The Instigator
Marauder
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,805 times Debate No: 11078
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

Marauder

Con

Audience, you may wondering what the word Ragnazork means. Well, The definition of Ragnazork is pristinely not the same as Qubblevome. The two words sound nothing alike, and therefore cannot be confused with each other, a blessing not bestowed on much of the English language. In English we very often miscommunicate with each other and not all the time do we even catch when we do. For example should I describe a female as beautiful for me personally I have learned to use that word and hear it from others to mean a particular level of attractiveness. But for some reader of my description of a woman as beautiful they may not have learned to associate that word with nearly as high an attractiveness. In fact for them to visualize the degree witch I meant to describe to them I would need to add a lot of enhancing terms to ‘beautiful' like ‘very', ‘super', ‘ultra', or something more complicated like ‘as the stars'. Instances like that are not that big a deal when concerning confusion. Strangely what does seem to cause a bigger deal in confusion is one that at least has an add on word to designate its deferent meaning. This term is Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution. Perhaps one day English will develop enough to have new words for so simple a mix-up for words like these, but until then I have created two words that can adapt easily to any terms that need better distinguishing, words that I'm fairly certain will not themselves be two similar to the terms they would briefly replace for conversations sake. I don't worry about this being difficult for anyone because it is as easy as math when you take a number like 3.1452…. and make it equal with pi.

For this debate the term Ragnazork replaces Macro-evolution and the term Quibblevome replaces Micro-evolution. Why would I find it important distinguish these two words, well one is accepted as science and fact by even the most wacko Young Earth Creationist, and the other is the controversial one that people actually are in disagreement over. To often debates and discussions go to no point of resolve between two people because facts, evidence and points of interest remained centered around Quibblevome brought up by supporters of Ragnazork to the people who argued against Ragnazork. And all the arguments against Ragnazork were interpreted as assaults against Quibblevome. Why? Likely because people have become lazy and long ago stopped bothering to add the terms Macro and Micro in their debates and felt content to mutually call both terms evolution. So when someone said evolution they could have meant Ragnazork or Quibblevome. No one bothers asking to clarify because both parties assume that the other party thinks the same one is controversial, therefore that must be the point of discussion. But one side believes that its both Ragnazork and Qubblevome that the other finds objectionable; while the other side thinks Ragnazork alone is all that's been argued for some time now.

Some believe I.D. should be taught side by side in school with Ragnazork. I contend these people are wrong. Though I would advocate I.D. and Creationism in general they should not be in schools, and neither should Ragnazork. Teachers complain enough as is that they don't have enough time as it is to cover what they need to for the SOL's (standards of learning) and that they feel like because of this that they are not really teaching the subject to their students but rather ‘teaching them to take a test'. If only we could do something for these people with such a stressful job. Why not lighten there load? Take Ragnazork out of the SOL's and the curriculum all together. Ragnazork is not vital enough to waste our high school student's time with.

This knowledge is not nessicary for future practices of biology professianaly http://www.evolutionnews.org... and practically. I would not argue that we should try keeping the knowledge all together away from students, for that we not happen if its taken out of the main curriculem (the SOL tested stuff). Phycology is not tought in history or science class, no chapter is devoted to this science, no mandatory SOL class for it, and yet you would likely find from talking to most students that they have supprising level of understanding of the subject, (perhaps not profissianal level worthy) given that its not covered in a class they took. The same will happen with evolution if taken out of the SOL's. I would not even object to holding an optional class much like phycology is for teaching Ragnazork. the worry I've gathered on doing that is that means ragnazork is portrayed not so much as a real science. well metorology is considered a very real sceince but its not an SOL class.

My challange to my opponent is to show how fundamentally important Ragnazork is to sceince that its remaning a SOL cirriculum is neccisary. If what he shows is its importance on a level that students need to know as much of it as they would get without it in the SOL class, like phycology, then vote con. if they do show its so important it must stay in a mainstream class everyone has to take for thats the onlyway to understand it good enough, then vote pro.
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, and I appreciate his unique way of presenting this topic and for his detailed introduction. 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...
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Con

Thank you for posting your argument, and thank you for teaching some new terms to me, ontological, metephysical, and methodological reduction.

I will respectfully comply with TheSkeptic's wishes and use RA and QU in place of Ragnazork and Quibblevome for spelling ease.

=====
There is no fundamental difference between RA (Macro-evolution) and QU (Micro-evolution)
=====

My opponent claims there are no differences between RA and QU, making my clarifying words rather pointless. The claim is based on the notion that RA is in fact the effect of multiple QU's. His source claims that things that make up QU, Mutation, genitic drift, genitic flow, and natural selection, added with a hexatillion years is what makes up RA. the source seems to anticipate this claim coming off as rather extrodinary and because of such, unbeliveable when it stated

'A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.'

My question for this statement is why? If I cant learn to beat my cousin at chess in 20 years, what would make me think that 100 would make a difference? The expression 'time heals all' may apply to your emotional issues, but in practical science it should not be considered an all problem solving sceince. When we see that the time we do have to observe RA is not enough, and claim it just takes more time than we can ever have to observe, is not unlike total absence of explination, witch as Richard Dawkins say's is saying the same as 'it was a mirical'. And sceince is not about accapting the miraculessness of occurances, its about explaining them.

As I pointed out its obvious the claim is extrodinary so it should be backed by extrodinary evidence. The part of the extrodinary claim that should cause on to pause is certain assumtions about the versitility of the mutation. genitic flow, drift, and natural selection are fine in explaining and studying a varity of bettles (QU). but they do not come close to demonstrating how you achive there differences from various snails (RA). The distinction between QU and RA that is important is that through QU we could expect a horse that defers from known horses by having six legs rather than four . Through RA we could belive one day their could be a horse with wings.
the information required to make wings is not in Horses. legs are. though mutations we have seen creatures lose information by getting shorter legs, or have excess dublicates of preexisting information, like an extra head or extra legs or arms. we have even seen the information for legs located in incorect places. But the concept of something new like wings has never occured as far as observable recoded data has ever heard. The data of what we observe is kind of an important step in the scientific method http://www.biologycorner.com...

Yes, we would use the same term for your walk to the store as your walk to the kitchen, but if you sprinted to the store, than I would say to convey the truth a different term is needed.

=====
RA (Macro-evolution) should be taught in schools
=====

I do contend the premise that RA is true, though thats likely obvious by now. If you wish to use your next round to hold the 'creation vs evalution' debate, I of course cant stop you, but I belive if you do such it will drive the focuse of this debates resulotion out of sight. We have only 8,000 characters to argue with, and its more than enough to hold one debate, but to hold two, one of witch being a very encompassing debate that divides many, I fear will take away from the focus on the schools. Even if I pretrend I consider that RA is true, the world outside of this debate continues to be quite divided and that is more relevant to the school descision than the actual truth of RA. The political tension caused by the arguing over whether or not to include things like I.D. in the classroom would go away because there are no grounds for arguing equell representation when RA is not even represented in the first place in the classroom. If arguing over this as a pollitical issue is whats holding up progress in any resprect, elliminating that conflict is ofcourse a good thing.

As for your criticism of my source, I do not really care if the Website as a whole is credited, what is credited is the idividual who typed the artical http://www.stonybrookphysicians.com.... Michael Egnor, M.D. is a nerosurgen, and as such his perspective on how important RA is to his field is quite important.
Now, if a nerosurgen had told you that understanding of child birth was important to his field, you could explain that away as exagerated because he may hold a paticualar facination with it. But when he would claim its important this shows he gets by in his field without needing to turn his thoughts to that study at all. Its not so easy to explain his underaprecation away.

As for Pigliucci praise of evolution, I could find nowhere on that site where a distinction was made between RA and QU, but all the examples given related QU as far as I could tell. Please point out the RA examples, because we are not arguing QU. Some of what was on that site was not even relevent to RA or QU when the term evolution was used rather the concept of improvement in general. If that concept whitch as existed long before darwin or anaximander is part of what we mean by evolution than I suggest we make a third word, XG. thats short for Xigarf. The fact that XG has been a understood concept since before anaximander, the first to propose the therory of RA, shows that teaching RA is not necisarry for students to know XG. For those of you to lazy to read his whole sorce to know what I am refering skip to the first paragraph of the section titled; How is evolution important to disciplines other than biology?

Your 5th source is statements given by the NSTA, and I must say, they hardly escape the logic fallacy of athoritarien argument, being greatly affected by politics as they are. In your argement you mention a 6th sorce 'must be taught in public school science classes[6]."' but I could not find it at the bottem of your post. But from the context I see it holds the same flaws as numer 5. Do you realise, that these people of the NSTA and National Academy of Science never get more attention than they do when speaking about the evolution argument. the public would never know Bruce Alberts name if he never took sides in the evolution debate.

'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.'

In the above statement you made, I might agree when Evolution means QU, but not RA, for I have seen no application of that theory as of yet.

'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.'

I hope you will tell me something I dont know about.

Useing more words is not terminonalogy misuse, its the only means of preventing it. If QU and RA are the same, than taking RA out and leaving QU should be no problem even if RA is a nessicary understandin
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. I would also amusingly point out the almost pointlessness of his Youtube video links - I can't imagine a legitimate purpose for their inclusion. Nonetheless, I will rebut his two main claims and address the severe issues which seem to persuade him of his position.

====================
There is no fundamental difference between RA (Macro-evolution) and QU (Micro-evolution)
====================

"My question for this statement is why? If I cant learn to beat my cousin at chess in 20 years, what would make me think that 100 would make a difference?"
----> This main criticism of yours is flawed, for it already presumes that there is more than a different than just time and scale. Ideally, one would be able to beat someone else if they practiced enough, but in this case you say no matter what it won't happen - so what? Perhaps your cousin is also practicing and progressing at the same pace as you; or perhaps you just suck at chess. This doesn't hurt the point that certain phenomena are simply the aggregate of smaller, similar effects combined. Take walking to be an obvious example.

"The distinction between QU and RA that is important is that through QU we could expect a horse that defers from known horses by having six legs rather than four . Through RA we could belive one day their could be a horse with wings."
----> Absolutely not necessary. RA, which leads to speciation, does not have to generate such fabulous imaginations such as flying horses or six legged horses. Not only would having a large land mammal grow wings but an incredible phenomena for evolution (one that is unlikely I would suppose), but you need not be different species and look so...radically different. Hell, the zebra has several species itself and none of them are as radically different as you expect them to be, because there is NO THEORETICAL REASON for your assumption here about RA.

"Yes, we would use the same term for your walk to the store as your walk to the kitchen, but if you sprinted to the store, than I would say to convey the truth a different term is needed."
----> It would still be classified in the broad sense as autonomous bodily movement.

====================
RA (Macro-evolution) should be taught in schools
====================

While I do know you don't want a creation vs. evolution debate, it can't be helped that I am forced in some ways to argue for the legitimacy of evolution. If I were to propose it be taught in schools, obviously I have to show it's a valid scientific theory, do I not?

You point out that there is still political tension, but who cares about that? Science is not about what the public thinks or what makes them comfortable; it's not a public census. If we should look at any collective agreement as an indicator of what should be taught in science classes, then the scientific community is an obvious first glance.

You claim me to be committing a fallacy of appealing to authority and yet you yourself commit that same supposed fallacy. The difference is that you have one random doctor, while I have entire legitimate group of organizations. My point in citing others was to show that if you think your reasoning of using Michael Egnor is valid, then I can demonstrate a much stronger example of people supporting it being taught in class. What's funny is that you even claim my sources support evolution only for the public spotlight - what a harsh claim, want to back it up?

"As for Pigliucci praise of evolution, I could find nowhere on that site where a distinction was made between RA and QU, but all the examples given related QU as far as I could tell. "
----> The point of that article wasn't to make clear the distinction between RA and QU, but rather to show the overwhelming impact evolution has on interdisciplinary fields, ranging from medicine to even psychology. You claim that we don't have much point in learning evolution whereas many fields beg otherwise. Further, your proposal of "XG" is a red herring - simply because evolution perhaps had a different meaning before has no bearing on it's meaning now. Most words have had different meanings in the past, but there's no need to create a whole new word every time.

====================
Conclusion
====================

It's clear to me why my opponent doesn't see the distinction between RA and QU, he doesn't understand fully the difference. As I've suspected, he has a poor understanding of a certain aspect of evolutionary theory by expecting too much out of RA -- there need not be almost fanciful differences in species.
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Con

Yes, the video's are rather pointless, but there not random. I used an analogy with a horse with six legs, and the top video has a horse with six legs. I also had an analogy of a horse with wings; the bottom video is of a horse with wings. A cool visual to accompany the analogy for your enjoyment.

----
Differences between RA & QU
---

As for as the horse analogy, Yes I know RA would not give anything so fantastic within a mutation. And I know they do not have to be radically different looking to count as a different species. Taking my analogy literally that a horse could be born with wings in a mutation would be talking about the ‘monster egg' theory, and I don't expect you to defend that as that is not what most supporters of RA believe today. The point of the Illustration is to show the principal difference in the two mutations, not how fantastic they are. I chose the concepts of a Pegasus and the horse Odin rides on Final Fantasy because I see no grey area in what kind of difference they are from real horses.

You see, a creationist will believe you when you tell him that in small increments of change from mutation you can get the polar bear, grizzly bear, and black bear descending from a bear that had all their traits. He will not believe you when you use the same explanation for getting that bear and the bovine that all Holsteins, Angus, and buffalo descended, from descending from the same creature.

But we must draw a line somewhere as to what would be considered a new species after when it first happens. Because like you said it will not likely look drastically different. It has to be when new genetic information comes with mutation. The horse already has the genetic code for designing its front legs. If it made more of those it would be old genetic information that has been their all previous ancestors. But as for wings, no duplication, scrambling, or loss of DNA in a horse will make those in a mutation. It would require all new genetic information, new kinds of building blocks, to make that.

In a real live case it would not have to be wings, just something ‘new' for the horse species to prove RA, because according to RA, this very thing has happened at some point in past. If the diversity of genetic information from a fire flys thorax to a pine trees arching branches did not come from the very first life form ever by this means of new information in mutation, then all genetic information would have to have been present in that first life form, only for mutations to cause certain information to be lost for some descendants, and other information to be lost for others. And that would not be RA, that would be de-evolution, the general theory for downgrading, degregation or de-improvement.

-----
RA in schools
-----
You point out that there is still political tension, but who cares about that? Science is not about what the public thinks or what makes them comfortable; it's not a public census. If we should look at any collective agreement as an indicator of what should be taught in science classes, then the scientific community is an obvious first glance.

‘Science' should not care, the schools on the other hand should. They are supposedly put up by the public and maintained via there tax's. If there going to be forced into this deal where they pay the state their money for public services, their say shouldn't't be discounted, In fact I dare say we do ‘care' about their wants when spending the money we legally stole from them if only in trivial matters. I know listening to the public in all things will lead to something like mob rule, witch is why I stress the term ‘trivial', but throw them a bone they should have an impact on the way there lives are being run. Now if you can show understanding RA, (not QU or XG) is not 'trivial' but 'pivotal' then my argument falls all apart.

'You claim me to be committing a fallacy of appealing to authority and yet you yourself commit that same supposed fallacy.'

That does come off as pretty hypocritical of me, I am sorry. But I am not throwing away Dr. Egnor's case just yet. Yes, you should listen to him on his authority as we have deduced hear. But for this resolution we are not concerned with what he says about the evidence, but the evidence of that he has said. That sounds same as listening to him, but its not quite. Its observing that his opinion can exist in his field. Now if we scroll back up to round 2 you might read my saying how a person claim something is very important for practice, but not be correct when its easy to exaggerate the things your interested in hear. but how could RA be a necessary 'unifying theory' for his practice and he not understand that? Nero surgeons don't tend to keep their jobs if they have reputation for messing up there patients, but he appears to have no black marks in that respect. His papers have been discredited since his remarks about the unneccisity of RA He claims in his interview with Ben Stein. But his actual practice shows fine.
If we ignore the authorities we both have stood behind we find the point we are arguing is 'is it necessary understanding?' If it is not it is understandable how there could still be divisions in opinions by those that practice applications in science, but if it is necessary how on earth could a man disagree when he must be using often?

'What's funny is that you even claim my sources support evolution only for the public spotlight - what a harsh claim, want to back it up?'

I guess not, my arguments of perception deal with how to view data, it doesn't provide against it. unfortunately that is where my skill level is right now as a debater. I could try drawing back to Egnors being discredited in the scientific community, along with anyone else Ben Stein categorized as 'Expelled' in his movie. But primarily I would like to point out that Egnor works on brains with science, what does NSTA or the National Academy of Science do with it? Talk about Science with Science?

'The point of that article wasn't to make clear the distinction between RA and QU, but rather to show the overwhelming impact evolution has on interdisciplinary fields, ranging from medicine to even psychology.'

Of course it was, and it does show overwhelming evidence for QU impacting these field. But I typed up Ragnazork in the resolution. and I could not find one paragraph in that article that showed how understanding how we get a specieation between snails and spiders, bananas and dogs, rhino's and hippos, snakes and crocodiles. there was evidence for how understanding how we get wolves and coyotes, but that is QU.

'Further, your proposal of "XG" is a red herring - simply because evolution perhaps had a different meaning before has no bearing on it's meaning now. Most words have had different meanings in the past, but there's no need to create a whole new word every time.'

My point is that its meaning from before should have no bearing in this argument. defending the currant meaning with the old meaning makes no sense. If we where arguing about applications of love but every time you read it you saw one meaning and I saw another we would end up essentially arguing about different things. and if we are not debating a term with the same meaning why debate at all? In this debate the helpfulness 'improvement' has been for man does not indicate the helpfulness of 'speciation of bears and cows'

-------------------------------

I would like to end with this. Even if we assume that everything you have said true, that RA and QU are the same, and that its important to know for students, We still should conlude to take RA out. Because if QU is still being taught then so is RA because because we are viewing them as the same, but all the people who do not see them as the same and are wrong quite whining, causing problems, ect. And the students get all they needed out of RA in QU because they are the same.

Have your cake, Eat it too.
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate - despite our differing views it's been refreshing to debate about evolution again, and other related issues. And yes, at best his videos are useful in depicting the fanciful horses he has described (albeit we can easily think that such entities exist) so let's leave it at that.

====================
There is no fundamental difference between RA (Macro-evolution) and QU (Micro-evolution)
====================

You claim that simply because you can't see any gray area in the difference between your depictions of Pegasus and real horses, there seems to be a disconnect between RA and QU. This commits the relatively simple argument from personal incredulity[1], which claims that simply in virtue of your inability to imagine X to be true, X must not be true. This is obviously nothing but far from the truth, and an analogy can be of use:

The following link is of your typical cloud droplet[2] - if you can't tell, there's a lot of these in the air. While the picture is simply diagram we can imagine the droplets to be quite simplistic looking. However, do you realize that cloud droplets are the foundation for snowflakes[3]? If you look at the many common pictures of snowflakes then the cloud droplet and the snowflake will seem to be RADICALLY DIFFERENT - so much that according to your reasoning there must be a fundamental distinction. And yet we easily know that snowflakes are, for the most part, accumulations of cloud droplets. Now simply take this analogy into effect. Simply because the out coming effect seems radically different this doesn't preclude the simply fact that QU can lead to RA as an aggregate product.

Finally, you ask how "new information" comes about via genetic mutations, which you argue is simply rearranging of what is already present. Again, this is misguided Creationist talk: it's been commonly noted that mutations CAN and often DO create new information[4][5], a popular mechanism being gene duplication.

====================
RA (Macro-evolution) should be taught in schools
====================

"‘Science' should not care, the schools on the other hand should."
----> Let me ask you something, should we be teaching kids that the MMR vaccine (useful for measles, mumps, and rubella) causes autism[6]? Of course not, it's been scientifically discredited and shown not only to be false but in fact dangerous. But simply because so many people believe in such a falsehood does not mean public schools are obligated to teach it as the truth; in fact, I would be appalled if that would happen given the reinforcement of stupidity in our already ailing school structure. As is evident, you miss the crux of my argument. Science is founded on popular opinion, so nor should science curriculum.

"but how could RA be a necessary 'unifying theory' for his practice and he not understand that?"
----> You're right, evolution has not much to do with neurosurgery, but so is the same for most biology. Does animal biology help with neurosurgery? No. Does cell biology help with neurosurgery? No. Does biochemistry help with neurosurgery? No. So what am I missing here? Basically, high schools and undergraduate programs teach you all the foundational and basic tenets of biology, as is with every other subject. When you want to specialize in a field then that is when you will take classes specific for such a career - until then it will follow the same, broad format.

"But primarily I would like to point out that Egnor works on brains with science, what does NSTA or the National Academy of Science do with it? Talk about Science with Science?"
----> Not only have I shown the neurosurgery example to be irrelevant, but it's quite showing that you don't know what the NSTA or National Academy of Science does. The former promotes progress in science teaching while the latter is similar to those who serve pro bono (public service) in regards to scientific issues.

"My point is that its meaning from before should have no bearing in this argument. defending the currant meaning with the old meaning makes no sense."
----> It's obvious how I am using RA, which is why I find this entire act of classifying macro and microevolution with gibberish to be tom foolery. If I use it in a certain way with an explicitly definition in mind then there shouldn't be any discrepancy -- I have clearly defined RA/macroevolution in the first round.

====================
Conclusion
====================

It seems apparent that my opponent's lack of understanding pertaining evolutionary theory exposes the flaws in his argument. It should be common knowledge that there is no distinction between RA and QU, macroevolution and microevolution, and that the theory is a sound and extremely important one -- it should not be abandoned from school curriculum.

---References---
1. http://www.theskepticsguide.org...
2. http://www.atmos.umd.edu...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.talkorigins.org...
5. http://www.newscientist.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
They don't think mutations can create new genetic information, which is blatantly false.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Would someone explain what 'new genetic information' is? It seems to be the crux of a great many creationist's arguments.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
I like to type as fast as I think, and find that even when I use the spell check I lose the spelling grammar point in the readers eyes so why bother. Its just one point, I accapt its loss.

But I agree, thats how English SHOULD work, and in rebellion I pronounce knowledge Ka-nowledge and gnat Ga-nat. Its a small rebellion but I shall take it anyway! :)
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
You see, Marauder's R2 spelling is how the English language SHOULD work; things spelled exactly like they sound.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
s'alright.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Hey, don't worry I'll definitely accept it before the challenge time runs out - it's just that I have 4 debates going on right now so it's getting a little hectic.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
MarauderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by twerj 7 years ago
twerj
MarauderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
MarauderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
MarauderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
MarauderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
MarauderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04