Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

I have heard that there are problems with the theory of evolution that are swept under the rug and not discussed by scientists who have closed their mind to ideas outside of evolution, or that data has been found that conflicts with the idea that life evolved on Earth. I don't think any data of this type exist, because any "problems" would be ironed out by the self-correcting nature of science. Most of these problems are merely made up by creationists who have an interest in poking holes in the theory of evolution. Is there any validity to the idea that there are specific problems with evolution?

Willowtree: Focusing on the quote about human fossils being rare, keep in mind the point many other people in this thread have made: That rare fossils must have come from an organism that was alive at some time or another, while evidence for other ideas about the origin of humans remain nonexistent.Humans, in the great scheme of things, have not been around for very long. We can figure out how old the fossils are through radiocarbon dating, or if they are too old for that, potassium-argon testing can be used, as well as other methods. We also know they have not been around since the beginning of the Earth because they do not share the same layers as very old creatures, for example, trilobites, or dinosaurs. Because they have not been around for more than a few million years, we can assume that there will be fewer primate fossils than, say, trilobite fossils, because trilobites lived for a greater span of time than primates have thus far, and they existed in greater numbers than primates ever have.There are other factors. For example, trilobites might be common because they lived in places where fossilization readily occurs, while the ancestors of humans lived in places where they were likely to decompose completely, or have their remains eaten by wild animals.Also, Willowtree, when reading, always keep in mind that just because someone authored a book, they are not necessarily an expert on the subject of their book. They might just be looking to make money on a debatable subject which many people are interested. There is nothing wrong with that, unless they start using misleading information, or unless they start writing about things they know little about. I do not know much about Jonathan Wells, but if he writes something down it doesn't instantly become canon.This message has been edited by Gary, 10-06-2004 02:29 PM

So would you decide not to convict a murderer who left fingerprints at a crime scene and on weapons, just because fingerprints can be hard to find and because you can't reconstruct a person from their fingerprints?These fossils may be rare but they are not all reconstructed from tiny pieces. True, some are, but there are many nearly complete skulls and all sorts of bones, tools, and other items that have been uncovered. They bear similarities to humans and have traits that are not analogous to chimpanzees or other primates. The fact that we have discovered so much, even if you don't find fossil humans every time you sink a shovel into your backyard, would indicate that there were animals in the past that were very similar to modern humans, and that we may have descended from these animals.

The ToE does have great evidence. Focusing solely on humans, we have many bones and artifacts along with DNA evidence from more recent examples. These items may be uncommon but that does not mean that they should be ignored. Rather, their presense should make us ask questions and try to figure out why there exist so many different types of human and human-like bones which bear traits no longer present in modern humans. The ToE explains this in a way that fits the evidence. If you have evidence that could allow us to produce a better theory, please bring it out and show us so we can correct ourselves.What evidence would be sufficient, in your mind, to allow us to come to a conclusion similar to the theory of evolution? Do you feel it would it be possible to possess evidence in support of the theory of evolution, whether you believe such evidence exists or not?