Curious if anyone reading this has explored the alternative theories to Darwinian evolution. I only recently started looking at it, so don't want to share links because I don't know what is believable. But it seems there are major flaws that even Darwin knew about. He considered Origin of Species an abstract, and was promising the full "big book" for the rest of his life, but never was able to pull it together.
> But it seems there are major flaws that even Darwin knew about.
Sure. He recognized the importance of inheritance, but didn't know the mechanism. We've learned a lot since Darwin's days about how it all works - genetics, in particular - but the basic concept has held up just fine.
Can you elaborate on this? My understanding is that evolution (to be precise, we're presumably referring to natural selection) has been proven again and again and that there is a clear scientific consensus around it, and I'm not familiar with any particular large gaps in the theory.
I'm guessing it's passages like this one regarding transitional forms:
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
