it is releted to darwinism.
128528
i hav searched many sites to get the right answer to ur ques,but i didn't find the actuall thing, ur question is verry logical u can check this page, may be it help u to get ur answere.\n\nThe role of the female choice in promoting sexual selection is largely tied to the the observation that females invest more heavily in reproduction, making them a limiting resource. A female that is taking care of young or gathering energy to provision eggs is not interested in mate choice after she copulates with the male. Higher parental investment by females was advocated by Trivers (1972) as the primary mechanism driving strong sexual selection on male traits and for female choice. Whereas the females may invest in prolonged care in young, the male is free to move on and mate with other females or compete with other males for access to females. Thus, females should be quite choosy about their mate because males are present in abundance. The role of parental investment in mate choice has been powerfully tested in animals with sex-role reversal where the male is primarily responsible for parental care.
68698
Yes I believe that schools should evolve to keep up with all of the advances man has made in recent years, I think this means  that creationism should be delegated to the garbage dump along with all religious paraphernalia.
389527
Lord Darwin will claim you all!\n\nNatural selection dooms you to extinction.
77805
Society has moved past the harsh stages of evolution. The first world at least has reached a level in science and technology were we can take evolution into our own hands to a certain extent (please note I am opposed to cloning and other genetic research that could be used to make the "perfect" human). We have as a species reached dominance over our planet and have the privilege that the weaker members of our species can be supported.\nOur evolution has moved away from simple biology and reached the world of science. If a child dies it is not a victory for evolution as weak genes are weeded out - it is a hard blow to evolution as obviously our new evolution as a species was unable to save the child.\n\nSo no, I do not see it as contradictory.\n\nAnd no, no child whatever its genes could survive a plane crush... deaths have never been about strong genes but about bad luck.
639103
its a genetic problem
328341
It takes more faith to believe in evolution.
146367
don't even get me started! already the religious folk are posting, don't rock their faith or they'll burn your house down for pointing out the obvious.  Evolution is just a theory, one of the best so far, the theory itself will evolve (proof in the pudding?) until the answer becomes clear.  At least scientists attempt to provide answers, make us think and progress as a species, no religion has ever done anything but stagnate a population, we are still too young as a species, too many of us are bought up in house of racist, superioristic (a word?) and thoroughly backward teachings, it's like a virus handed down from generation to generation.  Pity, we could be so much more, and we will be, but it takes millenia to evolve.
4890
Personaly, I do not fully believe in Darwin's theory. I think God meant to make us all special in our own way.\n\nPS) Happy New Year and good luck!!!
151034
Here you go, check this out.\n\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/
619263
The problem with this theory is that the "gay gene" is not being passed on to the next generation, because reproduction does not transpire.  All evolutionary traits depend upon the trait being passed on to the successive generation.
237044
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
95167
Oh yeah, bring back the Burning Times and go through de-evolution.  I thought this idiocy had died long ago.
280283
Wow, I have never seen the theory of evolution perverted so much.  That's hilarious.
378087
It's an urban myth, like most Creationist stories about evolution. In fact, from the biographies I've read, Darwin lent more and more towards agnosticism or atheism as he got older, starting out as a very strong believer in the Genesis story when he set sail on the Beagle, and disbelieving Christianity but still believing in God when he wrote the Origin of Species.
541067
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
414834
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
45021
A friend of mine has been trying to explain rational behavior in terms of evolution and such.  I think you might be interested in reading it.