Evolution must be a regular curriculum for Biology classes.

The same cannot be said for many other debates in the site. In the first round, I would like to do four things:1. Discuss the criteria for inclusion in a regular curriculum for Biology classes.2. Explain what the theory of evolution is.3. Discuss the validity of it.4. Clear up Pro’s misconceptionThe criteria for inclusion in a regular curriculum for Biology classesPro did not clearly state whether “biology classes” refers to the elementary/primary school level, middle/secondary school level, high school level, or university level courses. My discussion will mainly focus on biology classes at the primary, middle, or high school level, but not on the university level as the theory of evolution is foundational knowledge to be built upon. For a piece of knowledge to be considered a “must include” in a regular science curriculum, it should possess three qualities: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. The theory of evolution deals with all organisms on earth, so it satisfies 1. It is a relatively simple concept to understand, as I will soon explain, so it satisfies 3. Due to a vast amount of evidence and a very high level of scientific consensus, it also satisfies 2. While I do not assume it, I doubt that Pro will disagree on either 1 or 3. Rather, Pro does not believe in the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. So I believe point 2 will dictate the direction of this debate. What is evolution? In general, evolution refers to changes in a species due to modification in heritable traits. *Evolution does not deal with the origins of life* There are three essential elements to evolution, reproduction, mutation, and a natural selection mechanism. Consider a generation of a solo hunting species (e. g. tigers and their ancestors). The generation will hunt for food in order to survive. Of course, within the generation, there are those who are faster, stronger, or more intelligent. These traits will aid hunting, thus increasing their chance of survivability. On the other hand, the weaker, slower, and dumber ones will have less chance of survival. As the generation matures and reproduces, some of its weaker members will have died off, so the generation is now stronger on average than before. The generation now reproduces, and a new generation emerges. The new generation is born from the stronger ones of the old generation, so they will be stronger than the old generation as a whole (including the weak, dead ones). Further more, due to errors made during the replication of dna, known as mutation, the new generation will be slightly different than their parents, just as you and I are different from our parents. Some rare mutations might be deadly, as is the case for the Niemann-Pick diseases for humans, while other mutations increases survivability. It is a very common misconception that mutations are always bad. Lactase persistence, for example, allows an adult to better digest lactose, thus gaining more energy for survival. Another example would be bacteria developing resistance against antibiotics. As the new generation matures, members with “bad” mutations will die, and members with “good” mutations will continue to survive and reproduce. The next generation will then carry on these good mutations, and be even more fit to survive than the second generation. As time goes by, these beneficial mutations will propagate in the species, and results in changes observed in the whole species. This could be the elongation of the neck of giraffes, leopards developing better muscles for running, and us, humans becoming more intelligent. The species can also develop into two different species, if two routes of mutations are beneficial. This, my friends, is evolution. The level of support for evolutionAs seen from above, the concept of evolution is a logical one. But of course, any scientific ideas requires evidence. And this can be seen from:1. Fossils2. Controlled experimentsI will now discuss the two of them.1. FossilsBy determining the age and observing the similarity of fossils, we can see evidence for evolution. Species adapt, and via mutation, they branch, and change into more modern species. As it can be seen in source 1’s “figure 1” under “Mammalian Phylogenomics” (see reference), an evolutionary tree can be constructed.2. Controlled ExperimentsA more primitive form of evolutionary experiments is something we have been doing for a very long while — domestication and selective breeding. The mechanism of domestication is exactly the same as natural selection (i. e. evolution), but the selection mechanism is not produced by nature, but by humans. As seen in source 2, the domesticated banana indeed looks different from the undomesticated, “natural” banana. Biologist Diane Dodd has also demonstrated speciation by placing fruit flies in two cages, one cage containing maltose food, and the other one containing starch food. After generations and generations of fruit flies, the fruit flies separated into maltose preferring flies and starch preferring flies. Such demonstrates how geographic isolation and natural selection can lead to speciation. Scientific consensusThe theory of evolution is widely supported. For example, the evolution of humans has a 97% by scientists. The creationist Discovery Institute has encouraged scientists to voice their dissent from darwinism, and gathers around 700 signatures. On the other hand, the national center for science education’s “Project Steve”, calls for scientists named steve, stefan, stephanie, etc. to sign their support for evolution. Project Steve has near 1400 signatures. It should be stated that the list contained more biologists than DI’s list, and that “steves” only amount to roughly 1% of the total population. Clearing up misconceptionsPro has said “Evolution is a theory. By definition a theory is a supposition. ” This is a common misconception regarding the word “theory”. As put by biologist professor Jaime Tanner, "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts. "Indeed, a scientific theory is a system of ideas that is falsifiable, and has withstood the numerous attempts to falsify it. Examples include the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, etc. The layman use of the term “theory”, is really hypothesis.1. . http://www.molecularcytogenetics.org...2. . http://img3.visualizeus.com.... dc2e804177daa25fba41c856b53cadf2_h. jpg3. . http://ncse.com...4. . http://www.discovery.org...5. . http://www.livescience.com...