Darwin's Evolution is flawed, so is there another theory that explains the origins of species?

Question

Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed because it cannot explain why some biological functions heralded from natural selection, for example, the bacterial flagella. Intelligent design? what are the other explanations of the origin of life?

Answer 1

Actually, there are explanations for the evolution of structures like the flagellum through natural selection. Google "flagellum evolution" and you'll get tons of hits (even after you delete the Creationist and ID sites).

See this paper:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

But I like your question! If evolution fails to explain something, then what is a *better* theory that explains it better?

However, keep in mind that:

1) It needs to also explain all the things that evolution *does* explain, like why whales and snakes have leg bones, or why mammals inner ear-bones seem to be repurposed from reptilian hinged jaw bones, or why related organisms have shared genetic material, or why some structures seem to be designed by a bad trial-and-error process.

2) To qualify as a *scientific* theory, it needs to be testable ... i.e. it needs to make predictions, that if shown to be false, would tend to falsify the theory.

Intelligent Design, unfortunately, fails on both accounts.

(Oh, and by the way, Darwin's theory does not explain the origin of life. It doesn't intend to.)

Answer 2

Just because we have not yet discovered how some structures evolved does not mean that the theory of biological evolution through natural selection is flawed. It merely means that in some areas, we still need to do more research.

Even if someone were to show how such a structure evolved through some other method that did not involve natural selection, it would not invalidate the theory, merely show that there is more than one potential mechanism via which evolution can act. There have been several mechanisms other than natural selection which been identified as potential sources of evolutionary change, such as founder's effect, genetic drift and others. These mechanisms do not disprove natural selection as a driving force of evolution, merely compliment that mechanism and provide for a broader understanding of how evolution operates.

Also, "Darwin's Evolution" does not address the origin of life at all. The theory of evolution of species through natural selection explains the diversity and similarities between species since the origin of life, but does not deal with the actual origin itself. That theory is called abiogenesis, and the fact that "Darwin's Evolution" does not explain the origin of life does not disprove the theory of evolution of species through natural selection, any more than the fact that my cell phone cannot repair my car windshield means that my cell phone is not functional. That's not what it's meant to do.

Answer 3

Intelligent design is the most likely answer, whether you believe in God's Creation or the alien seeding theory it's all fairly simple. And to top it all off we already have the ability to terraform a planet like mars, think about it, thickening an atmosphere is something we do well we have alot of practice here on earth.
Anyway on a more serious note, yes there are many holes in Darwin's theory, but the Intelligent Design theory is something we as humans are only a few hundred years (at most) away from doing ourselves! so why is it so difficult for people to accept as a possibility?
I happen to subscribe to the theory that it's a combination of Creation 1st (life can't just exist from nothing!), supported by evolution 2nd (existence of similar families of creatures), and a little natural selection along the way.
Thinking life (much less the variety of life on earth today) can come from nothing or something inanimate (just add water?) is no more likely than thinking some entity had a hand in creating life on earth.

Answer 4

Ummmm..... no. In order for some trait like flagella to show that Darwin's theory is flawed, it would have to be shown that such a trait arose IN SPITE OF natural selection, from different causes. A lack of all data regarding one biological trait does not constitute a flaw in the theory, it only shows that not enough data about that specific trait exists to determine the method by which it arose.

Answer 5

Darwin's theory has so far passed every test it's been put to, including bacterial flagella. And no, there are no other theories that explain, e.g., the fossil record, the common genetic code among all living things, the many observed events of speciation, the observed changes in phenotype and genotype due to natural selection, etc.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Answer 6

It's not flawed. Darwin did not have any knowledge of genes, their inheritance and mutations, thus he could not explain _how_ practicaly a character could appear and evolve. But he was smart enough to see that this happened.

Your example is wrong.

On the contrary, so-called "theory" of intelligent design is just a poor attempt to present as scientific an incorrect understanding of bible and religion. Even the pope accepted the darwinism as a scientifically established doctrine.

Answer 7

The theory of evolution is not flawed. And intelligent design is a fallacy that doesn't stand up to the most routine of logical examination.

Answer 8

The theory is only 'flawed' in as much as it is still an incomplete picture of the grand scheme of things. Eventually we will figure out everything that can be known. It would be irresponsible and stupid to dismiss the entire theory because of a few gaps in our knowledge.

Answer 9

Actually, if you follow his theories and understanding of biology, it does cover such an event, and explain how such a transformation is plausible. How does this show that his theory is flawed in any way?

Answer 10

That is false and even if it was true it still has more evidence for it and explains more than any other theory, including the religious mumbo jumbo called I.D.