This question is meant only for scientists & science students: What are the flaws in the theory of evolution?

Question

What are the flaws in the presently accepted theory of evolution?

I don't want the bible crowd here, please. For once let's discuss evolution without the crap about intelligent design and blah blah...

Answer 1

There aren't really any flaws, but there are certainly things warranting further investigation, or about which we knew more.

1. Our fossil record is unfortunately incomplete.
2. What happened during the period called "the Cambrian Explosion?" Was this real, or just an artifact of our incomplete fossil record?
3. Can we better pinpoint the chance chemical/physical events which led to early self-reproducing "life?"
4. Every time you shake a tree in a tropical rain forest, a previously undescribed species of beetle will fall out. Does this imply that beetles are speciating at an incredible rate in tropical rain forests, or have we just not gotten around to cataloging all the beetles we should have cataloged?
5. Every distinct puddle that has Triops appears, by molecular clade analysis, to have a genetically distinct population. You wouldn't expect that, since the phenotype's identical, and the species has been around since the days of the dinosaurs, and the puddles have been around only since the end of the last ice age. What's going on with their genome?

Answer 2

I'm not a biologist, but I do maintiain an amateur interest in this topic. The theory of evolution does not have any obvious "flaws" as such afaik. That's the reason why it's universally accepted (except by some simple-minded idiots who cannot put two and two together and would rather believe some bull droppings written 2000 years ago) to be the explanation for how life transformed from simple single celled microbes to the myriad of life forms we see today.

There are however, some pieces of the theory that are incomplete. Note though, that they are incomplete not necessarily because they cannot be explained but rather because nobody has gotten around to investigating them yet (alas, research funding isn't unlimited).

Two of the greatest challanges facing biologists are perhaps explaining how life got started in the first place - that is, how a random collection of organic chemicals in some primordial pool managed to "figure out" how to collect resources from their environment and use them to replicate themselves (aka eating and reproducing) - and the so called "irreducable complexity" argument (a favorite of the ID crowd) that states that certain body parts such as eyes are so complex that they function only when all the parts are put together correctly - each part in and of itself is relatively useless.

I'm not aware of any recent progress regarding the first question but as for the second, scientists have discovered several species that don't have real eyes - just light sensitive cells that they figure could have evolved into real eyes because they provided such a competitive advantage. Additionally regarding the flagella of certain bacteria (another one of the so called irreduciably complex biological mechanisms) others have discovered that they evolved their flagella from primitive organelles that did serve another (but entirely diffrent) function (I dont remember what).

If you constrain the evolution theory to humans alone, the biggest unanswered questions are probably those of race and intelligence. Why did humans evolve into diffrent races that we see today? Under their fur, most chimpanzees are fairly light skinned, so the question should probably be - what factors caused people living in the tropics to become darker skinned over the years? Here, the natural selection argument falls short - skin cancer due to heavy exposure to the sun hardly ever occurs before age 40 in even the fairest skinned people. This is an age where most people have already had babies, so the "white people got skin cancer and died before they could reproduce" argument does not hold much water. There ARE on the other hand, certain chemicals like vitamin D that the body produces on exposure to the sun. It could be that there are other such (as yet undiscovered) chemicals that hold the key to the mystery.

The question of human intelligence is perhaps the most fascinating one of all - why has one species evolved intelligence and conciousness so far beyond all others? One may ofcourse look at bible thumpers and beg to differ how intelligent humans really are, but the fact remains that we have no idea about what it is about the human brain that is so special compared to other animal brains.

The most important thing to remember though is that all these are not FLAWS - they are merely unanswered questions. While it is possible that they may never be answered (there is a fundamental limit to human understanding and research funding after all - if you don't hit one limit you will hit the other) their lack of answers DO NOT invalidate the theory as a whole. Each year new and exciting discoveries (like Tiktaalik Rosae this year) enhance our understanding of the natural world and fill in more and more of the missing pieces in the story of life.

Answer 3

Gap would be a better word than flaw. The theory, as you know is the backbone of biology. There is nothing else that comes close to explaining the apparent complexity, that looks designed, but is natural. I assume we are speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, because evolution itself is almost irrefutable. Darwin's theory is finding new support every day; from functional biology and genetics. Only the uninformed, as you know, think that there is any controversy in science over the theory of evolution by natural selection. You know the weak bible crowd arguments. Are you aware of the refutation of Behe's " irreducible complexity " arguments? Type in Micheal Behe into your address bar and get more of them than can be handled. I suppose that biochemists were rather embarrassed by his pronouncements and decided to respond in kind.

Answer 4

The biggest flaw is that there is still a lot of evidence needed. There is a TON of evidence to support it. But because the theory encompasses such a huge amount of science, it is hard to get a lot of data. It is trying to explain how every species on the planet came to be. That is a very large thing to try and explain. So far, there is a lot of evidence to support it, but scientists have only touched the tip of the iceberg with what there is to learn about it.

Answer 5

The flaws that I see are a result of the fact that there are no fossil records for certain evolutionary intermediates. Other problems are a result of the fact that carbon dating is not pin point accurate. Additionally, many scientists simply refuse to agee with each other for what seems like no reason. However, at least to me, the theory of evolution itself is as sound as gravity. Darwin did an experiment on finches, where in a relatively short period of time, 14 different, nonbreeding species of finches evolved from the same parent species due to the different environmental stimuli he subjected them too. This, I suppose, is another problem. Evolution is impossible to test. Even Darwin's test was directed by a person, and while showed speciation, it did not necessarily prove evolution.

Answer 6

With out external forces an un-ordered object can not become ordered. Take for example a glass; it took energy and force to form it and create its order, but nature someday will have its way and the glass will become broken.

One other flaw with evolution is that things evolve to overcome obstacles for example some species "evolved" a set of lungs so it could breathe air. If that is the case explain the human brain. Why did it evolve so that only 5 to 10 percent is used?

Answer 7

There has been cases in which the geanology trees have stoped and appeared elsewhre with the continuation of evolution. Therefore, the theory is only considered to be a generalization.

Answer 8

In order-
1/ How on earth did the eye evolve - Evolutionarily speaking it just appeared.
2/ Why were the dinosaurs able to become so ridiculously big. - At the time of their evolution, the end of the Permian era, earths habitat was hardly conducive to life at all. As the majority of the land mass was desert. It would naturally have suited small animals.
3/ Why has the dolphin such a huge brain, its survival in the oceans require little effort and evolution states difficulty of survival leads to increase in brain size. Not ease of existence, remember dolphins have no real predators and ample food-stocks.
4/Finally with regards to ourselves the human speech centers of the brain, exist in no other creature not even our closest relatives. Indeed they have no precedence even in our own closest ancestors. These parts of the brain appeared with us and we've had them from the moment our species first appeared.

Answer 9

There aren't any real flaws, but as a theory, it's not complete enough to explain soup-to-nuts, everything. We still don't know exactly how single-celled organisms came to be multi-cellular organisms. We have theories, but we are still lacking some facts.

Answer 10

Their are some flaws, but mostly that refers to gaps. Gaps and the sudden changes in a species where there was no record of a slow transition.

But i think we can all agree on ONE thing. Something put us here. Some process that made it so that we exist.