable. But for a theory as old and well established as evolution, scientific consensus on the subject is almost as trustworthy as the scientific consensus on the existence of gravity. However, reliance on expertise is useful only when we are unable to grasp the deeper details of the science, which I believe is not the case with both of us. Hence my main focus is on the validity of macroevolution, with the scientific consensus argument as support. . http://www.pnas.org... . http://image.slidesharecdn.com... . http://www.sciencenutshell.com... . http://www.donaldprothero.com... . http://www.pbs.org... This has been a very thought provoking debate so far, and I have learnt much from conducting research that I normally wouldn"t do. I must again thank Con for his degree of politeness and passion on the subject that kept this debate going.