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

For the readers who have read his round (as is necessary to even understand the resolution of this debate), it should be clear what my opponent is advocating in conventional terms: he proposes not only that macro-evolution should not be taught in schools, but also that there is a significant distinction between macro and micro evolution (namely that the latter is true while the former is not). I find that there is no need for a replacing the terms macro and micro evolution with "Ragnazork" and "Quibblevome", but to prevent any discrepancies I will abide by my opponent's requests. However, I would like to request that we refer to them as RA and QU respectively, for the sake of ease of typing. This is what I am bent out to achieve for this debate: not only will I demonstrate that RA should be taught in school I will also demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between RA and QU as my opponent would believe so. ==================== There is no fundamental difference between RA (Macro-evolution) and QU (Micro-evolution) ==================== First, we must direct attention to the prevailing definitions of both terms. Macroevolution[1] "generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. " On the other hand, microevolution[2] "is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life. If you could zoom in on one branch of the tree of life scale — the insects, for example — you would see another phylogeny relating all the different insect lineages. If you continue to zoom in, selecting the branch representing beetles, you would see another phylogeny relating different beetle species. You could continue zooming in until you saw the relationships between beetle populations. " The point of posting such long definitions is to reveal the fact that there is NO FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. It is true that there are shady areas and questions needed to be answered about such a distinction (and evolution in general - such as the pace of speciation), but this is a presence found in every scientific field. Talkorigins have a great article going into excruciating detail about the relationship between RA and QU[3] and though he notes there are some areas needed to be answered the author concludes "But this doesn't mean that we can say that it is impossible to evolve from one group to another because there is a barrier, as creationists claim. Genes and developmental sequences are extremely modifiable, and to date no barrier has been found, nor any reason to suspect one exists. All modern biology accepts that Ma is possible, through biological processes. The question is, in what ways? And that is a matter for empirical investigation, which is ongoing, and through which we are learning new things. Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns. " The modern evolution synthesis[1], which is the currently most widely accepted union of ideas related to evolution, concurs that RA is often the compounded effects of QU. Here is a simple analogy: is there any fundamental difference between walking to my kitchen and walking to the store a few blocks away? Would we classify the walk from my room to my kitchen on term and the walk from my room to the nearby store in two separate terms? Of course not, the only difference is in terms of scope and time -- the latter simply takes longer and is, in effect, the compounded effects of the former (i. e. walking). The same is with RA and QU. ==================== RA (Macro-evolution) should be taught in schools ==================== My argument here holds the simple, and for now assumed, premise that evolution is true. If my opponent contends this in his next round then I will gladly defend it. Assuming this, evolution is obviously crucial to biology. Contrary to my opponent's sole and uncredited reference (a creationist website calling itself evolution news - seriously? ), there is a profusion of evidence to the contrary. To put it simply, evolution is often referred as the bedrock of biology: The following link is an interview[4] where Massimo Pigliucci lists all the benefits and importance of evolution; he argues the 20th century is the century of biology due to it's great emerging relevance to our lives, evolution being a significant factor. You say teachers complain about the SOL, and yet look at the "National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K–12 science education frameworks and curricula[5]. " They maintain that "science curricula, state science standards, and teachers should emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. " In fact, even the National Academy of Sciences defends "evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes[6]. " There is overwhelming evidence pointing out that evolution is a integral aspect of biology, because it makes SENSE out of biology. If we review many biological issues within the lens of evolution, much of it becomes incredibly coherent (study of germs, medicine, animals, etc. ). Evolution supplies biology with immense explanatory power, a necessary tool for any valid scientific discipline. ==================== Conclusion ==================== The primary reason why people even think they have cogent arguments against evolution is because of an incredible lack of scientific knowledge concerning evolution. Almost always there is a critical element of evolutionary theory they have either no knowledge of or a twisted misunderstanding of. Evolution need not be split up by the terms macro and micro for most discussions and it should be taught in schools if the purpose of pre-collegiate schools is to supply students a broad range of intellectual subjects in preparation for when they can decide on a specialty. Creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis, and my opponent is a prime example of this. ---References--- 1. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 3. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 4. . http://www.actionbioscience.org... 5. . http://www.nsta.org...