I stressed ‘curriculum’, not first mention. Again, im not basing a lot on this crime rate/evolution thing. I’ll give you this point, because there are several others.
Plenty of facts have been posted. Sorry you don’t like them.
If you go back far enough, yes, you find a common ancestor. We do share a significant amount of genetic material with plants. There’s an entire website called evolutionofdna.com that gets into it, although I admit it’s too technical for me.
Yes. The fossil record backs it up and it’s been observed in viruses, for example. We see viruses mutate every year and alter our vaccines accordingly. We’ve seen evolution in labs.
So what? You’re not asking about the creation of life or abiogenesis, you’re asking about evolution.
Again, this is an irrelevant distinction. There were holdouts, but it is obvious that evolution was widely taught long before the '60s.
Its called ‘organic evolution’ to the evolutionists. Its not my theory. So you must agree if evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then something else must be responsible?
Facts have been posted throughout this thread. People have posted transitional fossils, vestigial structures, examples of micro-evolution and more. The facts that you’re requesting are not related to evolution. Evolution is a theory that explains the changes in living organisms over time. The origins of life are not part of that. This is not a matter of opinion, they are different theories and claiming, or even proving, that one is not true would not affect the other.
What percentage of our DNA is ‘shared with plants’, would you estimate?
Anybody who googles ‘intermediary fossils’ will only find a complete lack thereof.
Viruses changing into other viruses doesnt prove anything, except that its still a virus. A similar natural resistance occurs in humans, after we take too much penicillin or amoxicillin. The information was already in the gene code, however.
Worse, reef shark has not bothered to deal with the evidence I posted on transitional forms.
I guess he would resent that as a shark 
he also was found to come from a transitional form.
Are you asking us or telling us? BTW, the King James Bible is a collection of books and stories, not a scientific theory. How long a ago would you say life began on this planet? At this point I would even accept you quoting a specific bible verse if said verse directly answered the question.
You’re not showing much understanding of evolution. The study of how biological life arose from inorganic matter is abiogenesis.
Here is an incomplete list of fossils considered transitional. Yes Wikipedia is not a great source, and yes the list is bare bones and incomplete. But there are literally hundreds of transitional fossils. All of this information is easily findable, and claiming that it isn’t is simply not true.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=intermediary+fossils
1.9 million results
Isnt that just a shark?
Man, it would really bake the op’s noodle if he ever realized that he himself is merely a transitional form to humans 10,000 years in the future.
With 1.8 million stating theres a lack of missing links. Please cite one of these fossils.
Is abiogenesis observable? Testable? Able to be repeated?
Saltationism is not standard evolutionary theory.
I’ve seen reports that we share about 50 percent of our DNA with bananas, if that gives you any idea.
Again, this is jargon only used by creationists. There are tons of fossils showing one species evolving into another. I agree there are no T-Rexes with bird heads.
Yes it does. You just don’t like the implications. 
The KJV provides no hypothesis, it posits no questions, it suggests no experiments, it records no observations of those nonextant experiments. It is nothing more than a series of narratives and poetry that present a mythical history of a particular subset of the Semitic people and the subsequent rise of a heretical offshoot of that people’s religion that eventually through secular power became a world-spanning set of somewhat shared beliefs. It isn’t science. It is literature.
seems about 80/20 split to me (in favor of evolution) from the first 3 pages of results.
although google fight reports 72 million results for jesus vs 3.8 million for illuminati so I have to admit you have got us there.
And it quotes in the second paragraph: “Ideally, this list would only recursively include ‘true’ transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.” Please just show me the one you think is best.
All it needs to say is “animals shall bring forth after their kind”, at least a dozen times. Because thats all I observe. Do you see dogs giving birth to non-dogs?