The theory of sufficient genetic potential
Also known as 'ark theory'.
The earth is an ark. The organisms currently living on the earth contain all the genetic information required to breed any of the organisms that have ever lived on the earth. This would require no beneficial mutations, just a careful and prolonged selective breeding program, and the exchange of DNA that often occurs naturally between different species. This genetic information has been available for the entire time that life has existed on earth.
Q: Is your theory better than evolution?
Why yes it is, and that's a good question. See, evolution would lead you to believe that it would take millions or billions of years to breed a chihuahua from a wolf as you waited for the required mutations to arise. If chihuahuas and wolves were found in the fossil record in the absence of other information, that is what the evolutionists would assume happened. Of course, the selective pressure applied to wild dogs to get chihuahuas was only applied to a very limited number of individual animals. Pressure applied to an entire population would yield much faster change. My theory also explains the fossil record better than evolution, as the fossil record tends to show species emerging spontaneously, with no fossil record of the transitory organisms and know way of knowing for certain which species a new species developed from. These species then remain unchanged throughout the fossil record until their extinction.
Q: Is your theory scientific.
No. While it is easy to show that it is better than the theory of evolution by showing that the genetic potential of life on earth is far greater than evolution would lead one to believe, there is no way of testing the theory of sufficient genetic potential as I have shown it here. If I were to modify the theory into one that could be tested, it would be nothing more than observing the obvious.
Q: Will your theory be more popular than evolution?
No. People want science to provide an alternative to faith based religions. Evolution explains our current observations in a way that also explains the origins of life. My theory explains current observations in a way that doesn't explain the origins of life. While my theory is better, it won't have the same popular appeal among the members of the public that are ignorant of the facts. Evolution is a bit like Freud's theories. Most people are aware of Freud's theories to some extent and can use them to explain observations, but the psychology community has come up with much better theories. Of course, these theories don't have the glamour of a dirty old man blaming everyone's problems on childhood sexual issues, which is why the public is not aware of the more valuable theories.