You don't have to be a scientist to debate science - but if you're going to argue about science and evolution, and especially what should be taught in SCIENCE CLASSES, don't you think it's important to really know what you're talking about?
When you say something like 'i don't think evolution (common ancestor, species jumps) has been proven' a scientist will look at you like you're crazy, because you've just generalized an entire library's worth of thought and concepts into a single sentence - evolution as a mechanism, natural selection, phylogeny (of every organism on earth or just humans?), speciation, etc, etc, etc, and boiled it down to "I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN PROVEN" which puts the icing on the cake because you seem willing to disregard vast amounts of observations and theory without offering a testable alternative, while completely ignoring the fact that science doesn't even claim to be able to prove anything anyway and is only about finding and failing to disprove the most reasonable explanation that fits the evidence?
I didn't think my response to you should go on and on explaining the different aspects of the theory of evolution. I figure you're familiar with them. Why, can someone PLEASE tell me, the problems with evolution (and surely you are aware of them so I don't have to go finding a bunch of different sites) shouldn't be included? Are you saying there aren't any questions about evolution? No "we're not too sure about this" in anything regarding age of the earth, fossil dating, lack of fossils, few actual transitional fossils? I think the Emperor has no clothes!