Cases Troublesome for Scientists

What cases in nature are the most troublesome for scientists to reconcile with the theory of evolution by natural selection? Are there any at all? Or are they so numerous that a top-10 list would be in order to get started?It seems to me that the case of ornaments for sexual selection is troublesome, because I found two competing explanations: one is Fisher's runaway explanation, and the other says an ornament advertises fittness and good genes because its owner is able to survive despite being handicaped by it. But maybe scientists do not consider ornaments troublesome, and it is only what scientists find troublesome that I'm asking about.Thanks,
IGIT Edited by InGodITrust, : added details

Percy, I edited the post. Any good?IGIT

Okay, fair enough; scientist do not find any cases particularly troublesome. Thanks.My example of ornaments may have been a bad one. I wasn't sure how scientists saw it. But as a lay person, the explanations seem weak. Not just because competing explanations are entertained, but because the explanations seem strained and barely viable. Darwin would not have arrived at his theory by contemplating the crazy plumage of some birds; rather, he had to find a way to reconcile the plumage with his theory.But forgetting about crazy bird plumage, as I now know from your replies that this is not something that is vexing scientists, I wonder about any cases of organisms with features or behaviours that do vex scientists as to how natural selection is responsible. I wonder if, starting with natural selection as a given, there are cases in which scientists struggle for an explanation that fits in.Mr Jack, your reply, "some may quibble with the 'by natural selection' bit" tells me there are cases of evolution for which at least a percentage of scientists struggle to see how natural selection is responsible. This is interesting to me, because I had thought that scientists attributed all evolution to natural selection, aside from the chance asteroid wiping perfectly good species. But in the aftermath of the asteroid, or other upheaval, don't scientists believe that natural selection guides all evolution of the survivors?

Okay, thanks Mr Jack. I need to look into the non-adaptive features when I get time.IGIT

From a Feb. 2009 Article by Nicholas Wade I found on the NY Times website: "Showy male ornaments, like the peacock's tail, appeared hard to explain by natural selection...." And "but by worrying about this problem [Darwin] developed the idea of sexual selection."I still believe that it is accurate to say that Darwin did not come to the more general concept of natural selection by first contemplating sexual selection with ornaments. Maybe I can find some better references to back this up when I get a chance.

Dwise1, I'm just getting the chance to answer one of your questions from post #14. You asked, "Are you seeking to disprove only certain mechanisms of evolution, or are you seeking to disprove that evolution has ever happened?"Basically I would like to see the scientific basis for man evolving from apes fall, by whatever means necessary, because it obviously clashes with the Bible.There are two reasons that I was focusing on the natural selection component of the theory of evolution: 1) natural selection is a concept that I understand and am most familiar with, and 2) natural selection is the key component of the theory of evolution.Obviously I cannot realistically hope to find a fault with natural selection myself; I am not educated well enough nor even that bright. But I can poke around. If enough average people poked around some one might turn something up one day.So with this thread I was hoping to generate a list of good places to poke around.IGIT Edited by InGodITrust, : No reason given.Edited by InGodITrust, : deleted last two lines

Thanks for taking the time to post all the advise, Dwise1. It is sound and logical.One thing though is that I'm not really wasting time on this. I'm not like a prospector who is roaming the mountains half-crazed with gold fever, and will waste his life in frustration and anguish because he will never find a rich lode. I'm more like a weekend prospector, who's hobby lets him enjoy the wilderness, and any gold he finds is a bonus. I'll learn a little about biology doing what I'm doing, and if by some amazing chance I were to see a fault in the ToE by looking at it at just the right angle, then it would be a bonus.It's interesting that scientists tried to use creationists to stir up some challenges. In light of this I guess that I won't bother asking the question I had planned to, in a new thread, about which creationist points trouble scientists the most.So maybe I'll be back to bug people here if I have more questions in a couple months or so, and hope there are some of you willing to waste your time answering. I'll read about genetic drift and the other non-adaptive mechanisms first, and try to come with a more comprehensive understading of the ToE.IGIT