More and more scientists are daring to step away from evolution, as a basic argument for how life came to be and develop on the planet. It just does not hold water to explain how life started and develops. The conclusion favouring these scientists is intelligent design but at the moment this has not got the well thought out theories which evolution has. It is still in its early stages of understanding and requires far more research into what it means before it can be defined scientifically, it only can be said to imply there is a god or gods which made life and matter.
Science should be based on observation, analysis and impartial application of evidence to draw a conclusion which fits the data found.
There are scientific reasons why evolution as a generic term should be questioned.
The first is survival of the fittest and natural selection do not always explain why species survive. A better term to apply may be natural balance rather than natural selection. The question has to arise why do we still have weak animals which are preyed on (e.g. rabbits) if we have places of plenty of predators (e.g. foxes). Natural selection states the prey should die out. As shown in nature studies though as the population of the prey are killed by the predators, there are too many predators to feed, hence they die off as they cannot feed themselves. So as the rabbit population decreases, means the numbers of foxes eventually decrease. As fewer foxes then the number of rabbits increase as they are not preyed upon, and as their numbers grow, there's more food for the remaining foxes, so their numbers increase back up again as they can feed on the more rabbits. The rabbits get killed off and the cycle repeats itself.
In a cyclical fashion like this there is a balance in nature.
If environmental conditions change, both or perhaps one of the two species may suffer more than the other, by these external factors. There has been no evolutionary process, it is simply providential or adaptability which states which survives.
This will better explain why crocodiles and alligators have not evolved over 140 million years. It simply has adapted better to the environmental changes than have other species which died out. Evolution should have taken place in that time, but it has not. Other species also have not evolved. So there is no need to suggest evolution is the process here but balance. Balance between species and balance between species and their environments.
The second point is there is no real possibility that life began by evolutionary processes. This is the idea self-replicating organic life began from inorganic life, is not a sustainable argument. It takes too many ingredients, e.g. too many proteins to be in existence simultaneously develop alongside each-other in a life catalytic system, for this to work. In other words the origin of life could not have been...