Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

As all good things come to an end, we have came to the concluding round of this satisfying debate. In this round, I will first offer rebuttal to Con’s arguments, then provide an overview of the debate and present my final remarks. The criteria for inclusion in a regular curriculum for Biology classes Con has continuously updated and clarified his arguments throughout the debate, and I am grateful for that. In his concluding round, he clarified that he is “against the inclusion of evolution in biology class, because it does not state the controversies clearly enough.” In his earlier rounds, he stated that “only a small portion of it is controversial.” I shall offer four points against his argument. Firstly, as 97% of scientists approve of evolution. Con can argue that evolution is wrong, but to call evolution controversial with a 97% scientific consensus is unjustified. Indeed, evolution is not controversial, at least not on the areas Con mentioned. The theory itself, the mechanism of it, is well justified and well documented. Rather, the true controversy lies in the application of the theory to the specifics. For example, are the apple maggots speciation a result of cross species breeding? Secondly, almost every piece of scientific knowledge is controversial in some minute detail. In high school organic chemistry, students learn that there is a energy barrier to bond rotations. Many forces have been identified as reasons behind the energy barrier, but no iron-clad conclusions have made yet. Should we not teach such an essential and necessary principle to understand stereochemistry? Surely, the whole should not be abandoned just because a very small part is not certain or well-taught enough. Thirdly, if Con finds that the controversies are not stated clearly enough, what he should do is to amend and include the controversies in the curriculum, and not throw out the mass majority of basic, essential, easy to grasp concepts in biology. Lastly, Con has specifically stated that the controversy lies in the idea of the “last common ancestor”, and is not happy about its consideration as a fact. To rebutt my point about the last common ancestor as something strictly separate from evolution, he insisted that it was included in the biology curriculum he posted. However, for readers who have carefully read the curriculum, it was in no where included. Final Rebuttals to anti-evolutionary arguments Con has raised a new argument in his concluding round, stating that the discordance between morphological and molecular evidence as inconsistencies with the theory of molecular evolution, and offered neutral evolution as an alternative. Perhaps unbeknownst to Con, the full name for neutral evolution is the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Neutral evolution is an element of molecular evolution, and not an alternative. And in addition, mutation and chance is essential in all forms of molecular evolution, not just neutral evolution. Furthermore, this particular controversy is of no importance to the debate. To clarify, DNA are information for the synthesis of proteins, which directs an organism’s function and structures. Proteins are a sequence of amino acids, and every three DNA nucleotide codes for one of twenty amino acids. However, multiple combinations of DNA can code for the same amino acid. As such, there are more than one way of “writing” the protein, and these are known as alleles. Consider this analogy: An organism is the content of an essay, the proteins are the words, and the amino acids are the letters. What different alleles ultimately changes is only the font of the essay (in most cases), the content — the organism itself is unchanged. So ultimately, this is irrelevant to what is discussed in biology classes — evolution between the species. This is in fact confirmed by the proposer of neutral evolution Motoo Kimura, that phenotypic (observable) evolution is controlled by natural selection. As stated by Con, the simplified DNA I provided should be much more chaotic, but such nitpicking at an grossly simplified example I called “extremely unrigorous” in notation shows little. The example is used just for better illustration of slow and gradual change of DNA. *I apologize to Con for forgetting to post my source for that, I will do so this round. However, I must urge Con not to cite academic articles in which only the abstract is free to view, while the whole paper costs $6 to rent. Final Rebuttal to the distrust of scientific consensus Con has stated that ancient greek philosophers “shows the susceptibility of the "intellectual community" to false but convincing conclusion.” This is irrelevant to the scientific consensus, as the philosophers are not experts in science/geography. There is little difference to saying that the literature intellectual community can be misled with false scientific hypothesis. Certainly, countless scientific theories have been falsified. But in each instance, the scientific consensus swayed as the evidence piled up. Every scientific theory in existence can be falsified, should we not teach any of them? No. As long as conclusive evidence is not demonstrated against them, the theory is where the evidence points to, and the knowledge that should be passed on and improved upon if later falsified. Overview and Conclusion At the start of the debate, three criteria for inclusion are stated, and the only one Con thinks evolution failed is: “Be scientific, and correct (at least be very close to truth in a lot of cases, think newtonian mechanics).” Con has lately affirmed a very large part of evolution, so it is agreed by both sides that evolution has met all criteria for inclusion in biology classes. Con has specifically stated his distrust of what he called “macroevolution”, which he initially defined on the species level. I have demonstrated that species level evolution did happen, which Con agreed to. I have also demonstrated genus level evolution with the whale example, something Con disagreed with but offered no rebuttals. Con later cited a anthropology professor that speciation has never been observed. This is shown false with the London mosquito example, again no rebuttals were offered. During his concluding round, Con clarified that he is against the teaching of creationism because controversies are not clearly stated. The numerous, un-rebutted evidences I have provided shows that the concerns of Con are no controversies. Even if they are, it is unreasonable to abandon the whole for a minute problem. Finally, Con offered a real, but irrelevant controversy — neutral evolution, but has inaccurately used it as evidence against molecular evolution. The proposer of the neutral evolution has also affirmed natural selection as the force behind high school, phenotypic evolution. Throughout this debate, evolution has been demonstrated to be theory and fact, and is mutually agreed to fit all criteria for inclusion in the regular biology curriculum. Thus, the topic is resolved in favor of Pro — Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes. https://www.dtc.umn.edu... https://books.google.com.hk...;(see xi - introduction) https://books.google.com.hk...;(see p116) I must thank Con once more for his time and effort. I throughouly enjoyed the civil and polite atmosphere. This concludes the debate. Thank you.