Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

Please don’t worry con, I understand that there are other things in life that should be prioritized over this. I am already grateful for the time and dedication you put into our debate. Now onwards with the debate. The criteria for inclusion in a regular curriculum for Biology classes Con has stated that “evolution is a theory that encompasses a range of topics”, and “only a small portion of it is controversial.” Looking at the criteria for inclusion we discussed and agreed to, there are three points: 1. Applicable even with variation in the class’s geographic and cultural background. 2. Be scientific, and correct (at least be very close to truth in a lot of cases, think newtonian mechanics). 3. Its difficulty should not be too advanced. In round 2, Con has agreed to the suggested criteria, but disagrees that evolution fits criteria 2. However, Con has now given his approval over a very large part of evolution, stating “only a small portion of it is controversial.” This fits criteria 2, as evolution is “at least very close to truth in a lot of cases.” Newtonian mechanics, which is widely taught in high school physics, is not controversial, it is wrong. But it is close to truth in low speed conditions (relative to light, which can still be very very fast), which is the case in almost every scenario on earth. If the teacher states where the theory fails, then there is no problem in teaching it. Even if Con’s skepticism on evolution is indeed correct, the theory should still be taught, but the teacher should state where the controversy is. However, by saying this, I am not conceding to Con’s criticism of evolution. While the minute details of evolution are controversial, the controversy is not in the concerns Con raised. Hence, by agreeing to all three criteria, there is little doubt that evolution must be included in a regular curriculum for biology classes. Macroevolution and the species complex While I appreciate Con’s clarifying of his arguments, and his extended approval of macroevolution to the species complexes, I do not find his arguments strengthened. In addition to macroevolution in species complexes, I have also given evidence to macroevolution within the species level but outside the species complex (the Chesapecten Scallops, see source 1), and macroevolution within the genus (the whale evolution, see source 2). As I have stated, the fossils there show clear and gradual change, which is strong evidence for evolution that Con has not yet replied to. Con has also quoted Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a professor on humanities (anthropology, to be exact), that the formation of a new species has never been observed. This is not a valid claim. An emergence of a new species of mosquito, Culex pipiens f. molestus, have been documented in london underground. In addition, the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella is currently undergoing speciation. So ultimately, Schwartz’s view is an unfounded claim based on lack of research. How we connect species to species Con has asked the question, “how can scientists assume that the fragments of vast history are all pieces of evolution of species, not remnants of separate species?” By observing both the physical appearance and the dna of the fossils, we can see a gradual change. As one can see from the previous examples, the changes are continuous. For example, we observe the dna of several connected fossils (from oldest to youngest in age): 1st fossil: AAAAAAR32; 2nd fossil:ABAAAA 3rd fossil: ABCAAA 4th fossil: ABCDAA Scientists do indeed compare genetic information like that, but I do realize that the notations are extremely unrigorous, but this as an example will suffice. In actuality, the nitrogen bases (ATCG) or amino acid sequences will be used instead. We could see gradual changes in the dna, and each generation retains genetic information of the last. Of course, there is no proof with deductive, mathematical certainty that 4 evolved from 1. If we take it far enough, we could say aliens obtained the 1st species, and modified their dna, and place them back on earth. But knowing that species reproduce under pressure from natural selection, the most reasonable conclusion would be that they are interconnected. No scientific theory is definite. Science is not tautological like mathematics. But for the reasonable, such gradual change, not just seen across one set of fossils, but across multiple, despite the lack of a complete record, is extremely strong evidence for evolution. Last Common Ancestor Con has mentioned his dissent from the idea that every living organism evolved from an ancestor. I must mention that, strictly speaking, the last common ancestor is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is simply the change in heritable traits of a biological population over time, under the pressure of natural selection. The last common ancestor, in fact, cannot be deduced just from the theory of evolution, as the theory did not state the number of starting points. However, it is the fossils and living creature dna analysis, that show evidence for the last common ancestor. By constructing phylogenetic tree, scientist are able to connect life on earth to a single common ancestor. Even if Con is right, and that we have multiple initial lifeforms, this does not falsify the theory of evolution one bit. Scientific Consensus Con has further expressed his distrust of the scientific consensus by using “geocentrism” in ancient Greece as an example. The scientific method was scarcely employed during ancient Greece, and thinkers at the time were philosophers, not scientists. Two of the biggest proponents of geocentrism, Aristotle and plato mainly base their arguments from a philosophical standpoint. Furthermore, not all philosophers believed geocentrism at that time, Aristarchus and Seleucus are good examples of heliocentric philosophers. Of course, scientific consensus have changed over time. But it didn’t change without good reason. When it shifted from newtonian mechanics to einsteinian relativity, it was because the development of better telescopes lead them to new evidence that contradicted newton. As the evidence continue to pile up, relativity replaced newtonian mechanics. It can therefore be said, that scientific consensus is a good overview of the amount of evidence of a particular theory. http://image.slidesharecdn.com... http://www.sciencenutshell.com... http://knowledgenuts.com... http://www.sciencedirect.com... Again, I thank Con for his time. I cannot wish the debate to be more civil, informative, and engaging.