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

And yes, at best his videos are useful in depicting the fanciful horses he has described (albeit we can easily think that such entities exist) so let's leave it at that. ==================== There is no fundamental difference between RA (Macro-evolution) and QU (Micro-evolution) ==================== You claim that simply because you can't see any gray area in the difference between your depictions of Pegasus and real horses, there seems to be a disconnect between RA and QU. This commits the relatively simple argument from personal incredulity[1], which claims that simply in virtue of your inability to imagine X to be true, X must not be true. This is obviously nothing but far from the truth, and an analogy can be of use: The following link is of your typical cloud droplet[2] - if you can't tell, there's a lot of these in the air. While the picture is simply diagram we can imagine the droplets to be quite simplistic looking. However, do you realize that cloud droplets are the foundation for snowflakes[3]? If you look at the many common pictures of snowflakes then the cloud droplet and the snowflake will seem to be RADICALLY DIFFERENT - so much that according to your reasoning there must be a fundamental distinction. And yet we easily know that snowflakes are, for the most part, accumulations of cloud droplets. Now simply take this analogy into effect. Simply because the out coming effect seems radically different this doesn't preclude the simply fact that QU can lead to RA as an aggregate product. Finally, you ask how "new information" comes about via genetic mutations, which you argue is simply rearranging of what is already present. Again, this is misguided Creationist talk: it's been commonly noted that mutations CAN and often DO create new information[4][5], a popular mechanism being gene duplication. ==================== RA (Macro-evolution) should be taught in schools ==================== "‘Science' should not care, the schools on the other hand should. " ----> Let me ask you something, should we be teaching kids that the MMR vaccine (useful for measles, mumps, and rubella) causes autism[6]? Of course not, it's been scientifically discredited and shown not only to be false but in fact dangerous. But simply because so many people believe in such a falsehood does not mean public schools are obligated to teach it as the truth; in fact, I would be appalled if that would happen given the reinforcement of stupidity in our already ailing school structure. As is evident, you miss the crux of my argument. Science is founded on popular opinion, so nor should science curriculum. "but how could RA be a necessary 'unifying theory' for his practice and he not understand that? " ----> You're right, evolution has not much to do with neurosurgery, but so is the same for most biology. Does animal biology help with neurosurgery? No. Does cell biology help with neurosurgery? No. Does biochemistry help with neurosurgery? No. So what am I missing here? Basically, high schools and undergraduate programs teach you all the foundational and basic tenets of biology, as is with every other subject. When you want to specialize in a field then that is when you will take classes specific for such a career - until then it will follow the same, broad format. "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? " ----> Not only have I shown the neurosurgery example to be irrelevant, but it's quite showing that you don't know what the NSTA or National Academy of Science does. The former promotes progress in science teaching while the latter is similar to those who serve pro bono (public service) in regards to scientific issues. "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. " ----> It's obvious how I am using RA, which is why I find this entire act of classifying macro and microevolution with gibberish to be tom foolery. If I use it in a certain way with an explicitly definition in mind then there shouldn't be any discrepancy -- I have clearly defined RA/macroevolution in the first round. ==================== Conclusion ==================== It seems apparent that my opponent's lack of understanding pertaining evolutionary theory exposes the flaws in his argument. It should be common knowledge that there is no distinction between RA and QU, macroevolution and microevolution, and that the theory is a sound and extremely important one -- it should not be abandoned from school curriculum. ---References--- 1. . http://www.theskepticsguide.org... 2. . http://www.atmos.umd.edu... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 5. . http://www.newscientist.com... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...