Is there any evidence missing from the Evolution theory?

Question

Obviously some transitional species will not have been found, but anything other than that?

Also, what arguments have there been against Evolution, that have since been explained?

Answer 1

Evolution is disproved because Jesus is our savior HALLELUJAHHHH!

Answer 2

All scientific theories are "works in progress," evolution is no exception. Of course there are aspects of the theory that remain controversial (among scientists). Of course there is data out there that we haven't seen.

But your comment about transitional species leads me to believe that your stuck on the old 19th century version of Darwinism. Darwin's original theory was revised in the 1930s and 40s and there is currently more discussion of another revamp to reflect what we've learned since then.

"Modern evolutionary theory is built on some - but not all - of Darwin's ideas, but has gone far beyond them"

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evol...

"Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0"

"...the so-called modern synthesis, which has guided evolutionary thought and research for about 70 years, needs freshening up. A lot has happened in the past half-century. DNA's structure was revealed, genomes were sequenced, and developmental biologists turned their sights on evolutionary questions. Researchers have come to realize that heredity is not simply a matter of passing genes from parent to offspring, as the environment, chemical modification of DNA, and other factors come into play as well. Organisms vary not only in how they adapt to changing conditions but also in how they evolve."

"Austria's Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research is hosting a much-discussed evolutionary biology meeting."

"Insights from ecology, developmental biology, and genomics in particular are nudging evolutionary biology away from a focus on population genetics--how the distribution of genes changes across groups of individuals--and toward an understanding of the molecular underpinnings of these changes. Better family trees that give researchers greater confidence about the relatedness among organisms have helped promote a credible, comparative approach to these mechanisms..."

Science. 11 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5886, pp. 196 - 197.

Answer 3

[Edited]Do you mean Evolutionary hypothesis?

As the reason you will be beset with many comments from both belief structures is that the concept of evolution IS as unproven as a belief in God.  We have only seen evidence of adaptation.  Also many Christians [and I dare say other people of other beliefs] will tell you they have a personal Religious experience.  

Our lifetimes are too short to observe the science with the accuracy needed to prove the hypothesis one way or the other.  I have my beliefs, but I would never say that they are scientifically proven as the evidence on offer is either very subjective or just plain insubstantial.

[Edit]

On looking at this again I see I made the classic error of confusing Darwinism with modern theory.  However, from what I have seen much of the modern theory has been based upon the original hypothesis and quotes the unsubstantiated hypothesis as proven theory.  Look how the errors such as the 'evidence' of Eohyppus is still available as 'fact' in books published in recent years yet the order of that evidence was debunked years ago.

I challenge any true scientist to scientifically examine my point.  THEN and only then should I get a Thumbs down from you.  If like me you examine the actual, factual, irrefutable, unbiased evidence without the semi religious fervour that so many adopt you might even come to agree with me.

If you look at Mathematics, how often have you tested an algorithm to find a consistant result one way, yet the evidence of one algorithm is not sufficient when you have anomalous results that show you left something out.

BTW, sorry for first replying without fully engaging brain. Most my arguments in recent years have been with folks who have long ago adopted a 'beleif' in evolution based upon assumption of the outcome of a hypothesis rather than tested theory based upon real evidence.

We know the Earth is round, yet if I say the Earth is flat can I prove it mathematically?  I can if I use the loose standards of optical flatness as a reference point ;]

Answer 4

There are a number of details yet to be elucidated.  As evolution is the central theory to all biology, there is a lot to be learned.  The framework is mostly complete, but there is always the possibility of learning about mechanisms we don't know of yet.

While we have the Chicxulub crater that is associated with the end of the Creataceous period, we are yet to find the basis of other mass extinction events.

We have learned genetics enough to understand evolution.

For example, Creationists cite the Cambrian explosion as unexplained.  While numerous phyla appeared "suddenly", there are two key points.  Life had exploded.  100 million years before the Cambrian Period, the Eart was bound in the ice of the Cryogenian period which made the recent Ice age look tropical.  There was almost no biomass, hence almost no fossils.  The homeobox genes (which have homologs in Cnideria (jellyfish et al.) allow for the rapid segmental changes seen.  By the time you reach the vast biomass of the Cambrian, rich in fossils, you see a vast expansion of life and an evolutionary showdown where numerous phyla became extinct.

Another common argument is how can a partial structure be of use?  In examining the wing, we can look at it several ways.  How do flightless birds benefit from wings?  Ignoring penguins that fly through the water there are a variety of things, including display. cooling (there is a lot of surface area), and assisting running (like humans swinging their arms).  How much use were the tiny arms of T. rex, a close relative to birds?

Another is the explanation of extreme interactions between species. that seem bizarre.  These are explained by coevolution.  The interaction started as chance, but both benefited.  Over time, a complex interaction interlocks species such that one cannot exist without the other.

Answer 5

Like any theory of science, there is always ongoing research and refinements of the theory.   There are always debates about whether a new fossil specimen is member of an already known species, or something distinct, or whether two species have an ancestor-descendant relationship, or are separate branches from an as-yet undiscovered ancestor.  E.g. Neanderthal was once thought to be ancestral to Homo sapiens, until discovery of more and more specimens led to the currentt conclusion that Neanderthal was a separate species that went extinct as recently as the last 23,000 years.

As far as gaps, these are way overblown by Creationists.   It's not like the following:

A B ... <huge gap> ... P.

It's more like this:

A B C D E <gap> G H I J K L <gap> N O P

And we keep finding new fossils that (e.g. show that species C and D overlapped and therefore are *branches*, not a sequence).

>"Also, what arguments have there been against Evolution, that have since been explained?"

Talkorigins has compiled an excellent catalog of hundreds of "claims" by Creationists ... and the refutation of each of them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

This is so comprehensive, that they have published this in a book.

Answer 6

If you mean, is there any aspect of evolutionary theory that is pure conjecture and not supported by evidence, then the answer is no.  In fact, my answer would be the same if you asked about ANY scientific theory.  Theories are built on evidence.  Scientists don't add features to a theory unless the evidence demands it.  Doing so would be a blatent violation of the principle of parsimony, which says that your theory shouldn't make use of anything that is unnecessary or unsupported.

There is always room to improve our understanding.  Every bit of information that comes to light improves the theory of evolution, like finding a piece of a jigsaw puzzle improves the clarity of the final picture.  When you're putting together a jigsaw puzzle and just have a few pieces left, you pretty much know what the picture is...you just lack a few minute details.  Until you find and match those details, there can be open and honest debate about what might be there.  That doesn't change the overall picture.

Since the idea of evolution first arose, there have been challenges, both from a scientific and a philosophical viewpoint.  Listing them all would be tedious, but if you're interested, check out this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

All arguments against evolution can be successfully refuted, but arguments about HOW evolution happens are still raging.  Stay tuned...it'll be pretty exciting when new evidence comes to light.

I hope that helps.  Good luck!