The facts on the ground are these: There previously existed on Earth life forms that no longer exist. Many of these species appear less developed than those that exist today. That's what we know. The rest is conjecture. Bloody good conjecture at times, but not always. Darwin made some brilliant observations concerning variation within species, but his theory lacks rigour, supportable evidence and falls victim to that which religious proponents are accused of - a sweeping statement that covers everything yet explains nothing - Why is life as it is? Because God chose it./ Because Natural Selection chose it.
Darwin placed 'chance' and 'choice' together in his theory - all life formed from a single cell through the process of undirected mutation (chance) through natural selection (choice). This is both scientifically and philosophically problematic and it has never been reconciled, just overlooked. If I were to give you a box of metal pieces and I asked you to toss them on the ground. How many tosses would you need to form an outboard motor? What if I cut all the pieces to size? Would you need a week of tossing? A month? A billion years? It is not logically possible to create an outboard motor by chance, no matter how often you toss. Such is the argument of the bacterial flagellum and the rotary motor which drives it. It could not logically be created by chance. Biological systems bring up the same argument - the visual system is only useful in its completed state. Why retain the first retina cells without a lens, without an optic nerve? The system only becomes useful in its entirety, therefore natural selection choses to retain these first cells because it has a master plan - a blueprint of the visual system. This implies intelligence and contradicts chance. Molecular biology is questioning the validity of Darwin's over arching theory that all life sprung from chance.
Undirected mutation is another problem. We have a 10-15 thousand year record of animal husbandry - Directed Mutation. In all of those years we've been able to make woolier sheep and fatter cows, but we have never been able to change one species into another. In fact all animal mutations end in death, illness, disability or inability to reproduce. Life is incredibly adept at maintaining stability and in repairing itself. Mutations are never for the betterment of any species. In all of these years we've never been able to provide evidential support for one species mutating into another.
These are just a couple of many problems with Darwin's theory, and should you wish I could continue. Darwin's theory needs to be overhauled and if so rejected for one that better fits the evidence.
Newton was brilliant, but his theory was incapable of explaining important aspects of our universe. Einstein developed physics to the next level, and when his theories were no longer sufficient, quantum physics was developed, and the quest continues. However, the theory of evolution seems to have been blockaded at Darwin. Any criticism is treated as if it is from some right-wing Bible thumping creationists, when in fact criticisms come from legitimate scientific enquiry. If Americans question the legitimacy of the current view of evolution as set out by Darwin, then I support them. If there is a God, then so be it. Whatever, or however life was created, I would like to know, regardless of its implications. We are only now becoming aware of the incredible complexity of life because of our advancements in nano-technology. To dismiss it all as the result of some violent planetary accident belies what we are truly discovering. I am not a Christian, I am curious human who is not afraid of finding whatever truth is out there. I think Darwin's theory is no longer a scientific theory, but rather a philosophical stance - a godless faith in the creation of life. Everyone choses their own faith. Yet the premise of this topic is the validity of a scientific theory not the validity of someone's faith. I don't want to start a debate on faith - it will go nowhere. But if you wish to talk about science, I'm your man - well woman actually.