Evolution should be taught in schools

Thank you to Con for a good debate; I'll respond now.It may disappoint Con to realise that many of his elaborations on FALSE are 100% irrelevant for this debate. Consistently, my opponent has referred to the over-arching theory, whereas (as I have explained multiple times) we are debating the biological phenomenon! I cannot stress this enough. Consequently, my opponent's points are littered with fallacies; I will go through them [the points] now.F - FossilsHere my opponent uses the "lack of transitional fossils" and a single example of an animal to disprove the whole over-arching theory of evolution. While that's all very well, we are not debating this. (See above) Therefore, my opponent's contention is a complete straw man[1] against OA (over-arching) evolution. We are debating the BP (biological phenomenon) type of evolution here! This is also, therefore, an irrelevant red herring[2].Other notes on F - FossilsLet's say that my opponent is correct and evolution hasn't happened in the past. This does nothing to disprove the examples of evolution I gave happening in the present. So, there is really no point to this, in context.A - AssumptionHere my opponent is either making a straw man against speciation[3], or referring to speciation itself without naming it for some reason. ((One way, it's fallacious, the other, it's dishonest. Not sure what else to say here...)) In either case, this is also irrelevant, because speciation refers to the OA theory of evolution, but we are discussing the BP. Yet another straw man and red herring. L - LifeThis is something that is often misunderstood, especially by Creationists. The Law of biogenesis does state that "life can only create life"[4]. However, how does this relate to evolution? Abiogenesis refers to life coming from non-life[5] and is interesting to ponder, but doesn't relate to evolution in the OA, necessarily. And it definitely doesn't relate to the BP of evolution. Another straw man!Other notes on L - LifeCon has omitted a very important part of the law of biogenesis. He didn't add: "...by reproduction"[4] on the end of the sentence. So, for Con to accept this, he accepts that God reproduced to make a chicken. Therefore, God is a chicken. If not, and God made the chicken "out of nothing" [violation of metaphysics], then that is abiogenesis! I am really unsure as to what Con was trying to straw man, here!S - SymbiosisCon questions how life evolved together when you need one for the other. This is also irrelevant, but, to make a change for the audience: I'll answer this one.Con assumes that they have always been dependant on one another. Yet he doesn't back this up. It is highly possible that they evolved mutually in co-evolution, but only (relatively) recently became absolutely dependant. Brief answer, because I want to get back to the topic at hand.E - EngineeringCon cites the idea of irreducible complexity. However, this operates on a "cells to animals" basis and is therefore irrelevant, again! More straw men, I'm afraid.General Notes:(1) Con hasn't attempted to refute any of my arguments this round; so I extend them. (1a) Indeed, he even accepted it! "You are right about this. [i.e. my E. coli example]". Since I have shown how that was evolution, as defined, then Con has implicitly conceded the debate to me. (2) Other fallacies by Con include a repeated false dilemma[6].(3) If Con would like to debate about the OA theory of evolution; I'm more than happy to! (Today I didn't refute them, because they were irrelevant).ConclusionsI have refuted Con's contentions and/or shown them to be straw men, red herrings, and irrelevant for this debate. My contentions went unrefuted - indeed - Con even conceded one! The resolution has been negated by myself, by showing how evolution, as defined, has been observed many times. It's been a heated and great debate! I have enjoyed it, Con! I give my thanks to my opponent, TheUser, for an entertaining debate today, the audience, and the voters! I'll see y'all around!JSource(s):[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]http://www.nizkor.org...