do you study evolution in your schools?
448333
Evolution is science.  it is and should be taught in science classes like biology or ecology.  Experiments with bacteria and fruit flies prove the whole survival of the fittest thing.  look at antibiotic resistant bacteria.  \n\nBreeding of animals is a huge example of artificial evolution. The most desired traits get passed on, except here the breeder selects the traits rather than nature.  Eventually the breed become very different from its animal of origin.  Look at a toy poodle and a wolf.
632978
well its what you are interested in\nif plants- do something about plant evolution\nif animals- major extinction of animals\nwell thats what i did. got an "A" for it
444517
Evolution is fact.  Think about it.
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
495844
I always thought that it would be cool to have a comparative creation myth class. That would take a whole semester. I would be most pleased to have my children learn the Christian creation myth along with the Greek one (which is the one I subscribe too, though I'm an evolutionist), the Aborigine Dreamtime myths and a few Native American myths. They're all great stories. It would, of course, fall into the Humanities category. I would love to see the essays that came out of that class. \n\nBut I don't think anybody wanted a whole class on creationism. I think they wanted to have it inserted in the science curriculum somewhere, which is just silly.
147062
Once people believe in something it's hard to "set it aside"  I am a scientist by nature so evoluton would be hard not to believe in for me.  I think in this case school is required to teach evolution, but you can teach creationism in church and at home.
677150
There are several lines which scientist use to prove that evolution is occurring which are embryology, palaeontology, evidence from similar anatomy\nIn case of Palaeontology this is the study of remains of past living organisms. In this case the remains are dug and they show a change from the top going down the earth's crust In this study at the top of the earth's crust the remains of organisms found are complex but going down deeper simple remains of organisms are found this suggest that organism are changing from simple form into complex forms.\nAnother thing that is observed are the remains of certain organism which don't exist by the time and remains of organisms which were not in the inner parts suggest that new species are formed
1000708
we don't even need fossils to prove evolution, we already have proof that things evolve. like the flu.  if the flu wasn't evolving then there would be only one vaccine for the flu. because it is evolving every year there is a flu shot (for those at risk) to the new strain.  people only object to evolution for religous reasons.  \n\n//\nin response to mr. onyxfire:  the reasons nominated for dissproving evolution seems to say that evolution should eliminate diversity.  and that simply isn't true. when there are alot of the same species in an area they compete for the same resources.  if a mutation came along that was different from that species it would actually be at an advantage because it might not be competing for the same resources.  and that is at the heart of diversity.  having diversity means that some animals will develope certain attributes more keenly for example people hunting for fruit during the day value eyesight more for finding their quarry where as at night bats looking for fruit can't rely on eyesight and so they develope a different specialized set of organs.  i hope that helps you understand why i think your points are incorrect\n&#92;&#92;\nno scientific theory which attempts to understand our world has by necessity precluded the concept of god.  none the less religous theories feel compelled to preclude any acceptance of science so it's my belief that they are quite the dumbasses (not all religious but certainly alot of the policy makers). we all know how well that galileo thing panned out for them.
129108
Your question is perhaps worded wrong.  I think the main debate is "In which lessons should evolution and creationism be taught."\n\nEvolution is a scienbtific theory, that is it can be tested, measured, shown to be true/false by observation, experimentation, research and review of other linked facts. Our kowledge of the subject can be developed in the same way.  This means that it should be taught in or as a Science.\n\nEvolution can not be investigated by any of these methodologies, nor does it stand scrutiny by them, nor can our knowledge be increased.  It depends on faith as the main driver and therefore should be covered in a Religion, Theology content lesson.\n\nBefore I get dragged over the coals by hard line Christians, I am a Christian myself.  I would ask you to remeber that we need to debate and discuss not listen to fanatic rantings.  Even the idea of Intelligent Design is difficult to support, but I will tag this question and look forward to the debate.
350652
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
228836
Working on my BSc in Biology\n\nNo, it has had no effect. I neither believed in gods before I had learned about the field of evolution, nor do I believe in gods now.\nHowever, had I believed in some god or gods, I find it highly doubtful that studying evolution would have changed my views in the least. If anything, I would have been impressed that the god/s could create such an elegant and dynamic process to provide life with the means to adapt and diversify over time.\nAs others have mentioned, the only people for whom studying evolution is likely to change their beliefs are those who insist that their chosen religious text (typically, in my experience, the bible) must be interpreted literally, or it is invalid. Of course, such individuals have much bigger challenges to their interpretation than evolution, but they seem to percieve it as a major threat, for some reason.
1048996
Hey Bud, have you ever taken a class in evolution?\n\n"You're logic is flawed. There is plenty of evidence to show small adaptations within a species. These small variations enable animals to adapt to their environments.\n\nBut to go from that to changes from one species to another is quite a blind leap of faith and poor science as well. " Poor science according to who?\n\nHow many small variations does it take to turn one species into another?  A few small genetic variations make slight changes in organisms.... a few more make more changes... a few more make even more changes, and eventually enough of these little changes of added up so that the 2 groups of organisms are no longer able to interbreed. Thus, a new species - evolution at work.\n\nPoor science is when people who have not studied evolution try to disprove it. You come up with some pretty wacky ideas. Evolution is not something that animals do on purpose to improve. There is no plan, purpose, or goal to evolution. An animal that adapts to his environment (after he is already born) like your example is NOT evolution. Evolution affects populations, not individuals, and it does not 'occur' after an organism is born. Evolution only occurs when the gene frequency in the population is changed, through natural selection, random mutation, drift, etc.
272648
Absolutely; I don't think too many topics should be off limits in high school.  HOWEVER: creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it does NOT belong in science class, because it does NOT fall under the definition of what makes science science.  (And arguing that evolution isn't a perfect theory either is no defense--evolution still falls under the defintion of a scientific theory, while creationism does not.)  Further, the idea that science classes are the place to "teach the controversy" is baloney, because at that point you might as well teach the controversy that the Turtle God swallows the sun every night and poops it out again the next morning....Does this mean students have to be forced to accept evolution?  Not at all--but science accepts it (yes they do), therefore it belongs in science class.  \n\nThe place to teach the controversy is in social studies--and frankly, nowadays I think you'd be remiss if you DIDN'T bring it up there.  And of course if there's any public high school brave enough to have a religious studies class, then the controversy would certainly belong there.  In short: teach them both, just teach them in their proper places.
295216
I do believe in evolution because that just means cahanges over a period of time but,i don't believe in darwins theory of evolution or the big bang.people who are "scared" of believing in creation are looking for excuses.i don't know about sedementary rock except what my tutor  and teacher tells me.
545466
probably not, there's no such thing as evolution!\nthough that is a funny thing to think about!
1097273
Evolution is only a theory.  If it is being taught as "fact" then they are doing you a disservice.
576461
Simple question, simple answer - Evolution, do some reading.