People tend to misuse the term 'Theory of Evolution'. Evolution isn't a theory; it is a fact. The "Theory of Evolution' refers to how evolution happens, or how species evolve to fill new ecological niches. In other words the Theory of Evolution is how we attempt to explain the methods by which evolution has occurred and still does occur.
For example, we know that the first species to arrive on islands, such as the finches of the Galapagos Islands, often end up changing to become many new species able to utilize resources not available to similar species on the mainland. We also know that species that live in darkness often end up blind, species living in cold often end up with thick bodies and short limbs, and 'tasty' species often end up looking like poisonous species etc. We also know that many species now present on Earth don't exist in the fossil record, and that many species we find in the fossil record no longer exist.
In the theory of evolution, we generally asume that species evolve in a series of gradual changes, and this raises two main problems;1) we don't often find much evidence of .the intermediates ( missing links) between modern and prehistoric species, and 2) there are a lot of questions raised about the viability or advantages of intermediate forms. For example , we don't see ancestral giraffes with slightly longer necks and legs , and there are doubts as to whether such a creature would have any significant advantage over creatures with normal necks and legs.
2007-01-01 10:03:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by potbellyhairyfoot 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I cannot think of any honest flaws. There could always be more fossils, but we have enough to at least understand that life did and is still evolving.
After reading some of the other answers, I am impressed that so many people seem to know that there is so much evidence for evolution that a few unknown items do not make the theory suspect.
As for the flagelium, that is an idea put forth by a creationist named Michael Behe, claiming that it could not have evolved.
Peer reviewed articles have shown how the flagelium can evolve, and his own university puts up a disclaimer on their website against his views.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
Also, in the Dover trials he was made to look like an idiot by the science side (he admitted that ID/creationism was only a science using his definition of science, not the traditional definition that everyone else uses, among other admissions).
2007-01-02 02:18:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by RjKardo 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Perhaps the biggest "flow" is that there is NO WAY to prove it actually happened. An experiment will take too long (billons of years) and there is no gurantee that it will end up with the same result. This very fact breaks the whole theory behind the "scientific method," which is, observe, theorize, test, and prove. Hense, it will forever have to remain just a theory.
The famous Pascale's experiment just proves one aspect of the theory could have happened. It didn't explore, prove or disprove other possibilities. Rest of the thory is based on observations of the remains alone, which are dis-jointed at best.
No sources, this is just my belief. By the way, I support the theory of evolution. I just can't say it's 100% based on logical thinking. (and the scientific community supports this ambiguity.)
2007-01-01 15:47:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by tkquestion 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't know if I'd call missing links flaws with the theory. It's a problem with availability of supporting evidence but the theory itself is pretty firmly in place. Molecular evidence (genomic DNA similarity studies) more than adequately cover any fossil gaps in the data anyway. It would be nice to see the fossil remains though...
2007-01-01 18:38:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dastardly 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Like it or not, Evolution is a scientific fact.
Genetic mutations were observed in laboratories in the early 1900's. We experience mutations in viruses, bacterias, etc. every day. Moreover, Evolution has been recently confirmed by DNA analysis.
Evolution does not disprove God's creation. It just gives us an idea of the method He has chosen to accomplish its creation.
Why can't the creation be a dynamic process going on for millions of years? Why do we have a static idea of perfection?
If God didn't like Evolution, why then sexual reproduction?
Sexual reproduction favors mutations by the casual reshuffling of genes after fertilization.
Mutations plus the survival of the fittest lead to Evolution, or the constant improvement of species towards a higher perfection.
2007-01-01 16:36:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by PragmaticAlien 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Other than a few of the previously mentioned here, I think I heard something about the bacteria flagellum in which if any part of it were missing or undeveloped, it could not have operated in the way we know it does. I'm not sure of the whole argument from either perspective, nor if this constitutes a "hole" in the theory. Maybe some knowing person could chime in on this? I would like to know myself.
2007-01-01 16:15:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by joe 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
AFAIK You pointed at the only flaw in a jesting way: missing links.
Another might be that initial start is not clear.
They do not hinder me to believe.
2007-01-01 15:43:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Yttl 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
How smart Do you think the N.S.A is 200 years ago dirt floors!?
How smart Do you think the N.S.A is 200 years ago dirt floors!
do they not think a higher inetllgnece that made the billions of computational d.n.a that they have found on this planet and yet what they are doing know There are knows knowns and unknows and they have taken all technolgy away 1950 never happen!!!!
www.beyond-science.com www.beyond-science.net
2007-01-01 17:47:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by zetabinary 1
·
0⤊
4⤋
Firstly, the random nature of mutations causes it to be infinitly more likely to be harmful to an organism, as opposed to benificial. And since the likelyhood of a minor defect in an animal resulting in its death is very small, negitive mutations should compound and cause species to become less developed as opposed to more developed.
Secondly, to use just one example, there is a species of bird in Australia that decorates it's nest with blue objects it has found to attract a mate. In order for this to develope, an ancestor of this bird had to have started finding blue objects and storing them in it's nest, at the same time this occured, another , female bird, must have developed a mutation that attracted it to the color blue, and then mated with the male founder of the blue object collection process. For two individuals at the same time and place, delveloping the same tremendously improbable mutations, and passing them along to their offspring, and there offspring finding mates... Well, lets just say that it's unlikely. By the way, the bird in question is not blue, so you can discount the hypothesis that it uses the objects to supplement its plumage.
Thirdly, there is a veritable host of organs in the body that must have all of their components in perfect working order simultaniously in order for them to funtion. These organs include the brain, the eye, and reproductive systems.
Also, mutations tend to be very unattractive for mates, decreasing the likelyhood of even benificial ones being passed on.
And finaly, for another example from nature: The antlers of a stag. They cannot have "evolved" as they are, they must have developed from stumps. These stumps would have no use, and would probaly be very unattractive to mates when they first arised. In order for evolution to work, evey body part of every animal must have a use at every stage of their development.
Kindly pardon any typos in this. Thanks.
2007-01-01 17:33:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Matt 2
·
0⤊
6⤋
The totality of macro evolution is the scientific hole. The missing link is still missing, not observable, not testable, not repeatable and ONLY EXIST IN THE MIND OF HOLLYWOOD STARTREK_starwars_XMEN MOVIES. Unfortunately, it's the most expensive grownup fairytale.
2007-01-01 17:20:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
6⤋